nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Minus the thousands of deaths and all
All of the deaths on Obama's watch occurred in Afghanistan....
Minus the thousands of deaths and all
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:
If you guys had what the rest of the free world has for just a week, you'd never go back.
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."
,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.
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?,
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.
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.
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...
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.
Single payer by definition is a 3rd party payer.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?
[/LIST]
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.
you pay you're share
I'm sorry to have to do this, but
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.
...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.
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
You know I have driven all over Lagos and I think it's actually very beautiful.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.
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.
You know I have driven all over Lagos and I think it's actually very beautiful.
"It's the law of the land"*
* details and conditions subject to change by executive fiat for political purposes.