OT: Mixed reviews

Page 2 of 2  
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:23:26 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

So what you are proud this was Hillary's dream?

By your admission the people were not helped by this, but the insurance companies became wealthier and you're saying that's a good thing?

Here is where I don't follow you. You say millions of people would be without jobs because of the certain collapse of the health insurance industry if there was a single-payer system instituted, but you don't say how many new government jobs will be needed to keep the wheels turning. If history is any indicator there will be many more government workers required to provide the same level of service that the private health care insurance companies provide with their "millions" of workers.

No one is forced to buy insurance from any corporation, at least not until the anointed one made his proclamation saying you can't keep your insurance or your doctor. Why couldn't one be self insured?

We have heard testimony of how health care has suffered in those countries as a result.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/8/2016 5:16 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:

Such as Canadians who come to the USA for medical care? Well, they did before Oh Bomb Us signed that monstrosity.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Typical ER at least in this country.

I don't think so at least in the main. Your statement implies that they knew what ailed them and they had pre-existing conditions that were the cause of their problems and they simply didn't do anything about it. Try a different explanation: You were probably complaining about the wait time and this "blame the victim" response was the easiest way out especially as the lackeys you spoke to personally probably can't do anything.
It's very hard to accurately assess blame: incompetent medical personell, stupid and ignorant population, poor education system, tax-adverse republicans <heh, heh>, too high expectations fostered by a excitement-based media, money-grubbing touchie-feelies trying to effect social change on the back of medicine, overpaid and underworked academics; oh yeah, and as an afterthought: rapacious greedy capitalists -- are all part of the problem.
And you don't "go to" Obamacare." It's simply a financing means to spread the costs of moderate income people over their entire group. Moderate income because the better off are already insured at work, the oldies are taken care of by Medicare, the really poor by Medicaid, and the veterans by the VA. That leaves the young especially those in starter jobs and those who think they'll never be ill. What better group to make pay for their own health care on a group basis. So the care of a diabetic female working a minimum wage job will be paid by all those other non-diabetic minimum wage workers. IOW it's not insurance; it's taxation of one group of near-poor to pay for the health care of another (hopefully smaller) group of near-poor.

Oh yeah, and just what experience do you have in diagnosing medical conditions? Sorry, that was a bit harsh, but you should realize that some conditions don't result in screaming in pain, excessive bleeding, vomiting, uncontrollable diarhea, inability to breathe, etc. In fact such people would normally be seen first so you wouldn't even notice them.
As to your "check-up" comment, do you realize that an ER visit will be billed at a minimum of about $1200. That's what the bloodsuckers will try and extract from you if you have no insurance. Speaking personally, under my super-duper insurance policy an ER visit still costs me $200 and of the balance the insurance company pays about $300 and the rest is "discount". Very expensive "check-up"!

Nonsense. An attempt to install a health care insurance system was tried by Nixon IIRC.
Obama promised changes in the current system and the drafting was largely led by the chairman of the appropriate committee in the house. (I believe he's now the ambassador to somewhere.) But Obama was heavily involved in poisoning the well and giving away large chunks of the original proposals to the moneyed interests such as protecting the pharmaceutical industry, the doctors, nurses, hospital workers, and all sorts of overpaid parasites. Not to mention the oldies with Medicare and the touchie-feelies and their clients with Medicaid. In one particularly egregious example he agreed to nullify the cost-sharing by the state (one of the fly-over group) for Medicaid if the senators of that state would vote for his bill. Oh, no Obama was in it up to his eyeballs.

Of course not, most other countries run a tax-based sytem which covers everyone, hence no pretence at insurance.
But the insurers are actually a good thing and they do a reasonable job of keeping the costs down by negotiating a dollar amount for each procedure called "allowed costs". If you think it's bad now think what would happen if everyone was able to charge what they'd like.

Neither person said this was a "good thing" nor was Muggles saying it people were not "helped".

That might be a minor reason but I don't think our elected officials are smart enough to reason that deeply.

Undoubtedly there would be workers required to manage any new system however a lot of jobs would simply disappear. For example, you don't need anybody to sell policies, nor to negotiate allowed costs. And we already have many of the other people already in place in such agencies as the Health Care Financing Administration dealing with such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. More bits rolling through the computers don't require more people.
I'll give you an example that could (if the giveaway wasn't supported by certain senators) be changed to save millions. In the current systems all of the procedures are coded by the provider and reimbursement is based on the coding. You'd think this would be a no brainer to have one code for Medicare (say) and apply it to the entire panalopy of insurers. You'd be wrong. Most have different coding systems usually constructed by outside companies and jealously guarded by them. Just think of the extra work, not only at the insurance company but at every provider in the country. My urologist (a one-man show) has a coder employed just for this and she even has an assistant.

You know the answer to this! But I'll tell you anyway. Because the cost of health care is so high (sometimes necesarily so) that only the ultra-rich would be able to put up the money when something catastrophic occurs. Do you have any idea how much long-term treatment costs for one of those highly photogenic kids suffening from leukemia?
For the rest it would be bankruptcy and then the spreading of the resulting uncollected costs over all of us.

We've also heard how satisfied most Canadians and British are with their systems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/8/2016 4:23 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Really? You think that MORE centralized control of your life will make your life better? That's so opposed to what the USA stands for.
Me, I want less central command, and more free market economy.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Obamacare has cut that number in half. Everyone knew in advance that as written it wouldn't cover everyone.

No it shouldn't be, and the Democrats with a few exceptions wanted universal health care, but conservatives wouldn't go along. So the Democrats compromised and despite that, they didn't get a single Republican vote, and after Teddy Kennedy died, they could barely pass it. But it passed 60 to 40 or 59 to 40, iirc, a big majority.
IIRC Hillarycare, which was the proposed program she and her staff developed in 1994 would have provided universal care, but conservatives didn't like that either. So Obamacare had a lot of compromises, and it would have gotten many Republican votes in 1994, and passed easily, but many sane Republicans have retired or even been defeated by tea-party types, so not only did they not vote for Obamacare, but they made the normal correction legislation, which corrects problems a year or two after a program goes into effect and unforeseen problems show up, unpassable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.