Interesting questions about "ObamaCare"

[Shishkabob]

He's the same ding bat who threatened succession over taking stimulus money which included funding for fighting epidemic level diseases, and then immediately took emergency federal funding to help fight the swine flu.

No. He refused the federal stimulus money because it would then make Texas responsible for continuing the much lowered unemployment benefits. It had nothing to do with wanting/not wanting epidemic level diseases.

 

[Shishkabob]

Seriously, how can anyone in EMS be opposed to covering everyone in the US with care?

Again, I don't think anyone is against having everyone covered.


What we're against is the federal government running and funding it.

 

[bstone]

A few cents:

1) Mandate electronic everything

2) Mandate one universal referral form. My uncle who is a neurological Nurse Practitioner says he spends hours and hours filling out specific forms for each specific insurance company. None of the forms can be used for the others. Some insurance companies don't even accept the forms of one of their other states (eg BCBS-IL vs BCBS-MA...different forms, even tho they are both BCBS). It takes hours and hours for him to do all of this and that is time and money. Multiply that by a million. Yeah, lots of waste.

3) Allow people to buy a gov't funded insurance plan if they have tried and failed to get a private plan from 3 different insurers at a reasonable rate. If they are denied or the rates fall above X amount then they can get the public option.

 

[ffemt8978]

Just to add more fuel to the fire...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106979677

 

[Shishkabob]

As of this moment, the only idea I'd be willing to accept from the government in the way of "government controlled insurance" is having a mandated cap on the amount they can charge someone, by a percentage of income.


For the sake of argument, let's say the cap is 10%. If someone makes 100,000 a year, the max an insurance company can charge is $10,000. If someone makes 16k a year, max is $1600. It will then be up to the individual to research and buy their own.

 

[PapaBear434]

No. He refused the federal stimulus money because it would then make Texas responsible for continuing the much lowered unemployment benefits. It had nothing to do with wanting/not wanting epidemic level diseases.

Oh, I know WHY he didn't take it. But the fact of the matter is, he didn't take money that he may or may not have known was allocated for preventive measures to an epidemic threat, because he wanted to show how independent he was and how he was standing up to the big mean Democrat in the White House. He did it by saying "Keep your money, we don't need your hand outs!" and receiving thunderous applause from clueless Texans that still think they could leave the union and actually SURVIVE for more than a week."

Then, when an epidemic hit and was flowing over the border of Texas, he went to the feds and begged for a hand out.

Please, your argument deserves better than to be balanced on the top of a stool with a broken third leg that is this numbskull.

 

[ffemt8978]

How can people be so obtuse to rational arguments, so oblivious to facts, and so callous to your fellow man?

Because we're all individuals who have our own opinions on how things should be done. Sometimes people agree with you, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they agree with your "facts", and sometimes they have their own "facts".

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them obtuse, so I'm going to ask that you refrain from the name calling even in generalized terms.

 

[Shishkabob]

Oh, I know WHY he didn't take it. But the fact of the matter is, he didn't take money that he may or may not have known was allocated for preventive measures to an epidemic threat, because he wanted to show how independent he was and how he was standing up to the big mean Democrat in the White House.

No. Again, he didn't take the money because it would have put Texas in a bad position fiscally.


If he took the money, the state would have to lower their requirements to collect unemployment, and as such, would be forced to provide unemployment benefits to WAY more people when the federal money ran out.



Texas runs on a type of budget that every other state (CALIFORNIA!) and the Federal government should adopt-- a no deficit budget. Every 2 years, they make a budget. If money going out exceeds projected money coming in, the budget is rejected and reworked.

 

[PapaBear434]

Again, I don't think anyone is against having everyone covered.


What we're against is the federal government running and funding it.

Who else is going to do it? In so far, state-wise Massachusetts is the only one that has stepped up to that plate, and they are failing because it doesn't have a big enough healthy pool to help pay the round out.

Insurance companies? Malarkey. They won't do anything unless there is MASSIVE profits in it for them.

Someone has to step up. Every other country has figured this out. Are we not as smart as them? Or are we just greedier? Continuing with the status quo leaves us as wither stupid or greedy. I'd like to go for the third option.

 

[Shishkabob]

Correct, someone does, but NOT the federal government. It's not it's job, responsibility, or duty.


I don't know where the answer lays, but it sure isn't with the federal government run option.

 

[PapaBear434]

Because we're all individuals who have our own opinions on how things should be done. Sometimes people agree with you, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they agree with your "facts", and sometimes they have their own "facts".

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them obtuse, so I'm going to ask that you refrain from the name calling even in generalized terms.

But it is obtuse and willfully ignorant, hoss. They use arguments that can easily be disproven by looking at... You know, facts. Canada, Germany, France, Spain... Lithuania has a lower infant mortality rate than us, for god's sake.

Having an opinion is all fine and good. But some opinions deserve to be disregarded as ignorant, like when they fly in the face of every fact that has been presented. I don't put much cred in the current movement to prove that the President is a Kenyan sleeper cell agent, and I don't put much cred in people's arguments that a universal health care is going to makes us kill the old people and ration treatment to only those of use to "the State" when the entire world has evidence via systems that are currently working to prove the contrary.

 

[JPINFV]

Seriously, how can anyone in EMS be opposed to covering everyone in the US with care?

I don't know. How can any responsible person advocate letting the government make their decisions for them. Hey look, I can make blatantly sweeping statements too.

How can any thinking person not say "Hey, we are supposedly the best, richest country in the world, and yet we are the only industrialized nation who doesn't have a universal coverage for it's citizens" and yet in the same breath say that it's impossible and not able to be pulled off?

Yep. Other countries have it all figured out with their out of control government costs and long lines. Let's be like England where the dentists are all hitting their cap on patients and refusing to make any new appointments, period, because they won't be reimbursed. Hey, let's be like Canada where unless you're going to die within 24 hours, you get a nice long wait. There's a reason why a ton of Canadians come across the border to get surgery and procedures.

And if you forget the untrue FUD, you would see that those other countries love their systems outside of a few isolated cases, while almost anyone without huge coffers of cash at their disposal gets screwed in ours.

Yep, it's all ponies, and rainbows, and hearts over there. You think taxes are high now, just wait until it's a government insurance and everyone starts wanting every drug, procedure, and test because it's their "right."

How can people be so obtuse to rational arguments, so oblivious to facts, and so callous to your fellow man? It's not going to be a foreign army or terrorists that destroy America, it's going to be greed and willful ignorance in the electorate that takes us down from within.

How can people be so into government control to be oblivious to how their government is set up? How can people be so irresponsible to expect that the government's job is to bail them out all the time? It's not going to be a foreign army or terrorists that destroy America, it's going to be people who think that the government is the solution to any and all of their problems and should make all of their choices for them.

 

[Shishkabob]

But it is obtuse and willfully ignorant, hoss. They use arguments that can easily be disproven by looking at... You know, facts. Canada, Germany, France, Spain... Lithuania has a lower infant mortality rate than us, for god's sake.

What facts? I've seen no studies exclusively saying that the sole and only reason they have a higher living rate then us is their government run healthcare.


That is a purely coincidental "fact". I'm willing to bet the US has a much higher illicit drug usage per pregnant mother ratio. Willing to bet that more of our mothers drink while preggo.


There are a million explanations, and you can't limit it JUST to free healthcare vs paid.

 

[PapaBear434]

Correct, someone does, but NOT the federal government. It's not it's job, responsibility, or duty.


I don't know where the answer lays, but it sure isn't with the federal government run option.

So, you don't know what would work. But you know it's not what is being suggested.

Right now, 50 million don't have insurance, and even more than that have insurance that won't be there for them when they need it. And we have about 40+ examples around the world of other systems that work, and are generally working well and have huge approval numbers from the people involved in it. Why, exactly, do we think this won't work when everyone else has done it?

 

[JPINFV]

There are a million explanations, and you can't limit it JUST to free healthcare vs paid.

Oh shush. We wouldn't want little things like facts and confounding variables to get into the way of big government.

 

[Shishkabob]

So, you don't know what would work. But you know it's not what is being suggested.

Right now, 50 million don't have insurance, and even more than that have insurance that won't be there for them when they need it. And we have about 40+ examples around the world of other systems that work, and are generally working well and have huge approval numbers from the people involved in it. Why, exactly, do we think this won't work when everyone else has done it?

Why don't I think it will work / work as well for us?

How many countries having a 300,000,000+ population?




I hate that "50 million" statistic, because it's misleading. How many of that 50million CHOOSE not to be covered? I bet it's way more then you think or the pro-UHC group is willing to admit.

 

[PapaBear434]

Oh shush. We wouldn't want little things like facts and confounding variables to get into the way of big government.

Oh, shush your nonsense. This isn't even a single payer system like Canada, England, or any of the others. It's a "public option," which just gives people a backup plan when their for-profit insurance doesn't work for them.

If that destroys the insurance companies, they deserve to die. They just couldn't compete. Isn't' that was capitalism is all about? Why are you against competition? What are you, a socialist?

And to whomever brought up long lines, dentists not taking appointments, and all that other stuff: That's the FUD, guys. Fear, uncertainty, doubt. I have family members who live in Canada, and they have yet to have anything like that happen. I was injured in Canada, and as an American citizen I was charged a grand total of $50 USD for a torn rotator cuff. Then, I got back to the states, and a single session of rehab cost me $650, with co-pay from Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

Besides, how would it be different than today? How many calls do we get where people are just calling us because they think it will get them to the head of the line in the ED? How many times have you seen people bleeding and broken, sitting in the waiting room? How many times have you seen someone get denied treatment as "experimental," even though it's a perfectly accepted and standard practice, because the insurance companies don't want to pay?

It's all fear.

 

[PapaBear434]

Why don't I think it will work / work as well for us?

How many countries having a 300,000,000+ population?




I hate that "50 million" statistic, because it's misleading. How many of that 50million CHOOSE not to be covered? I bet it's way more then you think or the pro-UHC group is willing to admit.

Who would choose NOT to be covered? People who aren't covered are usually too broke to afford it or have a "pre-existing condition" that makes them uncoverable.

Yeah, perfectly healthy 25 year olds may not get health care. Probably because they are fresh out of college and trying to start their life. But some might be idiots. But even idiots need health care, and right now those idiots are dragging down our national economy every time they need treatment and go to the ER for help.

It's amazing how many more people would go into the Doctor for preventative measures if we had a system that didn't punish you for doing so.

 

[Sasha]

I hate that "50 million" statistic, because it's misleading. How many of that 50million CHOOSE not to be covered? I bet it's way more then you think or the pro-UHC group is willing to admit.

Have you looked at the hike in insurance cost for just being overweight? It's outrageous. Many people can't afford to pay out a third of their rent a month for insurance and have to live and hope they will never need health care.

 

[Shishkabob]

No, plenty of people opt not to buy insurance (foolishly or not) because they are healthy and think they don't need it.



Another gripe I have with this proposed plan-- it fines people to choosing not to be covered. So much for freedom of choice.

And it also fines small businesses for not offering it. My family owns a small business with about 40 employees. We don't offer insurance. If we were to offer insurance, we'd have to lose atleast 10 of our employees. That's all our economy needs right now... more laid off sick people.