The Secret "Bomb" in Obamacare Explodes Today

[pcosmar]

Thoughts?

Subsidies.

Don't make me think

 

[libertyfan101]

Wouldn't the insurance companies just raise the costs then???

Seems like the only way they could turn a profit or just provide less services.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Anytime you initiate force on someone else, you are imposing your will on them. That is by definition, enslavement to your will.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Ok I had to look up "single payer health insurance" and this it doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer So is this what we'd be moving to, or it would be worse or better? Do people just dislike single payer health care because it eliminates being able to choose an insurance company? And no one jump all over me please, I'm not saying I'm for this. I just want to hear all the sides.

And is the point of this article that everyone in the private sector will go bankrupt and we'll all be on Medicaid?

 

[BamaAla]

You're probably right. I suppose sometimes I think in terms of "in an ideal world" and in this analysis, I forget this isn't Canada, or Sweden, this is the US. Under our current government it wouldn't be a good thing and would result in the kinds of controls you're talking about. So maybe I should say I think a single payer system would be a good thing in some other nation or in some other time, where drugs are legal, government is transparent and honest, and there isn't any plan in the works to completely control everyone and everything. Unfortunately that's not where we are.

But drugs aren't legal in Sweden, their government is as corrupt as ours, and the people (should I say the productive parts of the population) aren't all giddy over their welfare state. I'm glad your lifelong libertarian friend that now lives in Sweden enjoys it, but coming from a guy who went to Sweden (with the University of Alabama) to study the Swedish welfare state, it isn't as ideal as you paint it. I can't speak for Canada, but Sweden has as many (if not more) problems than we do.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Of course, when you trace this back, you'll find government at the bottom of it, as usual.

Employer provided health care, that has led to this mess, was a toxic by product of WWII era wage and price controls.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

And is the point of this article that everyone in the private sector will go bankrupt and we'll all be on Medicaid?

Yep.

There are many ways in which this bill could easily kill the the entire healthcare industry as we know it, this article is just one.
Peter Schiff makes a good argument that the industry is doomed now that people will not get insurance till they are sick.

The only reason this past the supreme court is that they know the government is about to take over healthcare.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yep.

There are many ways in which this bill could easily kill the the entire healthcare industry as we know it, this article is just one.
Peter Schiff makes a good argument that the industry is doomed now that people will not get insurance till they are sick.

The only reason this past the supreme court is that they know the government is about to take over healthcare.

Realistically though it probably won't happen. People would be enraged if they knew. I'll just wait and see I guess. I'm skeptical. Maybe in 50 years..

 

[Tod]

As someone who has worked and paid taxes all my life, I would be the one providing for others, not the other way around. (If you're looking at my profile and think you know anything about me, I should clarify for you: I was laid off two months ago and this is literally the first time in the last 25 years, all my adult life, that I have ever found myself unemployed. So if you think I'm looking for a handout, you're barking up the wrong tree.)

But no, I don't favor slavery or being forced to do anything at gunpoint. I just think that under the right conditions (see my post directly above), single payer healthcare would be preferable to a system in which you are forced to buy private health insurance. If you want to call that "slavery" then I suppose I must also favor slavery when it comes to emergency fire and paramedic services. I guess I am not near the "complete anarchy" end of things on the spectrum of Libertarianism. I'm completely Libertarian when it comes to most things but there are a few things I think it's fine to have government provide. That doesn't mean I favor slavery or anything at the end of a gun though. I pay my taxes voluntarily and always have.

I too worked for about 25 yrs, mainly with one company, was laid off, started my own company with only my own money in a completely different field, and am completely opposed to government run health care. The thought of the government having any more power just gives me the willies; they already have way too much.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Besides, Obamacare isn't even single payer. It's written by the same "evil companies" you're worried about.

My statement was not in support of Obamacare.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Then by all means tell us which insurance company Cathy was using so that people can avoid it. Take out billboards in Cathy's honor criticizing that company. But don't force everyone into one company (the government) so that there's no way out of the death panels.

Cigna. But I have heard similar stories about other people with serious, terminal, or life threatening conditions being screwed by other insurers. So it probably doesn't matter which insurer you have; any of them can do this to you.

 

[oyarde]

Ok I had to look up "single payer health insurance" and this it doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer So is this what we'd be moving to, or it would be worse or better? Do people just dislike single payer health care because it eliminates being able to choose an insurance company? And no one jump all over me please, I'm not saying I'm for this. I just want to hear all the sides.

And is the point of this article that everyone in the private sector will go bankrupt and we'll all be on Medicaid?

There is no money for MediCaid , nor anything else , what they ( Govt ) get from this so far , is a bunch more revenue ( theft ) while providing nothing , sweet deal for them ...

 

[oyarde]

I find it kinda funny that the government is implying that they can run health care efficiently. Every thing they do ends up costing more.

80 percent goes to the govt building & govt employee to give away , what they have stolen to who they designate.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Ok I had to look up "single payer health insurance" and this it doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world. http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer So is this what we'd be moving to, or it would be worse or better? Do people just dislike single payer health care because it eliminates being able to choose an insurance company? And no one jump all over me please, I'm not saying I'm for this. I just want to hear all the sides.

And is the point of this article that everyone in the private sector will go bankrupt and we'll all be on Medicaid?

Well *if* you could trust the government, then single payer could be a very positive thing; at least it would be better than Obamacare. But that's a big "IF" that is probably too big. Ideologically, single payer is bad from a Libertarian or Conservative standpoint because it is complete government control over your health insurance (i.e. some would call it slavery). Of course we are already more than halfway there because the government has its tentacles so deep into health insurance.

Even for people without insurance, we are already paying for their healthcare. Every illegal immigrant or indigent who walks into the emergency room needing medical care gets taken care of, even if they have no insurance and no ability to pay. Some argue that Universal healthcare would be better than the current system because then those poor people would at least receive some preventative care instead of getting their care in the most expensive way, i.e. when things get to the point they walk into the emergency room for treatment that cannot, by law, be refused. But either way, everyone who pays taxes is already providing "free" healthcare to other people, one way or another. Even before Obamacare.

I am doubtful that we will ever have a true free market healthcare system. Even Ron Paul, the champion of the free market, stated in the debates this time around that he would not eliminate Medicare (and Social Security) but would pursue a long term wean-off/phase-out strategy by allowing young people entering the workforce to opt out of them. It's actually a little ironic to note, Ron Paul was the only candidate with a viable plan to keep Medicare fully funded without drastically raising taxes! (Via savings from bringing our troops home and ending foreign aid and illegal wars.)

If single payer worked the way that PNHP wants it to work (per your link), I would be in favor of that over Obamacare any day. That's just me. I think most people on this forum would probably disagree (for obvious reasons).

By the way, I appreciate the fact that no one yet has called me a Satan worshipping Communist and said fuck off or whatever.... Even though my views on single payer healthcare are probably far from normal for people on this forum, I appreciate your civility. (And btw I am not a Satan worshipper or a communist. Although I do love "Runnin' with the Devil" by Van Halen.)

 

[idiom]

Why don't the states buy or build a hospital in each major city and offer bare essential services?

Medicine in Europe and Canada actually closely resembles veterans care.

In New Zealand, the government owns a string of hospitals which offer basic care. There is an entirely separate deregulated free-market health care system on top of that.

If you have a tooth ache the government will pull your tooth. If you want a filling, root canal or crown you need to pony up. A root canal will set you back ~$500.

Recently I found I needed a Colonoscopy. I was told I could wait six weeks for a public slot to open up. I didn't want to wait so I got several quotes and went to a nice place. I paid $600 cash.

Is a great system except for all the slavery.

 

[Weston White]

The problem is truly within the medical industry itself, including the courts that do not throw clearly frivolous malpractice claims out. What the government really should be concerning itself with is crafting price-gouging laws, patient protection laws, and the like against the entire medical and healthcare industries.

1. Insurance carriers should be required to give proper notice, review, and consideration to their patients before terminating, adjusting, altering, modifying, or denying any of their policies (e.g., given to the state that you reside in, your gas and electric provider most likely cannot even shut off its services to your home until they have given you a reasonable period of time to pay your outstanding bill).

2. Bandages do not cost $50 apiece, aspirins do not cost $20 per two, little Kleenex packs do not cost $20 each, etc.; and neither is charging $500,000 for six-hours worth of ER operations, $1,500 to set and cast a broken leg, or $5,000 for a bed (in a shared room) for the night, at all justified.

3. Hospitals and healthcare facilities frequently overwork their employees, which subsequently results in patient neglect, malpractice, and procedural errors, which then subsequently results in the very financially outrageous lawsuits that they are in compliant over.

4. Reasonable health insurance coverage should in no way be charging $800-2,500 per month, per individual or family (which only covers so much anyways before the patient is to pay out of their own pocket or the procedure is not one that is coverable as it is “cosmetic”, for example). Such fees are clearly asinine based upon nothing realistic.

5. What about when the millions of visiting foreigners get sick or injured during their stay here in America (be it legally or illegally)?

6. Patients that are not covered by insurance can still get treatment and then go on a payment plan with the treating hospitals creditors, or pay using their own credit, or the hospital’s administration can otherwise sue and lien their property.

7. The medical and healthcare industries do not deserve special treatment and protection from the national government, especially over their own patients, or other professions or industries.

 

[jonhowe]

I'm torn on this. The only way I can see healthcare costs not continuing to rise in the long run is if emergency rooms and doctors start turning away the uninsured entirely. They pass on those costs to us. If those people were insured, they would at least have payed in some, and so would all the other uninsured who are now on insurance.

So, without saying that doctors either must work for free or turn away patients in the ER, what is the best way to handle this issue? What does the free market say about it? I'm not supporting Obamacare (CLEARLY this bill is NOT the best way to do much of anything), but I am curious what people think. It's easy to say "no, we don't like that, it's slavery", but what's our proposed humane and free-market alternative?

 

[Weston White]

Though even with the Obamney, healthcare reform in place, it is still going to fail, unless respective costs are dramatically reduced, otherwise it will ultimately require that the cost-to-benefit ratio will need to be individually reviewed (i.e., government sanctioned panels-o-death).

Pointedly, the ACA is in fact unconstitutional, being painfully entirely outside of the national powers of legislation. Even in cases of establishing “the greater good”, the ends do never justify the means or motives.

In any case, there are so many other better ways to address the national healthcare issue, such as one quick example, instead of raising our taxes yet another 1-5% (to then become 20-40%) for the national tap, how about lowering them down to 10-30%?

 

[nobody's_hero]

I don't trust insurance companies or government. Both take your money, both promise to take care of you, but when it comes down to it, they'll dump you and make off with the money.

And with Obamacare, I have the government and the insurance companies united in an assault against me. I wasn't happy when having to fight one or the other, but now that I have to fight both at the same time, I'm screwed.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I think Ron Paul is right when he talks about the way things used to work:

Patients would walk in and deal with doctors directly, pay what they could, and a 'market rate' would arise out of their dealings. People would pay for a $30 check-up out-of-pocket, and save insurace for those catastrophic, unpredictable events.