The Affordable Healthcare Act.
29 Jun 2012, 4:56 pm
I could also say that many people voted for Obama because he was black, failing to look objectively at him as just a politician.
Which could also be considered racist, Obama supporters don't give him a fair, objective chance because of the color of his skin.
I had my back to the TV most of the time or sitting at the computer when those running for president would speak. And everytime Obama spoke which I didn't associate the voice to the man at the time, the first thing that would pop up in my mind is "Who is that making such a great speech". I voted for him because I loved his message, not because he is black.
29 Jun 2012, 7:04 pm
Single payer is the perfect system for people who don't mind standing in line to wait for their services.
In Britain, those who can afford purely private medical service use it in preference to NHS.
ruveyn
Oh, stop worrying already. You won't have to stand in a line. Worse case scenario: someone will give you a chair.
30 Jun 2012, 12:27 am
Turn them into the IRS and see if you get a reward?
Republican cheapskates.
30 Jun 2012, 12:05 pm
I could also say that many people voted for Obama because he was black, failing to look objectively at him as just a politician.
Which could also be considered racist, Obama supporters don't give him a fair, objective chance because of the color of his skin.
I had my back to the TV most of the time or sitting at the computer when those running for president would speak. And everytime Obama spoke which I didn't associate the voice to the man at the time, the first thing that would pop up in my mind is "Who is that making such a great speech". I voted for him because I loved his message, not because he is black.
I wasn't specifically accusing you. I was just pointing out that I have frequently heard Obama supporters use the "you hate him because he's black" line. Then I turned it around, illustrating that someone could also prefer him for the same reason.
Me? I just have a prejudice against ALL politicians. I don't trust a word out of any of their mouths.
As a matter of fact, what drew you to Obama is exactly what makes me trust him even less. The better a speaker a politician is, the more skeptical I am. They make a living off of saying exactly the right thing in order to get a vote.
Honestly, I didn't even vote in 2008. I didn't like any of the candidates. I wish there was a "none of the above" option.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005
30 Jun 2012, 12:39 pm
I could also say that many people voted for Obama because he was black, failing to look objectively at him as just a politician.
Which could also be considered racist, Obama supporters don't give him a fair, objective chance because of the color of his skin.
I had my back to the TV most of the time or sitting at the computer when those running for president would speak. And everytime Obama spoke which I didn't associate the voice to the man at the time, the first thing that would pop up in my mind is "Who is that making such a great speech". I voted for him because I loved his message, not because he is black.
I wasn't specifically accusing you. I was just pointing out that I have frequently heard Obama supporters use the "you hate him because he's black" line. Then I turned it around, illustrating that someone could also prefer him for the same reason.
Me? I just have a prejudice against ALL politicians. I don't trust a word out of any of their mouths.
As a matter of fact, what drew you to Obama is exactly what makes me trust him even less. The better a speaker a politician is, the more skeptical I am. They make a living off of saying exactly the right thing in order to get a vote.
Honestly, I didn't even vote in 2008. I didn't like any of the candidates. I wish there was a "none of the above" option.
I'm not sure how I'm going to vote, but it probably will be for Obama again. I have really been disappointed in Obama as president and I didn't like it at all when he said that the middle class is doing just fine, which is telling me that he has lost touch with the American people. But when Obama was cornered on this statement he had to do a lot of smooth talking to worm himself out of this saying something else. I really can't believe he said this. And for the most part he has been pretty much a do nothing president. Some people say he is the worst president they ever seen. No, not in my opinion. I think Jimmy Carter was the worst president I have ever seen.
Anyhow, though I now have a low opinion of Barack Obama, I would rather see him in instead of that flip flopping lying Romney who was for Affordable Healthcare in his state and now he is against it in every state since he is running for president because only about a third of the people is for the Affordable Healthcare Act. But, it appears that there are some who is warming up the the Affordable Healthcare Act and I think the numbers for support of it will go up as people learn more about what it's about.
30 Jun 2012, 8:32 pm
dirtdigger - you should just remove the friend from Facebook. if someone has resorted to name calling and belittling you, why even acknowledge their existence?
whew... where do i start. i don't typical get involved in political discussions online. it generally reduces down to ignorance vs rhetoric.
however, i feel that at least in this community i'm surrounded by people who approach these things logically for the most part.
i'm a supporter of obama. i think he's done a great job considering the huge opposition to everything he puts forth. he's put forth a lot of job bills and other campaign promises that were shut down by congress. for the majority of americans, taxes have actually gone DOWN during the current administration. i'm not happy with the polarized system we have at the moment but believe that this too shall pass. things have a way of balancing out over time.
anyhow, the topic here is the ACA. i was diagnosed with a heart condition when i was 32 (i'm 38 now). just after that time period i left my job and chose to start my own agency. however, when i tried to apply for personal health insurance i was denied by 3 different companies in florida. one of those companies was the company that insured me at that prior job. the moment i ended my COBRA insurance and tried to switch to my own, i was denied. i've watched my parents lose all of their lifetime savings and possessions keeping up with his heart related healthcare costs and was concerned of the position i'd put myself in.
after months without insurance, i finally found a shady company that would insure me for $2000 a month. that's $24,000 a year in healthcare premiums. my biggest concern was that i would have a heart attack and not be able to afford the bills. i could've simply gone without and planned on just going to the emergency room when something happened and rely on the american people to foot the bill, but i chose not to do so.
fast forward to a couple years ago and i moved to iowa, got a second opinion on my heart - turned out i'm completely fine - and got a "cheaper" insurance rate. i'm still dinged because of the original diagnosis, but was told it will take some time for that to completely prove itself out enough for my rate to be lowered.
there are thousands, if not millions, of individuals with a similar story to mine that didn't have a happy ending. for that reason alone, i'd support the ACA. however, there are other components that make this a huge step forward for healthcare in america.
- no lifetime limits. my parents hit an annual version of this frequently because of my father's heart condition. imagine cancer patients.
- 80% of your payments has to go to covering patient's healthcare costs. insurance companies can not hand out gigantic bonuses to their execs while denying your coverage. sure, they deserve to get rich and make a profit. it's the american dream. but when there's not an alternative to life saving services (only one choice here in des moines - BCBS), i feel they need some type of regulation.
- everyone must be charged equally. women cannot be charged more then men. seniors cannot be charge more than adolescents. etc. there's a strong case to be made here that women/seniors need more healthcare and therefore should be charged more. i disagree, but not close-minded to this.
- yes, it IS a tax. but not a tax as all the opinionated talking heads would have you believe. it's a penalty tax. if you have insurance, you WILL NOT BE TAXED! if you don't have insurance, but are financially capable of affording it, then you will be charge a tax penalty. a penalty that amounts to a slight slap on the wrist. you can not be jailed for not having insurance and not paying the penalty.
- the individual mandate was a requirement put forth by insurance companies and hospitals. at the moment, we ALL pay for the uninsured. when they go to the emergency room to get treatment, they are not turned away. they are treated and we eat the bill as part of our premiums now. by requiring everyone financially capable of buying insurance to do so, that cost is offset - thereby actually LOWERING the cost of our healthcare. before the requirement was put forth by insurance companies and hospitals it was originally proposed by the conservatives in the house years prior.
- preventative care must be covered 100%. one of the biggest contributing factors to the skyrocketing healthcare costs in america is that people wait until something is horribly wrong before seeking medical attention. by covering that cost, more americans are likely to make regular visits to their physician and catch problems before they become an emergency and giant bill.
- this bill does NOT get between you and your doctor. there's no rationing of care. and to my knowledge, there's no rule changes as to what the doctor can or can't do. at most it gets between you and your insurance.
- lastly, i feel that everyone in this country deserves medical care whether they can afford it or not. i'm not religious and do not attend church, but i do have a strong moral compass that guides me. empathy might not be in my wheelhouse, but it doesn't mean i don't care what happens to other human beings.
end the end, it's possible that insurance costs will go up. physician wait times might increase. people may lose their work insurance and have to get their own outside of that. any number of things might go wrong. but i look at it this way... it's a step. it moves us in what i consider the right direction. instead of all the arguing to repeal, how about arguments to "replace" with a solid plan. i wish the current plan involved the same plan congress and other government employees get, but that was shot down day 1.
**now bracing for impact**
30 Jun 2012, 9:52 pm
If you head over to the other thread about this topic (http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx202311-150-0.html), the poster "aghogday" is FAR more accurate and clear in his explanations than I was.
01 Jul 2012, 12:46 am
- the individual mandate was a requirement put forth by insurance companies and hospitals. at the moment, we ALL pay for the uninsured. when they go to the emergency room to get treatment, they are not turned away. they are treated and we eat the bill as part of our premiums now. by requiring everyone financially capable of buying insurance to do so, that cost is offset - thereby actually LOWERING the cost of our healthcare. before the requirement was put forth by insurance companies and hospitals it was originally proposed by the conservatives in the house years prior.
Thing is, most of the uninsured don't buy insurance because they can't afford it. Considering all the provisions for helping low income individuals in the ACA, we ALL STILL PAY for the uninsured, and most likely even more now.
Also the governments determination on if someone can afford to buy insurance and real life are two completely different things.
The government has no clue what the real cost of living is.
And the cost of heal care actually getting lowered through all of this... yeah right, I'll believe that when I see it.
Insurance companies will find every excuse to raise rates.
Prediction: The cost of our healthcare will not go down one dime, as a matter of fact, it will continue to go up.
_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005
01 Jul 2012, 4:13 am
- the individual mandate was a requirement put forth by insurance companies and hospitals. at the moment, we ALL pay for the uninsured. when they go to the emergency room to get treatment, they are not turned away. they are treated and we eat the bill as part of our premiums now. by requiring everyone financially capable of buying insurance to do so, that cost is offset - thereby actually LOWERING the cost of our healthcare. before the requirement was put forth by insurance companies and hospitals it was originally proposed by the conservatives in the house years prior.
Thing is, most of the uninsured don't buy insurance because they can't afford it. Considering all the provisions for helping low income individuals in the ACA, we ALL STILL PAY for the uninsured, and most likely even more now.
Also the governments determination on if someone can afford to buy insurance and real life are two completely different things.
The government has no clue what the real cost of living is.
And the cost of heal care actually getting lowered through all of this... yeah right, I'll believe that when I see it.
Insurance companies will find every excuse to raise rates.
Prediction: The cost of our healthcare will not go down one dime, as a matter of fact, it will continue to go up.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/20/employer.sponsored.health.insurance.premiums.projected.double.2020
There is no question that health care costs, per what hospitals charge are going to continue to go up on average. The price that people pay for employer sponsored coverage has already gone up almost double on average in the decade before health reform was enacted. The average premium is close to $14,000 for a family in the US, currently. The goal of health care reform is to reduce the rate of increase in costs that have been projected in the past.
Hospitals are not going to feel significant effects of individuals whom were previously not covered, whom can pay their health care bills, through insurance coverage, until several years from now when 10's of millions of additional individuals are covered. Until that happens, it's not likely that a significant slow down of health care cost increases will occur.
In 2009, before health care reform was enacted the average annual family premium for an employer sponsored plan was projected at close to $24,000 by the year 2020. $14,000 is already way more than what many can afford, some whom decline employer sponsored full coverage and go with catastrophic plans instead, where deductibles are anywhere from 5 to 10 thousand dollars. That option is still available for those that choose that route with health care reform.
The health care reform act, will certainly reduce premiums for many individuals who can't afford a potential $24,000 insurance premium in the year 2020, or the current $14,000 average premiums charged by employer sponsored plans for family coverage, there is no question about that, but actual health care costs per what hospitals charge is going to continue to rise, not unlike the price of a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, or any other commodity through inflation. The goal is not as fast, as the past. Continued doubling of costs per decade is not sustainable; at some point the majority of individuals would be priced out of the full coverage employer sponsored insurance market, if 2009 health care premium projections continued to hold true.
The situation is already a crisis for many, doing nothing to address the issue, was going to lead to a catastrophic eventuality per those projections.
Many are already priced out of the market. Government subsidized insurance is already evidenced as much cheaper than paying full price, for those whom don't have or can't afford employer sponsored insurance plans.
As I stated in another thread, there was a point in time a couple of decades ago when employer sponsored health insurance for myself and my wife was ten percent of our mortgage, it now exceeds the mortgage.
When average employer sponsored coverage for a family approaches minimum wage annual salaries, as it does now, and threatens to double that in the near future, it is a problem that must be addressed, with some kind of effort. Again, no effort was not a reasonable alternative, and no other alternative was provided.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/20/employer.sponsored.health.insurance.premiums.projected.double.2020
01 Jul 2012, 6:56 am
Yes, I did block her from my facebook page immediately after her calling my an idiot. Apparent she didn't read the Affordable Healthcare Act. I tried to tell this broad that since she has less than 25 employess that she will get a tax cut up to 50% to offset any premiums she would have to pay in insurance giving her a link. She told me I didn't know what I was talking about and then called me an idiot, someone who I thought was a friend. But, she will have to live with herself for saying this to me. I just bet she is insured, but her employees are not. How insensitve. The Affordable Healtcare Act is the best thing since medicare which is a socialized program.
however, i feel that at least in this community i'm surrounded by people who approach these things logically for the most part.
i'm a supporter of obama. i think he's done a great job considering the huge opposition to everything he puts forth. he's put forth a lot of job bills and other campaign promises that were shut down by congress. for the majority of americans, taxes have actually gone DOWN during the current administration. i'm not happy with the polarized system we have at the moment but believe that this too shall pass. things have a way of balancing out over time.
anyhow, the topic here is the ACA. i was diagnosed with a heart condition when i was 32 (i'm 38 now). just after that time period i left my job and chose to start my own agency. however, when i tried to apply for personal health insurance i was denied by 3 different companies in florida. one of those companies was the company that insured me at that prior job. the moment i ended my COBRA insurance and tried to switch to my own, i was denied. i've watched my parents lose all of their lifetime savings and possessions keeping up with his heart related healthcare costs and was concerned of the position i'd put myself in.
after months without insurance, i finally found a shady company that would insure me for $2000 a month. that's $24,000 a year in healthcare premiums. my biggest concern was that i would have a heart attack and not be able to afford the bills. i could've simply gone without and planned on just going to the emergency room when something happened and rely on the american people to foot the bill, but i chose not to do so.
fast forward to a couple years ago and i moved to iowa, got a second opinion on my heart - turned out i'm completely fine - and got a "cheaper" insurance rate. i'm still dinged because of the original diagnosis, but was told it will take some time for that to completely prove itself out enough for my rate to be lowered.
there are thousands, if not millions, of individuals with a similar story to mine that didn't have a happy ending. for that reason alone, i'd support the ACA. however, there are other components that make this a huge step forward for healthcare in america.
- no lifetime limits. my parents hit an annual version of this frequently because of my father's heart condition. imagine cancer patients.
- 80% of your payments has to go to covering patient's healthcare costs. insurance companies can not hand out gigantic bonuses to their execs while denying your coverage. sure, they deserve to get rich and make a profit. it's the american dream. but when there's not an alternative to life saving services (only one choice here in des moines - BCBS), i feel they need some type of regulation.
- everyone must be charged equally. women cannot be charged more then men. seniors cannot be charge more than adolescents. etc. there's a strong case to be made here that women/seniors need more healthcare and therefore should be charged more. i disagree, but not close-minded to this.
- yes, it IS a tax. but not a tax as all the opinionated talking heads would have you believe. it's a penalty tax. if you have insurance, you WILL NOT BE TAXED! if you don't have insurance, but are financially capable of affording it, then you will be charge a tax penalty. a penalty that amounts to a slight slap on the wrist. you can not be jailed for not having insurance and not paying the penalty.
- the individual mandate was a requirement put forth by insurance companies and hospitals. at the moment, we ALL pay for the uninsured. when they go to the emergency room to get treatment, they are not turned away. they are treated and we eat the bill as part of our premiums now. by requiring everyone financially capable of buying insurance to do so, that cost is offset - thereby actually LOWERING the cost of our healthcare. before the requirement was put forth by insurance companies and hospitals it was originally proposed by the conservatives in the house years prior.
- preventative care must be covered 100%. one of the biggest contributing factors to the skyrocketing healthcare costs in america is that people wait until something is horribly wrong before seeking medical attention. by covering that cost, more americans are likely to make regular visits to their physician and catch problems before they become an emergency and giant bill.
- this bill does NOT get between you and your doctor. there's no rationing of care. and to my knowledge, there's no rule changes as to what the doctor can or can't do. at most it gets between you and your insurance.
- lastly, i feel that everyone in this country deserves medical care whether they can afford it or not. i'm not religious and do not attend church, but i do have a strong moral compass that guides me. empathy might not be in my wheelhouse, but it doesn't mean i don't care what happens to other human beings.
end the end, it's possible that insurance costs will go up. physician wait times might increase. people may lose their work insurance and have to get their own outside of that. any number of things might go wrong. but i look at it this way... it's a step. it moves us in what i consider the right direction. instead of all the arguing to repeal, how about arguments to "replace" with a solid plan. i wish the current plan involved the same plan congress and other government employees get, but that was shot down day 1.
**now bracing for impact**
The reason I said what I did about Barack Obama which I'm planning on voting for is we've had much better presidents that were able to bring so many jobs that employers were crying for employees. Back then employers treated people a lot better since there was such a shortage of workers for these companies. And these 2 presidents brought us from a debtor,s nation to a creditor's nation. Unfortunately one was assissinated and the other one was caught in the obel office of the white house getting a blow job. These presidents were John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton. And that is why I say Obama is pretty much a do nothing though he has created some jobs and passed some bills. But, his moment of glory is seeing his Affordable Healthcare Bill go into affect.
I just wished more people can see the great benefits of these socialized programs and how helpful they are. And you are right about how people will be taxed which is those who refuse to get health insurance will have to pay more taxes. I don't see it exactly as a penalty either, because the government shouldn't have to foot the bill at the taxpayers who have insurance, expense. Thank you so much for supporting this bill and seeing how good it is. You are absolute right about what you say because this bill levels the playing feild. I have noticed that the polls has increased in favor of Barack Obama because some people are beginning to see the benefits of this bill and is now in support of it.
06 Jul 2012, 11:48 am
And just how affordable will health care be when the law goes into full power. And just what quality of health care will emerge?
This law will fail big time as long as people continue to adhere to their unhealthy habits. Not enough exercise. Eating too much. Eating the wrong kind of stuff. Smoking and Booze. No amount of legislation will undo the consequences of these.
ruveyn
06 Jul 2012, 12:10 pm
This law will fail big time as long as people continue to adhere to their unhealthy habits. Not enough exercise. Eating too much. Eating the wrong kind of stuff. Smoking and Booze. No amount of legislation will undo the consequences of these.
ruveyn
You aren't going to get an argument out of me when it comes to bad habits many people have, so they don't even deserve health care on our dimes and they should be charged the penalty tax. I'm glad that I don't smoke thosee filthy cigarettes, don't booze and don't do drugs and don't eat really bad food such as McDonalds and other such restaurant chains. The food industry need to be fined for using certain ingredients such as hydrogenated oil, Sodium nitrite and other fake and man-made ingredients. So is it any wonder why there are so many sick and overweight people in this country?
As for the Affordable Healthcare Act, no one really knows whether it will work or not. We just have to give it a chance and that is all I ask. And if it doesn't work, than it can be voted out of existance.
06 Jul 2012, 12:34 pm
The subsidies for low income people are paid for through a range of targeted taxes, mostly for corporations and high end transactions, not general taxation. There is a 2% excise tax on certain medical devices, a small tax on high profit real estate transactions, etc. And of coure there are penalties for those that refuse to get insurance and are not exempt by poverty or other hardship. The penalties start at $695 / year and scale up to 2.5% of income. So $2,500 if you make $100,000. But why pay and get nothing? Get insurance.
Insurance companies will find every excuse to raise rates.
There is no question that I will benefit when hospitals are eating less of the cost for uninsured care. The average insured person is paying $1,000 for those people today. Why am I covering the losses of gamblers? And insurance companies are now constrained in their ability to raise premiums. If they arent spending 80-85% on care, they give the money back to their customers.
There is no question that something had to change and there is a lot of good stuff here. It will need tweaking as issues and loopholes emerge. But the good news is that the insurance companies are getting a much needed check to their power. And with mandated customers, the government will be perpetually interested in their behavior.
06 Jul 2012, 1:34 pm
In Britain, those who can afford purely private medical service use it in preference to NHS.
ruveyn
You need to remember that healthcare is a devolved authority in the UK, so healthcare in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all somewhat different from each other. While England is attempting to enhance the role of private service delivery, Scotland is looking to reduce it. But in all four countries, the NHS or its analogs represent the majority of all health services delivery.
By and large there are two major sectors that are served by private facilities in Britain: elective procedures that are not medically necessary; and privately insured services. The biggest piece of this latter sector is treatment of non-life threatening injuries arising from workplace accidents (since these are covered by employers' compulsory insurance). There are very few private hospitals with emergency or intensive care facilities.
When you suggest that the private sector is a parallel system to the NHS you must look into the pockets that are funding the services provided by that private sector. There are very, very few patients who pay out of their own pockets in order to rely on the private system for primary and acute care.
_________________
--James
06 Jul 2012, 8:09 pm
When you suggest that the private sector is a parallel system to the NHS you must look into the pockets that are funding the services provided by that private sector. There are very, very few patients who pay out of their own pockets in order to rely on the private system for primary and acute care.
If you could afford otherwise would you go to a doctor who cannot spend more than ten minutes examining you and evaluating your health situation?
ruveyn
