"Obama Care" versus wishful thinking

Like food and shelter, healthcare has quite a bit of subsidies involved (think medical education being subsidized, plus the obvious, like Medicaid/Medicare). Wrongly, in my opinion.

Food is subsidized or freely available to those who need it: think WIC and food stamps. Or, heck, agricultural subsidies.

Shelter is subsidized or freely available: think Section 8 and mortgage tax deductions.

All this does is distort markets, which is unfair to everyone.
 
But HOW MUCH do these distort the market? Excessive costs and profits to and from landlords plus gentrification and overproduction of the bedrm/2 bath mcmansions have hurt the market much worse, as well as foreign property owners with the only thought being optimization of profit.

OK, insurance companies depend upon a large pool of well individuals paying in plus investment and other stuff to offset inflation, overhead, and executive compensation. Without the pool of non-claiming individuals any honest insurance fund dries up.

The stereotypes of hordes of hidden Cheetoh-munchin', Cable TV-stealin', welfare-cheatin', unlicensed single mothers driving Cadillacs (or whatever, Altimas maybe?) and people using workman's comp as a paid holiday may have a few toes on the edge of reality, but these are not present in the numbers you may think, given the speeches we hear. (If they were, Congress would look a lot different than it does today and there would be no trouble passing pork bills besides those to monolithic food companies, war-related contractors, and OPEC allies).

It is little wonder that the strongest critics do the poorest in more-educated states.

All right, I give up. We'll get your's and mine then pull up the ladder, and if you weaken, I'll get yours too and toss you overboard.

What a country!:)
 
Food doesn't generally have the potential to rack up a $300,000 bill or run you 5+ grand a month if you aren't insured through your employer. On the same side of the coin, if you change employers or become unemployed you don't lose your food benefits. Your grocery store won't ban you for having a pre-existing condition. Besides food does have subisidies if you can't afford it.

A PROPERLY run and funded National Health Care system is exactly what the government was formed to do. The trick is that PROPERLY part... can we get it done with the level of graft and back room wheeling and dealing that is part and parcel of Capitol Hill?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not against universal healthcare, I'm just not understanding how this country can afford to do so. Although on that note, the federal government does provide health insurance for about 2/3 of the population already.

A single payer system is CHEAPER than our current system. But that requires everyone to pay up in taxes. Increasing taxes on an already overburdened population just doesn't make sense at the moment.
 
phideux said:
If you read the Obama healthcare monstrosity, you really see how little it has to do with healthcare, and is just another monster bill with tons and tons of pork thrown in it.
Why does a healthcare bill authorize the hiring of thousands of additional IRS agents?
Why does a healthcare bill authorize the purchase of thousands of shotguns for the IRS?
Why does a healthcare bill make any and every transaction over $599.00, business or personal, generate a 1099???
Click to expand...

Could you post the source for this info? I'm having a hard time finding it in any of the bill summaries.
 
I could've sworn the 1099 component was repealed...?
 
mycrofft said:
But HOW MUCH do these distort the market? Excessive costs and profits to and from landlords plus gentrification and overproduction of the bedrm/2 bath mcmansions have hurt the market much worse, as well as foreign property owners with the only thought being optimization of profit.
Click to expand...

The McMansions are subsidized as well, that is, if the people buying them with a mortgage are competent at filing their taxes. If anything, the McMansions receive a larger subsidy than low-income folks who receive assistance. Subsidies for housing, namely support for large homes and the tax deduction for mortgages, is a distortion — and usually a harmful one.

I'd be ok with housing subsidies of the Section 8 type, but I'd 100% support removal of the mortgage tax deduction and similar types of subsidies for individuals who will already be purchasing all the housing they need (and more than they need) without the government getting involved to help them out. It's social engineering, plain and simple — it's crazy.
 
Mycrofft, really? The people who want it are the people who need it most? ;) Tell us more... But the people who don't want it are the people who don't need it... c'mon you're trying a little too hard to troll now... :P
 
The people who need it need it badly. No one doesn't want it, eventually. ;)

I'm speaking as an old coot (paying $2000 a month for basic health insurance with a $500 basic deductible), and from two years being one of the gatekeepers for government dollars going to real patients. I caught cheaters and cut them off, and I had to explain to people why their care was delayed so long that it made their ultimate condition worse. Telling me about how our country doesn't need a medical safety net that works would be like me telling current active street PEMS people that bandages and oxygen are overrated and all bleeding stops eventually, haha wink wink.

Holding up the "bloody shirt" of "cheaters" to scuttle the whole deal is like Syria calling peaceful demonstrators armed gangs trained in Libya then using tanks on them.

If anything, the people with the most to gain gaming the systems are providers, especially the smaller providers who become welfare mills (just as they bilk workman's comp now). It's demonizing the people who truly need it by supporting a popular stereotype people can blame and throw slurs at.

If this is just about cheating recipients, then why are big medical companies and lobbying interests the ones fighting it so hard, when this sort of payment would get them more cents on the dollar for emergency and indigent care cases?

Sidetrack: I'm retired directly from Guard without combat time, so I have to wait until age 60 to collect TRICARE or use VA unless they have combat related issues, as of 1995 or so. Pres Obama said to TRICARE "Open up to retired Guard". TRICARE said "No, we don't think so". Thanks, America.
 
In fact, any reply including characterizations of cheating, lying, don't deserve it, Godless heathens gets this well-earned reply:

Dumb-Dumber-La-la-la-la-la.jpg

"LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA"
 
I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure if my comments are welcome here. So tell me to go away, if you want.

As an outsider, I see something that surprises me:

* As a nation, you are paying more per capita, and as a percentage of your GDP for health care than any other.

* Yet a large percentage of your population is uninsured, and many of you are paying very high insurance premiums.

It seems like there's a problem there. If the Swedes, or the Germans, or whoever, can deliver a better health care system, for less money, and universally insure their populations, at a lower cost --- why can't the US do the same?

This isn't even simply a question of taxation, it's not like your system has less money to work with -- it has more, much more, in some cases -- than many universal systems, and yet it performs poorer.

I'm not sure I understand the full details of the health care reforms that the Democrats tried to introduce, but I can't imagine how anyone can be happy with the status quo.
 
If you read the story of Jesus backwards, it's about a guy who takes away healthcare and food for the needy, while allowing the money-changers to keep running the Temple. Only by implementing it backwards can you arrive at American Right thinking. --Johnny O'Coileain, Crackpot Chronicle Staff
 
systemet said:
I don't live in the US, so I'm not sure if my comments are welcome here. So tell me to go away, if you want.

As an outsider, I see something that surprises me:

* As a nation, you are paying more per capita, and as a percentage of your GDP for health care than any other.

* Yet a large percentage of your population is uninsured, and many of you are paying very high insurance premiums.

It seems like there's a problem there. If the Swedes, or the Germans, or whoever, can deliver a better health care system, for less money, and universally insure their populations, at a lower cost --- why can't the US do the same?

This isn't even simply a question of taxation, it's not like your system has less money to work with -- it has more, much more, in some cases -- than many universal systems, and yet it performs poorer.

I'm not sure I understand the full details of the health care reforms that the Democrats tried to introduce, but I can't imagine how anyone can be happy with the status quo.
Click to expand...

The tax system is different in Europe, the brackets are different and the govt takes in more money depending on pay.

My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so
 
Bullets said:
The tax system is different in Europe, the brackets are different and the govt takes in more money depending on pay.
Click to expand...

It's even different within Europe, given that it includes over 40 different countries! :)

But, you guys are still paying more per capita, and perhaps even more astonishingly (as you have the world's largest economy) more per unit GDP.

You already have the more expensive option! You're paying more for a system that doesn't cover your entire population, and is very expensive for many of the people it does cover, and costs more than countries like Germany or Sweden pay for theirs.


My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so
Click to expand...

I can't understand that way of thinking. Obviously you're entitled to your personal beliefs, but I just don't get it.

We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go. We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools. We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy. We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use. Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.

We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?

I've been very lucky to always live somewhere where health care hasn't been an issue. Sure, if I decide I want to go see a chiro or physiotherapist, and it falls outside of whatever number of visits the state system allows me, I have to go to a family doctor and get a prescription, so that it's covered. I might pay a nominal fee for prescription medication, if my employer benefits don't cover it, or maybe to rent a wheelchair if I break a leg. But no one is ever going to give me a bill for getting cancer, and say, "Too bad, sell your house".

To me, that's just part of a stable society. It's just a basic safety net.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
systemet said:
We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go. We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools. We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy. We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use. Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.

We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?
Click to expand...

Well said and amazing/depressing that is how it is.
 
Bullets said:
My issue with obamacare is that I should not be forced to carry insurance if I dont feel I need it. If I just want to carry major medical or catastrophic insurance, thats my choice not the govt. If I'm in a position to afford or need more coverage then I can do so
Click to expand...

Most people don't feel like they need it until they do, do you follow me? And then it's too late because they have "pre-existing conditions". (Something the reform will ban insurance companies from doing.)

I'm a careful driver, I shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance, right? I shouldn't be penalized for not wearing a seatbelt, right? In the latter case, it only hurts me if I get in an accident so why should the government have any say on whether I strap in or not?

Public safety, that's why.



systemet said:
We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go. We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools. We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy. We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use. Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.

We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?

To me, that's just part of a stable society. It's just a basic safety net.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
The Universal healtcare that I have seen is from Canada:
A friend was living there He was getting severe headaches that were so bad he couldn't work, and he finally went blind in one eye. He had to go on government welfare due to not being able to work.

He went in to see his doctor, and was sent to see an eye specialist: that took 4 months. The eye specialist suspected a tumor and scheduled him for a CT. That took 7 months.
CT confirmed a tumor so they scheduled him for surgery; it wasn't emergent because it wasn't going to kill him. (Pain was so severe he was on narcotics for it, and couldn't even leave the house): so surgery took another 6 months to do.
he was back to work 2 weeks after the surgery: from 1st appt to surgery was 17 months. But it was free.


In the US if you have this; you go to your doctor, see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in a few days; all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics: but you have to pay for part of it.
 
systemet said:
We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go. We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools. We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy. We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use. Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
The Western European countries provide universal health care for less than the US spends on health care.

The model is obvious. The benefits are obvious. Some people simply hate Europe and thus hate this idea of providing for people.
 
johnrsemt said:
In the US if you have this; you go to your doctor, see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in a few days; all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics: but you have to pay for part of it.
Click to expand...

Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top