How to take an excellent private industry and totally run it into the ground so that an ineffectual government boondoggle can replace it? Well, we now know. Insurance companies are dumping people right and left, others left with no insurance and can't sign up for the government system and even if they do, doctors are heading out the back door in droves.
Yep, we're heading for a single payer system which literally translated means when all is said and done, only the richest guy in the country is going to be able to pay for health care, the rest are on their own.
This is quite a legacy this administration is leaving for our children and their children.
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
Obama Care Vs Affordable care act. Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
- Feb 2012
It's good to hear that you have had such a excellent experience health insurance. For me, my rates jump 10% per year which means I need to change to higher deductible plan with fewer benefits. When I see a doctor, I'm lucky to get 5 minutes of his time so he can make his 12 patients/hour quota. I don't think so highly of that system.
The way the system was heading, only the rich would be able to afford healthcare. With ACA, now every American regardless of income has access to healthcare.
Huzzar commented10-29-2013, 11:45 AMEditing a commentI just shopped for the same policy I had 4 years ago when I was self-employed. I'm thinking of hanging the shingle again and health care is the biggest concern.
What was a $350/month policy is now being sold at $950/month. Of course, it covers things like pregnancy and abortion, which I never paid for before as neither was going to happen.
BTW, the 10% increases aren't going away, they'll just be on a bigger base figure.
10-29-2013, 12:30 PMEditing a commentThe way the system was heading, only the rich would be able to afford healthcare. With ACA, now every American regardless of income has access to healthcare.
First of all, I don't know anyone who can really predict the future. Up until this year, my health benefits were increasing and the cost was indeed coming down. Our local healthcare system was working it out with companies in the community to make it happen. Unfortunately this year, my premiums went up and my benefits went down. Why? Because of the Cadillac clause meant my company had to provide less or be penalized by the government. Presently, I have been able to stay out of the government's clutches, receive $85/mo premium and a Health Savings Plan that the company prefills to cover the deductable. They beat the Cadillac penalty and kept the costs reasonable. And I repeat, this is a LOCAL option here in town and not everyone is wealthy in our town. Common labor union members working for us get the same benefits and under the government they would have been ripped just like everyone else. So, "The way the system was heading.." here was great. Now no one knows where it is really heading.
There are a ton of people here that are ecstatic that our governor told Obama where to stick it.
- Jul 2007
Whatever is "actually" going to come of this will be a mess. IF, instead of spending the last three years trying to get rid of it we had studied the likely issues and changed things, while still holding to the supposed intent, then maybe we could be in a better position. Those who think the system worked before must live in a fantasy world. That we continue to be at the mercy of the Insurance Industry is the real problem. What makes our society different from most of the world is simply that we seem to think basic medical care is not enough. Much of what we insist we need is expensive and beyond most people's reach anyway. Prices have gone up exponentially "before" this particular fiasco. I was uninsured other than basic VA (fortunate in that regard) once I lost my job due to downsizing until Medicare kicked in. We also add to the problem by allowing the Lawyers to constantly hover and threaten, making doctors afraid to NOT do another test or treatment, even when they know it is not needed. Somehow you have to deal with the indigent who need basic care; right now that is through emergency centers. And since they have to treat, those of us that are more fortunate pay more.
So, all of you that keep screaming how terrible it is, please find an actual solution that is equitable to ALL. Some things are simply necessary, and dealing with them by taxes or similar government involvement is really the only way to be sure it happens. Take the profit motive out of the health industry and you have half the fix. Put limits back on the pharmaceutical industry such as no public advertising, and restricting their strangle hold on supply and costs go down. Let doctors be doctors, not paper pushers; and find a way to have family practitioners be the norm, rather than specialists.
Of course, all of this is just way too hard to do; it might require a little bit of "Common Sense". But of course that is no longer found in most of our public theater, and is quickly disappearing from even the average person's lives.
10-30-2013, 09:42 AMEditing a commentIt's always popular to demonize big businesses. Some schmuck is making way too much money. Well, so are all the thousands of people working in the jobs these schmucks are providing. So we knock off the millionaire on the top of the heap, but what about the damage done to the thousands of workers that were also making pretty good money, too. They don't count because Big Business is the Devil Incarnate! So the coal miner, the oil rig operator, the pharmaceutical tech are all standing in soup lines because they have been tagged minions of Satan.
Well, I must be the spawn of Evil, because I am ecstatic that I work for a multi-billion dollar, international company that provides a good wage and health benefits. The guy at the top makes more money in 5 minutes than I do all year. So what. I'm not on the dole, I don't use food stamps, I don't need ObamaCare, and I'm free. What more could one ask for?
I support big business, because I want others to have a chance at what I have, too. It's what the American Dream is all about.
10-30-2013, 10:02 AMEditing a commentI'll be happier to try to understand the economics without invoking demons or mythical creatures. The price we pay for drugs is ultimately set by whatever we're willing to pay for them. If the demand went down, the price would follow. Part of the reason for the high demand is that the industry spends about twice as much on marketing than it does on R&D. But on the demand side, because of the various subsidies we get from insurance or such things as Medicare, our personal cost 'seems' to be less...but really, all we're doing is using the shared risk system (whether govt or private) to pay those high costs with others' money (premiums or taxes). The way, KDD, to break this is to eliminate the subsidies. All of them. Let the open market work freely and eventually people will see competition between more-efficient businesses bring the prices down.
10-30-2013, 10:16 AMEditing a commentEconomics 101 is based solely on supply and demand. Nobody's going to pay for something that costs way too much. They'll shop around. The price gougers will go out of business. With that being said, add into the mix sufficient governmental interfering and all the Laws of Supply and Demand go out the window. If a company can't make a product cheap enough to sell, they go out of business and the citizens end up with nothing. No big business, no market, no product, and no one to blame except the governmental interference. Government hoarding of product to influence markets has been going on in a number of areas, agriculture, energy, just to name a couple. The US Constitution does not allow governmental interference in private industries. Well, that isn't the case and the artificial economics that have arisen doesn't "protect" the public, it in fact harms it.
There are only two simple ways to go in all this. We either have individuals making their own decisions and paying their own way with no shared risk, or else we share the risk (and the costs). We long ago made the decision to turn away from the free market approach and when I say 'we' I mean nearly every last one of us. We decided to have employers paying part of the premium. We decided to have HMOs. We decided to form any number of groups who share the risk, which also include Medicare and Medicaid. But WE also decided to exclude anyone who couldn't 'fit in' with the requirements to be part of one of those other groups and 'those' people are the ones that the ACA will bring into the shared risk.
I do get what is happening. What is happening is merely a logical extension of what we all decided to do a long time ago and that was NOT to have individuals take individual responsibility and accept the risks and costs for whatever life had for them. So Be It.
Anyone who is not ready to relinquish their employer contributions or their Medicare or their VA benefits or whatever other shared risk subsidy they have....tough luck. The real issue is that you like the benefits of shared risk that you receive and you don't want to apply that standard to others who are less fortunate because you don't want to pay more to share those added risks. I DO get it. Again, I advocate for abolition of employer contributions and all subsidized benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, or any other shared risk approach. Make a fair wage and pay a fair price for medical care IF you can afford it. If not, the market and life will make the correction.
JoeBob commented10-29-2013, 09:42 PMEditing a comment" Make a fair wage and pay a fair price for medical care IF you can afford it. If not, the market and life will make the correction"
Horizon commented11-01-2013, 07:32 PMEditing a commentpacksaddle nails it. We (the nation) looked around and started changing how healthcare is dealt with. The Kaiser medical operation in California is great history. Kaiser was building dams, etc. They found it easier to hire some company doctors and provide onsite medical care for their workers. The workers had families with them, so Kaiser added that. At one point, Kaiser was going to stop providing that service - the workers went on Strike. Kaiser became experts at delivering medical care - and turned that into a business.
When Medicaid was launched in 1965, it RAISED the cost of medical care in many communities. While today it is known as a source of poor reimbursement rates (often barely at the cost of providing service), when launched the rates were HIGHER than what was charged in many communities. In response, physicians in those areas raised their prices to match Medicaid. Oops.
Finally, it is a fallacy to think of medicine as a market. To get that free market packsaddle describes we would also need to kill the AMA monopoly which keeps the numbers of doctors down in the US by limiting the number of residencies and medical schools.
11-01-2013, 08:09 PMEditing a commentQuite right, if the number of physicians was allowed to expand to meet demand, competition between them would bring down the costs. The insurance industry AND the doctors know this.
Interesting numbers coming out today:
6 - Excited Obamacare devotees enrolled on the first day. 39,000 per day needed to reach critical mass.
93,000,000 - CBO estimates that will have lose their Employer provided insurance in 2014, despite the prez promising otherwise:
JoeBob commented11-03-2013, 10:48 AMEditing a commentAnd if you really do care about the numbers:
"Did HHS estimate that 93 million Americans will lose their insurance plans?"
"The HHS analysis of the markets and the impact of ObamaCare on plan offerings was not limited to just the individual markets. When the employer mandate gets enforced for the 2015 enrollment, as many as 93 million Americans may find that their job-provided coverage will go the way of the individual plans this year"
11-03-2013, 10:58 AMEditing a commentJoeBob, if that's correct, the irony is that because I have long maintained that employers should NOT participate in employee health care, in a weird sort of way the ACA is moving in my preferred direction, at least on that matter. Of course in other ways it's moving far away from what I advocate...so maybe it's kind of neutral in a way. Or...as the old joke goes: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer - so overall, on average, things are about the same.
Rick_in_CA commented11-03-2013, 10:14 PMEditing a commentPerhaps we are not speaking the same language. The phrase: "Health Insurance Losses to Get Worse: 51 Percent to Lose Employer Based Insurance", reads to me as 51 percent will no longer have employer based insurance. Which isn't what the federal register says. How hard is that to understand?
Re: the original post, I think I've found something that illustrates the problem:
Sad. Very sad.
- Dec 2006
Anybody else notice how quiet this topic has become on the board?
- Sep 2013
the US has a higher cost per person for healthcare (before ACA) but a lower life expectancy than most industrialized countries.
Somehow the Europeans, Japanese and Commonwealth countries figured out how to make it work at less expense than the US.
They might wait longer for a doctor, but pay less and live longer!
Germany introduced a parallel private health care system, a bit like the US, and after years it is starting to fail now.
State medical has its drawbacks and is getting more expensice as everyting has to keep up with inlfation
I think medical service, with all the great research they do in some areas, is still a lil backward and outdated in the US.
The big joke in europe at the moment is:
The NSA can monitor every computer and cell phone on the planted, but ACA cant set up a functioning web site ... sad but true aye
Money for war but cant afford an advil for the poor ....