Obamacare to be MUCH MUCH More Expensive than promised!

[Ausm]

This, plus my edit in bold.

I agree also with this but I have read many disturbing Articles that President Obama threw single payer under the bus from the start yet he was "acting" like he was all for it on the stump...that REALLY pissed me off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You do realize that Medicare is a system that it is mandatory to pay into, and that you then automatically receive the insurance when you retire? The "compulsion" aspect of this bill is different in only one way: you have the option to not buy in and you then would pay a penalty which is considerably less than the cost of the insurance, and has a hardship exemption built in. With Medicare, you have only one option: to buy in. If you do not support Medicare in its current form, then this poses no problem for your criticism. Otherwise, it does pose a problem.

That "only" is significant. The government has the power to tax given explicitly. Medicare is compulsory however we are charged for a service rendered. That now changes to a negative where if the government wishes something it can compel you but since it doesn't make you actually do anything it's fine it seems. There is a principle change here that you appear to be overlooking because it's related to Obamacare. I'd find it objectionable if out was something I liked. The Constitution was founded on the principle of limited powers. This turns that on it's head where punishment for non compliance for a non granted power is permissible. Your counter seems to be that in this particular instance it's benign. That's immaterial. What is important is the endorsement of a precident which requires that we accept whatever is ordered is benign. That does not sound wise to me.

 

[dank69]

You and I have occasional differences but without the animosity that often accompanies disparate opinions especially on the internet. That being the case I've a question and it's not leading or an attempt at misleading. First to be clear about where I'm coming from I'm not one who is against reform, that is serious reform of a system that will be in real trouble within two decades at most. When health care reform was being discussed I hoped that this was what was being addressed but instead what we had given to us was woefully inadequate and demonstrative of the fact that people making decisions were lacking understanding and foresight. A bit more about me. I've worked for the government in capacities unrelated to health care, I have a doctorate and have research experience in biology, an undergrad in pharmacy (which is how I currently earn my living) and more. Consequently I have seen most of what is relevant regarding health care. I attend seminars on things generally beyond my scope of practice because frankly it's not an creative job I have. That exposes me to the thoughts and concerns of a great many bright minds who are also concerned about concrete issues that we do not have good answers for.

Now the Republicans have no idea, so I'm not saying they are an alternative, however when obama care was proposed any voice which opposed it for any reason was shouted down as vociferously as any Iraq war objector. Given that I believe you and others are genuinely interested in improvement why were we who wanted a greater depth of understanding by policy makers looked at as the enemy? Why was what was offered the acceptable alternative? I would have thought that our concerns were self evident. Perhaps that's due to my background . What's your opinion?

Regarding the bolded point above, from my viewpoint the animosity was a reaction to two general themes coming from the GOP at the time. The first, as was already mentioned here, is that the bill was largely based on GOP ideas but all of a sudden because Obama was pushing it, the ideas were objectionable. The second was the false accusations, the flat out lies conjured out of thin air. Examples include 'death panels' and 'Obamacare funds abortions with taxpayer money,' among others.

 

[ky54]

I agree also with this but I have read many disturbing Articles that President Obama threw single payer under the bus from the start yet he was "acting" like he was all for it on the stump...that REALLY pissed me off.

How much money do you think the government would save if we switched over to a complete single payer system? Could we pay off the debt?

 

[woolfe9999]

That "only" is significant. The government has the power to tax given explicitly. Medicare is compulsory however we are charged for a service rendered. That now changes to a negative where if the government wishes something it can compel you but since it doesn't fake you actually do anything it's fine it seems. There is a principle change here that you appear to be overlooking because it's related to Obamacare. I'd find it objectionable if out was something I liked. The Constitution was founded on the principle of limited powers. This turns that on it's head where punishment for non compliance for a non granted power is permissible. Your counter seems to be that in this particular instance it's benign. That's immaterial. What is important is the endorsement of a precident which requires that we accept whatever is ordered is benign. That does not sound wise to me.

I'm not arguing either is benign. I'm making a comparison between the two programs in terms of what they functionally do with respect to the issue of compulsion. Whether either program is "good" or "bad" on its merit is a separate issue.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are contrasting the two on Constitutional grounds. The argument is that Medicare is based on a "tax" which the Constitution specifically enumerates as a power of the federal government, whereas the money they compel you to pay under Obamacare is not a tax, but is instead being justified by an unreasonable expansion of Commerce Clause power? I disagree that it is unconstitutional based on existing Commerce Clause present. That, anyway, is only the legalistic aspect of the argument. From the standpoint of "liberty" - the compulsion isn't functionally all that different. In both cases you have no choice but to buy health insurance. It's just more indirect with Medicare since you pay it as a tax instead of buying the health insurance directly.

Ironically, under single payer - which would essentially be Medicare for all - your legal argument falls by the wayside, but the degree of total compulsion involved in that system would be much higher.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, the CBO is wrong?

I'm not even sure what that means. The CBO did the original projections, and they did these as well. You should probably go read the thread before you embarrass yourself.

 

[piasabird]

Told you so!

 

[ky54]

I'm not even sure what that means. The CBO did the original projections, and they did these as well. You should probably go read the thread before you embarrass yourself.

Are all of your posts personal attacks?

 

[fskimospy]

Are all of your posts personal attacks?

What part of that post was a personal attack?

 

[ky54]

There's very little reason left to reply to you. Read the report.

 

[fskimospy]

There's very little reason left to reply to you. Read the report.

I have read the report. (well, the part under discussion) Unlike you apparently, I also know the history of previous reports. Hence, my suggestion.

 

[piasabird]

Claiming that a single payer system would save money is a big lie. The democrats in congress along with pelosi, and the president knew it was a lie from the get go. If you doubt this perhaps you are choosing not to live in reality.

 

[Ausm]

Claiming that a single payer system would save money is a big lie. The democrats in congress along with pelosi, and the president knew it was a lie from the get go. If you doubt this perhaps you are choosing not to live in reality.

Please post your Data backing this point I would love to see it.

 

[shira]

Now the Republicans have no idea, so I'm not saying they are an alternative, however when obama care was proposed any voice which opposed it for any reason was shouted down as vociferously as any Iraq war objector. Given that I believe you and others are genuinely interested in improvement why were we who wanted a greater depth of understanding by policy makers looked at as the enemy? Why was what was offered the acceptable alternative? I would have thought that our concerns were self evident. Perhaps that's due to my background . What's your opinion?

No one was offering substantive alternatives to Obamacare. I acknowledge that Obamacare is very flawed. But where were the plans - serious plans - that fixed the flaws and still met the basic objectives of Obamacare?

Even now, where are the alternatives? All I hear is "repeal Obamacare!" Shouldn't the chant instead be "Fix Obamacare?"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No one was offering substantive alternatives to Obamacare. I acknowledge that Obamacare is very flawed. But where were the plans - serious plans - that fixed the flaws and still met the basic objectives of Obamacare?

Even now, where are the alternatives? All I hear is "repeal Obamacare!" Shouldn't the chant instead be "Fix Obamacare?"

I' ve suggested a process and have let my representatives know. I realize I have zero influence but I know of many whom have also contacted theirs. Unfortunately they don't spend much time on the internet and let's face it only the options (or lack thereof) were those put forward by the big two parties. Were any other opinions wanted? I think not. Now it has been suggested that we get something in place and fix it later. Realistically when has that happened? Medicaid has been problematic for decades and not only had out not been reformed to any significant degree, a part of the solution is to put more on out. Yet this does nothing to facilitate changes needed. Who has an idea of what long term costs for treating age related dementias are? Apparently not those in charge who believe lowering costs is the same as cutting financial resources for treatment. Health care as a human creation is also highly complex in organization and not amenable to piecemeal solutions because an institutionalized suboptimal base to build upon creates more issues not fewer. Sometimes Alexanders solution to the Gordian knot isn't the best.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe more people should spend their time, even when online, coming up with solutions rather than fighting over what President is responsible for many things their own elected "representatives" put in place?

 

[Throckmorton]

So you would rather have obamacare and throw 50% of your income toward health care?

Medicare is one of the largest catagories of spending by the government. It is larger than SS. Now you want to make it over twice the size? You willing to pay a 70% tax?

Are you living in utopia?

Are you living in a utopia where insurance provided by private companies is free, while insurance provided by government isn't? In reality Medicare is cheaper than private insurance!

 

[Throckmorton]

Claiming that a single payer system would save money is a big lie. The democrats in congress along with pelosi, and the president knew it was a lie from the get go. If you doubt this perhaps you are choosing not to live in reality.

"Obamacare" isn't single payer.

Every country with single payer spends less than we do

 

[Ninjahedge]

Throck, I have one better for you.

Think of it this way, what would you prefer? WOuld you prefer your money going to a 3rd party insurance company, or to the doctor and nurses that took care of you?

If 25 cents out of every dollar that is spent on insurance never makes it to the medical professionals (as a standard), is that fair?

Now I do not have the stats on this, but I heard the overhead for Medicare and such is about 5% (as well as military medical.) While the organization for this may need to be looked at (scheduling and administration mostly), saving 20% on medical rates OR having the medical professionals getting 20% more is my idea of "fair".

We can also look to Canada for some ideas, with "supplemental" insurance guaranteeing more prompt care for those willing to pay.

I am not sure this would work all the way around, but all the people trying to blast OC out of the water (or worse yet, lace it with unnecessary baggage to vote for it) w/o actually doing something to help it are not doing anyone any favors.

 

[nobodyknows]

Maybe more people should spend their time, even when online, coming up with solutions rather than fighting over what President is responsible for many things their own elected "representatives" put in place?

Well said!

 

[shadow9d9]

Show me liberals who didn't vote for Obamacare.

Show me liberals that did. I see one socialist and the centrist/right democratic party. So, one.

 

[Joepublic2]

Hmm, I agree that it's terribly broken, horrendously expensive and completely unworkable, but I support it as it actually has a chance of breaking the current health care paradigm in the United States which is completely and utterly broken.

 

[Darwin333]

This is completely unhinged from reality. Why would people be paying a 70% tax on Medicare? Health care spending is about 16% of GDP. Why would we need to tax 70% to fulfill 16% of GDP?

The paranoid antigovernment fantasies on here are really something to behold.

Don't something like ALL the other countries with socialized medicine cover their ENTIRE population for less (per capita) than we do with a relative few people on Medicare?

 

[nobodyknows]

Don't something like ALL the other countries with socialized medicine cover their ENTIRE population for less (per capita) than we do with a relative few people on Medicare?

LOL, are you asking or telling. Why don't you google it and post some links rather then spreading rumors?

 

[Joepublic2]

Don't something like ALL the other countries with socialized medicine cover their ENTIRE population for less (per capita) than we do with a relative few people on Medicare?

Yes, and a big part of the reason is that it's less expensive on average to have one huge risk pool than multiple smaller risk pools. That and their systems are geared more towards preventative medicine rather than reactive medicine which catches problems and corrects them before they become hugely expensive life threatening issues like what happens with the uninsured (and poorly insured) in this country.