Attack Ads Actually Helped Obama Care!

Post Reply New Topic

Source

Maybe those rich Tea Party folk ain't so bad after all...

They should just put up an advertisement:

Don't worry America. We expect the Chinese to pay for it, so chill out!

There's a federal law that says everyone gets treated regardless of ability to pay. So, unless you plan on denying care to poor people, someone will be paying for healthcare whether we have Obama Care or not.

Also, having insurance actually drives costs down. The bill for my first spinal surgery was about $115k, but my insurance company got the bill reduced to $38k.

No matter how you slice it, more people with health coverage is better for EVERYONE.

I know many people who are told by doctors to "not come back unless you have insurance or money". Are you talking about emergency care perhaps ? That does not appear to extend to specialized care.



Government managed health care drives up prices for everyone, thus, hurting the middle class who don't get the ACA subsidy. It is the middle class that is hurt by the ACA.

Premiums will keep going up. There will be no savings. Ultimately the ACA will crash and burn like Medicare is expected to do. Perhaps sooner if our investors decide not to pay for it.

Then what are people without healthcare coverage supposed to do? Just die? Any country that allows the least of their citizens die off is guilty of depraved indifference and murder.

Yes, that law does apply to emergency rooms. We force those who cannot pay to get their medical attention in the MOST EXPENSIVE MANNER POSSIBLE.

I'll let you in on another secret. Doctors might turn the uninsured away, but about 2/3 of the hospitals in the US are nonprofits and if they turn people away because of inability to pay they will endanger their nonprofit, tax exempt status.

For whatever reason, most providers/hospitals have a problem filing with my insurance. When I had my first spinal operation the hospital thought I did not have insurance. They DID NOT threaten to kick me out of the hospital, but they DID try to charge me TRIPLE the insurance price!! ! They wanted that big fat juicy loss on the books.
I'm sure they were disappointed when my insurance company made them settle for a third of what they charged on that first bill.

And by the way, this was not Skid Row General, it was one of the best neurosurgery centers in the Midwest.



I'm using a lot more healthcare than I want at the moment... Funny, I haven't noticed the government managing ANYTHING. I bought my policy directly from my University, just like always. I'm going to one of the best neurosurgeons in the country, JUST LIKE ALWAYS. And I just scheduled another surgery for next month with NO PROBLEMS. This, in spite of the fact that the hospital thinks I have no insurance AGAIN.

And, most middle class families DO qualify for an ACA subsidy. You have to be making $100k or more not to get some kind of subsidy. If you make $100k a year, you can pay full price as far as I'm concerned.

American are fed up with the nastiness of politics, and those attacking the ACA the most are the ones who run the slimiest and most disgusting political campaigns.

Amen to that.

No true. US residents can have cheaper health care in Canada by paying directly the cost of the treatments, and it's said to be simpler too, as all treatments are on one single bill.

Mexico is even cheaper, however, we are talking about US health care. It is not practical to have your doctor out of the country.

The US govermnent is centrally managing the ACA as we recently seen in the 'Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius' case where the owners of Hobby Lobby fought for independence from the centrally dictated ACA plans.



Where do you get 100k income ?

It appears an individual can get the subsidy if the income does not exceed $28,763.

And one can get some tax credits on the premiums paid, perhaps, depending on one's tax situation, if the person does not make more than 400% of the FPL (federal poverty level), or presently, ~$58,000. These are just tax credits for the premiums paid though.

sources:
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-subsidies.php
http://consumersunion.org/pub/pdf/healthcare2012.pdf

GoonSquad wrote:


Funny, I haven't noticed the government managing ANYTHING. I bought my policy directly from my University, just like always.


The fact that your University exists and is in operation is proof that the government manages things. Is the Government perfect managers, of everything? No. Does the perfect, flawless, manager or management system exist, anywhere? Probably not. I am thankful for the things the Government manages, but I admit things could be managed more effectively. That doesn't mean I want everything privately managed. If everything was managed privately we would really be seeing the effects of income inequality.

So you believe that if the government does not provide people with money for health insurance then they will roll up in a ball and die ?

Can't you make the same argument for everything ? What about umbrellas ? Won't people get wet in the rain if the government does not provide people with umbrellas ? How can people do without government umbrellas ? How can people do anything without a government worker providing nanny service for the citizens ?

The truth is that if the government got out of health care then the prices would collapse, and it would be affordable for so many people. This is how it is in India. Health care is very inexpensive, because the government does not pay for it. You are not seeing the damage the the US government is doing. It is bankrupting families with these high prices. It is making health care un-affordable.

And as we can see from the projected 110+ trillion Medicare deficit; it will bankrupt the US.

"In India 86 percent of health care is paid out of pocket by individuals". [see source 1]
"Heart Surgery in India for $1,583 Costs $106,385 in U.S." [see source 1]

sources:
1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-2 ... -u-s-.html

That would be a relevant factoid other than the fact that the average income in India is less than $100 a month in US terms. So that $1583 heart surgery is unobtainable for the large majority of Indias population. You are distorting information to support your ideology.

That statement was in reference to the federal government. My university operates under the State Department of Higher Education.

And I still maintain that the Federal Government isn't 'managing' anything (with regards to healthcare). The ACA simply mandates that everyone should provide for THEIR OWN medical coverage, sets a minimum level of coverage, and provides subsidies for those who need help paying. That's hardly managing the health care system.

Hell, if you get your insurance from an employer or school, like me, you wouldn't even know the ACA existed.

It is you that is distorting facts. You are arguing that because a person's yearly income is roughly the same price as the surgery, then that person cannot afford an aorta bypass that they will need when they are 50 or 60 years old.

Indian people are know as feverish savers in gold. They learn to save for a rainy day. You don't think they can save their gold for old age (when most people would need this bypass surgery)?

Compare heart surgery for $1583 out of pocket (note as the article points out they are trying to get the price down to $800) to American culture where most people are broke or in debt, and the price is $106,000 and noone is trying to lower the prices.

The ACA platinum plans do not cover 100%, so the co-pay on that $106,000 may bankrupt most Americans, particularly as i said, the middle class who do not get the subsidies.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 21 Jul 2014, 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.