Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[nbcrusader]

Minus the thousands of deaths and all

All of the deaths on Obama's watch occurred in Afghanistan....

 

[Diemen]

Ugh. Can we get to some substantive discussion instead of sniping at each other?

 

[namkcuR]

It appears to me that the ACA may be Obama's Iraq War: His signature achievement that went horribly wrong.

The politics of doing it when they did it was the worst political decision made during his first term. That it later became a terrible piece of legislation made it even worse. That it has become a nightmare to implement in his 2nd term probably means that you are exactly right.

I agree. Its a big disappointment.

The "If you like your insurance you can keep it" is perhaps the equivalent of "mission accomplished." :smh:

I'm sorry, but I think this is a knee-jerk and way pre-mature comparison. The Iraq War lasted for ten years and resulted in over 4000 American deaths and over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

The implementation of the ACA has been going on for one MONTH. I know that one month has been rocky, but can we please give it some time before declaring it a total failure, much less comparing it to the Iraq War?

And that's not say I'm giving everyone a pass for what's happened with the implementation thus far. They should have ponied up for a company that would get the website right the first time, and if President Obama knew that the insurance companies were going to start canceling cheap plans because they aren't up to the ACA's standards, then he never, ever should've said so definitively "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it".

Dropping those cheap plans affects a small minority of people, and although it sucks for them, the rationale being given is that those plans were cheap for a reason, that they didn't cover enough and the insurance companies didn't always pay out on them, and that overall they weren't dependable plans, and that even though you'll have to buy a new, more expensive plan than the one you were on, you're still getting a much better plan that you previously had for a cheaper price than that much better plan would've cost previously. That's the way I understand it anyway. And I can buy that argument, but again, if the President and his administration knew this was going to happen, and I don't think there's any argument you can make that they didn't know, then he never, ever should've said "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it."

 

[INDY500]

If you guys had what the rest of the free world has for just a week, you'd never go back.

Would that be the same "free world" whose healthcare costs are subsidized by the United States' Defense budget and the same "free world" that enjoys the innovations, procedures and drugs produced by the for-profit United States healthcare system?

You seem to think the "free world" exists in a vacuum and would be unaffected by drastic changes in American foreign or domestic policy.

 

[Pearl]

I'm sorry, but I think this is a knee-jerk and way pre-mature comparison. The Iraq War lasted for ten years and resulted in over 4000 American deaths and over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

The implementation of the ACA has been going on for one MONTH. I know that one month has been rocky, but can we please give it some time before declaring it a total failure, much less comparing it to the Iraq War?

And that's not say I'm giving everyone a pass for what's happened with the implementation thus far. They should have ponied up for a company that would get the website right the first time, and if President Obama knew that the insurance companies were going to start canceling cheap plans because they aren't up to the ACA's standards, then he never, ever should've said so definitively "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it".

Dropping those cheap plans affects a small minority of people, and although it sucks for them, the rationale being given is that those plans were cheap for a reason, that they didn't cover enough and the insurance companies didn't always pay out on them, and that overall they weren't dependable plans, and that even though you'll have to buy a new, more expensive plan than the one you were on, you're still getting a much better plan that you previously had for a cheaper price than that much better plan would've cost previously. That's the way I understand it anyway. And I can buy that argument, but again, if the President and his administration knew this was going to happen, and I don't think there's any argument you can make that they didn't know, then he never, ever should've said "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it."

Well, my comparison of ACA to the Iraq War was more about something that was hyped up so much as being great for America, and it only turned out to be something that sounded deceptive. While its true Obama didn't flat out lie about ACA, he wasn't entirely honest either. At the same time, there was hope that ACA would be a success in order to silence the naysayers. Unfortunately, the naysayers have plenty of reasonable ammunition now.

I also blame the media on this. Since it is their job to keep on an eye on a story's developments, shouldn't they have known that this would have happened?

 

[INDY500]

Do you find them equally bad, or is one even marginally preferable over the other to you? I realize that you find them both unpalatable. I'm not trying to bate you into saying something that I'll later attack; I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer, because I don't know how I'd feel if I were a conservative.

,

They both increase third party payment for medicine, government regulation and centralize decision making which is the opposite of individual choice, competition and free markets--that is why I reject them both. The only difference between single payer and ACA being a choice between pure socialism or the state-capitalism of ACA which transforms health insurance companies into national utilities told what they must provide, they must charge and who they must serve.

We had the best healthcare in the world with a lousy, patchwork payment system filled with the market distortions of disconnected third party payers, cost-shifting and defensive medicine... now both are worse.

 

[BVS]

,
We had the best healthcare in the world with a lousy, patchwork payment system filled with the market distortions of disconnected third party payers, cost-shifting and defensive medicine... now both are worse.

Then was it really the best in the world? Why would a market worshiper as yourself separate the two, that doesn't coincide with your religion?

 

[anitram]

It was the best in the world if you are in the top say 3-5%.

For everyone else, it's far below what your neighbours to the north have and what the Europeans have and the Australians have. Many Americans just are unable to understand and/or admit this.

Most people on this thread would NEVER have the benefit of the "best healthcare in the world." That's reserved for people several socioeconomic rungs above.

 

[INDY500]

It was the best in the world if you are in the top say 3-5%.

For everyone else, it's far below what your neighbours to the north have and what the Europeans have and the Australians have. Many Americans just are unable to understand and/or admit this.

Most people on this thread would NEVER have the benefit of the "best healthcare in the world." That's reserved for people several socioeconomic rungs above.

PolitiFact | Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it

That's simply not true on any level. In 2010 85% of people in the country (90% of citizens) had coverage and 95 % of those were "happy" with their coverage. That tells me they were happy with the care they were receiving.

 

[PhilsFan]

That article literally says it's 87 percent, not 95 percent. It mostly backs up your point anyway, but it does beg the question of whether you actually read anything.

 

[anitram]

That's simply not true on any level. In 2010 85% of people in the country (90% of citizens) had coverage and 95 % of those were "happy" with their coverage. That tells me they were happy with the care they were receiving.

Well I guess if you twist yourself into a pretzel and disconnect yourself entirely from any kind of rational analysis, you can interpret that as them having the best healthcare in the world. Next time one of these surveys tells us that people in Botswana are happier than people in the USA we'll all be able to conclude they live in the best country in the world.

You think that all those people had access to the doctors, hospitals, procedures and treatment that people who live on 5th Avenue do? I mean talk about a bridge in Brooklyn...

 

[BVS]

Does "satisfied with it" really qualify for 'best in the world' now?

 

[Irvine511]

Coming out of my break to say that I had a meeting at work today. As I've said, I work in a field that's heavily populated with freelancers, and most either have catastrophic coverage, no coverage, or pay for a plan themselves, which is what I have done for the past 8 years.

Because my company must now comply with the ACA, we are being offered employer-subsidized health care for the first time.

My yearly costs will literally be cut in half. I can get a so-called "Cadillac" plan for about half of what I presently pay. Plus dental and vision. I'm beside myself.

So, yeah, thanks Obama.

It's a very good day.

Back to silence.

 

[INDY500]

Well I guess if you twist yourself into a pretzel and disconnect yourself entirely from any kind of rational analysis, you can interpret that as them having the best healthcare in the world. Next time one of these surveys tells us that people in Botswana are happier than people in the USA we'll all be able to conclude they live in the best country in the world.

You think that all those people had access to the doctors, hospitals, procedures and treatment that people who live on 5th Avenue do? I mean talk about a bridge in Brooklyn...

Where do physicians, specialists, lab technicians, etc, from all over the world come to practice medicine? Which healthcare system has the shortest waits for care? Which healthcare system accounts for the vast majority of innovations? Which healthcare system is expensive because of cutting edge technology that isn't offered elsewhere?

Yes, I'm biased and yes, you can find excellent care around the world, but I stand by my statement.

 

[solemole]

Would that be the same "free world" whose healthcare costs are subsidized by the United States' Defense budget and the same "free world" that enjoys the innovations, procedures and drugs produced by the for-profit United States healthcare system?

Um, U.S. Defense budget is about 1-2% of the whole U.S. budget.

Mind these 3 points:

• For those who complain about the "complexities" of ACA and 3rd party payments, this is why single payer universal healthcare should have been in place from the get-go.
  
  
• 7 million people get health insurance for free! Those, who otherwise would not consider buying health insurance, because they consider themselves healthy enough and find no need to see doctors often, would get health insurance FOR FREE. They would buy the bronze plan; and if they can't even afford that, Medicaid (if the States were humane enough) would fill in the payment for premiums.
  
  And in case, God forbid, they ever need emergency services, the costs would be off-set by everyone else who have paid into the mandatory healthcare system.
  
  Whereas before, by duty and oath, doctors would HAVE TO take in those with no insurance, and in most cases, two scenarios would happen: 1.) Hospital takes the hit for costs, if patient absolutely cannot pay up. 2.) Those, who could barely pay, would have to pay "a leg and an arm" to save the other leg.
  
  
• U.S. heatlthcare are inefficient in terms of costs to long-term outcomes.
  From University of California, Santa Cruz:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Can you see how backwards U.S. healthcare is, to spend so much per capita, only to have its life expectancy rank 27th in the world?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Empire: This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

 

[INDY500]

Um, U.S. Defense budget is about 1-2% of the whole U.S. budget.

Um, try 20%.

Mind these 3 points:

For those who complain about the "complexities" of ACA and 3rd party payments, this is why single payer universal healthcare should have been in place from the get-go.

Single payer by definition is a 3rd party payer.

[*] 7 million people get health insurance for free! Those, who otherwise would not consider buying health insurance, because they consider themselves healthy enough and find no need to see doctors often, would get health insurance FOR FREE. They would buy the bronze plan; and if they can't even afford that, Medicaid (if the States were humane enough) would fill in the payment for premiums.

Why not FREE health care for all? What could be cheaper than FREE? What could be more humane than FREE?

And in case, God forbid, they ever need emergency services, the costs would be off-set by everyone else who have paid into the mandatory healthcare system.

Oh, so it isn't really FREE is it? Someone else is being compelled (that's what mandatory means) to pay for it or render services at no cost.

Whereas before, by duty and oath, doctors would HAVE TO take in those with no insurance, and in most cases, two scenarios would happen: 1.) Hospital takes the hit for costs, if patient absolutely cannot pay up. 2.) Those, who could barely pay, would have to pay "a leg and an arm" to save the other leg.


[*] U.S. heatlthcare are inefficient in terms of costs to long-term outcomes.
From University of California, Santa Cruz:

Can you see how backwards U.S. healthcare is, to spend so much per capita, only to have its life expectancy rank 27th in the world?
[/LIST]

Meaningless. As one example, the fact that thousands of youths are killed each year in drug or gang related activities impacts life expectancy but hardly reflects on the healthcare system.

 

[solemole]

OK. You're right. Defense is 20%. But majority of the pie is for the social net, to catch those who fall through the cracks. That includes unemployment, Medicare, and Social Security.

But my understanding is: single payer would mean you pay you're share through taxes, and you walk in and out of the hospital, pretty much without paying much or at all.

 

[BoMac]

But my understanding is: single payer would mean you pay you're share through taxes, and you walk in and out of the hospital, pretty much without paying much or at all.

That's the way it works in Canada (I know, I know. Nobody cares). And I didn't have to sign up anywhere. I signed up the day I was born.

Recently, I've had to go to my family doctor. He checked me out, then ordered an exam at the hospital. They called me shortly afterward and set up an appointment for later that week.

I had my follow-up appointment today (it's all good) and not one cent came out of my pocket. It all comes from taxes, which I gladly pay because, while our system is far from perfect, I believe in universal health care. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

 

[nathan1977]

I'm sorry to have to do this, but

you pay you're share

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.

 

[PhilsFan]

Good grammar is something we can all get behind. KILL THAT YOU'RE WITH FIRE.

 

[solemole]

I'm sorry to have to do this, but

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.

Chill.. I'm on my mobile.

 

[nathan1977]

How Obamacare will change employer-provided insurance - CBS News

...In the years to come, some workers with employer-provided benefits will see their benefits scaled back because of an Obamacare tax. That portion of the law -- known as the "Cadillac tax" -- isn't set to take effect until 2018, but it's already influencing the benefits packages that employers offer.

"Every employer plan since the passage of the health care law has been working to make sure their health care cost trends keep their plans under the 'Cadillac tax,'" Steve Wojcik of the National Business Group on Health, a nonprofit that represents large employers, told CBSNews.com.

The administration's argument for the individual market applies to the employer-based market: No one with health insurance should expect to keep their current plan forever.

"The expectation was never there that a plan is going to be set in stone for any length of time," Wojcik said. "Plans should adopt to new evidence and new benefits practices -- they shouldn't be set in stone... We've wanted to do something about health care costs growing out of control."

That said, Wojcik added, the "Cadillac tax" is "bringing more immediacy" to the issue, prompting employers to scale back plans they wouldn't otherwise, "with the 2018 deadline looming."

"The clear expectation was and is that the 'Cadillac tax' -- the tax on high-cost health plans -- will cause those [employers offering] highly generous plans to pare back benefits somewhat so that they won't be subject to the tax," Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, explained to CBSNews.com. "It's not going to affect a large number of people to begin with, but it is significant in the longer run in terms of its potential to hold down health care costs."

In 2018, the rule will impose a 40 percent excise tax on employee benefits exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. In 2013, the average employer-sponsored for individuals cost $5,884 and the average family plan cost $16,351.

The impact of the tax is concerning to labor groups that have fought with employers for good benefits.

"Yes, if you like your plan, you can keep it, unless you have great benefits," Lindsay McLaughlin, legislative director for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, told CBSNews.com.

Employers are taking a number of steps to lower their cost of coverage ahead of the tax's implementation, Wojcik said, such as stepping up wellness programs, narrowing provider networks, encouraging the use of non-physician health care providers for basic care and increasing cost sharing.

"If employees have more cost sharing not in terms of premiums, then they're more mindful when they access health care to choose a more efficient provider or say, 'You know, I don't need to go to the doctor every time I have a cough," Wojcik explained.

In exchange for cutting benefits, employers should in theory compensate workers with higher wages, Van de Water said.

McLaughlin said his organization is skeptical of that theory. Furthermore, he said, that's beside the point -- employees want good benefits. Whenever the ILWU negotiates a contract he said, its members always prioritize a strong benefits package.

"For as long as I've been working here, no takeaways on health and welfare benefits seems to be at the top of the list," he said. "I don't buy the argument our members are over-utilizing the system... I don't know many people who enjoy sitting in doctors' offices."

When Trader Joe's decided to eliminate health insurance for part-time employees, the company said it would instead cut those workers a $500 check. Wojcik said he hasn't seen any other evidence so far of employers substituting higher wages for health benefits.

 

[cobl04]

New U.S. rules require equal insurance coverage for mental ills | Reuters

 

[mama cass]

i thought this was absolutely brilliant!

Occupy Wall Street activists buy $15m of Americans' personal debt | World news | theguardian.com

A group of Occupy Wall Street activists has bought almost $15m of Americans' personal debt over the last year as part of the Rolling Jubilee project to help people pay off their outstanding credit.

Rolling Jubilee, set up by Occupy's Strike Debt group following the street protests that swept the world in 2011, launched on 15 November 2012. The group purchases personal debt cheaply from banks before "abolishing" it, freeing individuals from their bills.

By purchasing the debt at knockdown prices the group has managed to free $14,734,569.87 of personal debt, mainly medical debt, spending only $400,000.

"We thought that the ratio would be about 20 to 1," said Andrew Ross, a member of Strike Debt and professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University. He said the team initially envisaged raising $50,000, which would have enabled it to buy $1m in debt.

"In fact we've been able to buy debt a lot more cheaply than that."

The group is able to buy debt so cheaply due to the nature of the "secondary debt market". If individuals consistently fail to pay bills from credit cards, loans, or medical insurance the bank or lender that issued the funds will eventually cut its losses by selling that debt to a third party. These sales occur for a fraction of the debt’s true values – typically for five cents on the dollar – and debt-buying companies then attempt to recoup the debt from the individual debtor and thus make a profit.

The Rolling Jubilee project was mostly conceived as a "public education project", Ross said.

"We're under no illusions that $15m is just a tiny drop in the secondary debt market. It doesn't make a dent in the amount of debt.

"Our purpose in doing this, aside from helping some people along the way – there's certainly many, many people who are very thankful that their debts are abolished – our primary purpose was to spread information about the workings of this secondary debt market."

The group has focussed on buying medical debt, and has acquired the $14.7m in three separate purchases, most recently spending $13.5m on medical debt owed by 2,693 people across 45 states and Puerto Rico, Rolling Jubilee said in a press release.

“No one should have to go into debt or bankruptcy because they get sick,” said Laura Hanna, an organiser with the group. Hanna said 62% of all personal bankruptcies have medical debt as a contributing factor.

Due to the nature of the debt market, the group is unable to specify whose debt it purchases, taking on the amounts before it discovers individuals’ identities. When Rolling Jubilee has bought the debt they send notes to their debtors “telling them they’re off the hook”, Ross said.

Ross, whose book, Creditocracy and the case for debt refusal, outlines the problems of the debt industry and calls for a “debtors’ movement” to resist credit, said the group had received letters from people whose debt they had lifted thanking them for the service. But the real victory was in spreading knowledge of the nature of the debt industry, he said.

"Very few people know how cheaply their debts have been bought by collectors. It changes the psychology of the debtor, knowing this.

“So when you get called up by the debt collector, and you're being asked to pay the full amount of your debt, you now know that the debt collector has bought your debt very, very cheaply. As cheaply as we bought it. And that gives you moral ammunition to have a different conversation with the debt collector."

 

[Irvine511]

some numbers on "the best healthcare system in the world":

In 2013, more than one-third (37%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 4 percent to 6 percent in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Roughly 40 percent of both insured and uninsured U.S. respondents spent $1,000 or more out-of-pocket during the year on medical care, not counting premiums. High deductibles and cost-sharing, along with no limits on out-of-pocket costs, may explain why even insured people in the U.S. struggled to afford needed health care, the researchers said.

Nearly one-quarter (23%) of U.S. adults either had serious problems paying medical bills or were unable to pay them, compared with fewer than 13 percent of adults in the next-highest country, France, and 6 percent or fewer in the U.K., Sweden, and Norway.

About one of three (32%) U.S. adults spent a lot of time dealing with insurance paperwork and disputes or were either denied payment for a claim or paid less than expected. Only 25 percent of adults in Switzerland, 19 percent in the Netherlands, and 17 percent in Germany—all countries with competitive health insurance markets—reported these problems. U.S. insurers spent $606 per person on administrative costs, more than twice the amount in the next-highest country. Such high costs result from a complex, fragmented insurance system, the researchers write.

The vast majority (75%) of U.S. adults said their health system needs to undergo fundamental changes or be rebuilt completely.

The U.S. spends $8,508 per person on health care. That is nearly $3,000 more per person than Norway, the second-highest spender.

Access, Affordability, and Insurance Complexity Are Often Worse in the United States Compared to 10 Other Countries - The Commonwealth Fund

we spend more and get less.

(health care) socialism now!

 

[Dfit00]

It was the best in the world if you are in the top say 3-5%.

For everyone else, it's far below what your neighbours to the north have and what the Europeans have and the Australians have. Many Americans just are unable to understand and/or admit this.

Most people on this thread would NEVER have the benefit of the "best healthcare in the world." That's reserved for people several socioeconomic rungs above.

You know I have driven all over Lagos and I think it's actually very beautiful.

 

[INDY500]

Saying "we fumbled the rollout," President Barack Obama announced a fix to the vexing problem of canceled health insurance policies Thursday. He told insurers they don’t have to cancel plans next year just because of the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers can continue the plans for 2014 on two conditions — they have to tell people what their plans don’t cover, and they have to let people know they do have the option of going onto the health insurance exchanges to buy new plans with federal government subsidies and perhaps go onto Medicaid.

"Insurers can extend current plans that otherwise would have been canceled in 2014," Obama said.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration sneaked in a rule that would let some labor unions off the hook for an ObamaCare tax.
After publicly rejecting the unions’ request for an exemption, the Department of Health and Human Services last week quietly gave the unions a pass on what would have been a massive tax hit.
The tax, known as the reinsurance fee, requires self-insured organizations, such as unions and some large companies, to pay $63 for each covered member and an additional $63 for each additional family member on a health plan.

"It's the law of the land"*


* details and conditions subject to change by executive fiat for political purposes.

 

[anitram]

You know I have driven all over Lagos and I think it's actually very beautiful.

?

 

[nbcrusader]

"It's the law of the land"*


* details and conditions subject to change by executive fiat for political purposes.

And only be executive fiat. A house bill to fulfill Obama's "fix" to cover Obama's lie was met with a promise of a veto.