People complainign their insurance is going up with the ACA

[boomerang]

I got the "pun". The working middle class is going to take it up the butt. In third world countries there is not a middle class, only lower and upper class. The USA is heading toward the majority serving their kings.

Revamping our healthcare system is the vehicle for a massive takeover of the economy by our government. It's an enormous redistribution scheme. I refer to it as a scheme because anyone not drinking the kool-aid can see that it's pretty near unworkable from the health care perspective.

Our current government is hell-bent on social justice, fairness and the equal distribution of misery. They're doing a pretty good job of that. We've got legions of young adults that are products of our school systems who were taught that our country is bad, does bad things and that it must change so that everyone will have more, do less and be happy, happy, happy.

Everything has meshed together pretty well. It's taken about 100 years to bring it about.

It won't work. It never has. The elite will still exist. They will have far, far more than they do right now and they will be running the show. Eventually people will wake up and the blood will flow. The question is will it be literally or figuratively? Stay tuned.

On a side note, remember that if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck.

 

[bshole]

Revamping our healthcare system is the vehicle for a massive takeover of the economy by our government.

I just wish they would hurry up about it. We NEED socialized medicine NOW! This is the 21st century for god's. Employer supplied health care insurance is an antiquidated notion whose time has past. Employers don't want to bother with it anymore and who can blame them. Why should a private company supply health insurance for it's employees? Why is it their responsibility?

 

[Pens1566]

So please explain how people that are so happy with their healthcare go to other countries to get procedures and operations at a much greater cost than doing it in their home country?

They go because it's either elective, or not immediately necessary. And they don't always pay for it. If it is deemed a valid medical reason their socialized govt. health care pays for it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They go because it's either elective, or not immediately necessary. And they don't always pay for it. If it is deemed a valid medical reason their socialized govt. health care pays for it.

What about the patients that do such due to wait times for the services being too long?

 

[fskimospy]

What about the patients that do such due to wait times for the services being too long?

That is certainly a downside to the Canadian system. Still, US costs are about 60% higher as a percentage of GDP than Canada's, yet vastly more Canadians are happy with their health care system than Americans are.

Spend less, like it more? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

 

[WackyDan]

I just wish they would hurry up about it. We NEED socialized medicine NOW! This is the 21st century for god's. Employer supplied health care insurance is an antiquidated notion whose time has past. Employers don't want to bother with it anymore and who can blame them. Why should a private company supply health insurance for it's employees? Why is it their responsibility?

I'm a conservative and I can see the value of single payer. That said, I'd much prefer a tiered approach to single payer in the U.S.

This is the middle ground for me on single payer is a tiered approach. If you are a productive member of society you get access to better health care - perhaps not way better, but you might be allowed access to a larger subset of tests, equipment, and procedures... If you are truly disabled and unable to be productive that would also apply. If you are the typical welfare lifer, you get basic access. Perhaps there would be only two or three tiers of access based on your income level.

That quite frankly is the only way to get conservatives to start liking single payer. I know the progressives would flip out because they feel health care is a right, and are all about equal access. That said, at some point someone needs to be realistic that there are members of our society that work hard, produce and are generally zero drag on gov't services and are indeed paying more than their fair share to provide services to others that are in need.

And leave the fucking rich out of it. They are always going to have access to the best health care their money can buy regardless of what system is forced upon us. This is about the poor, the working poor, and the middle class.

 

[nixium]

What about the patients that do such due to wait times for the services being too long?

Why are Americans also going to foreign countries for medical care if they can find it easily at home without waiting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[sactoking]

Are you sure you are talking about the SILVER plan and not bronze/other cheaper plan? The $125 (or so) amount I cited earlier was about the silver plan for 1 single person, 20 something, with no dependent.

Yup, those figures quoted are for the second-lowest silver plan, taken directly from the ACA. The interesting thing about the tax credit is by setting a "no more than" amount it doesn't matter what your underlying cost of insurance is. For example, take my home state of Nevada. The insurance rates in Clark County (Vegas) are considerably lower than in Carson City. That's partly because there are more providers in Vegas but also because the local hospital in Carson is the single most expensive hospital in the country. But, under the tax credit program it doesn't matter whether I live in Vegas or Carson, if my income id 150% FPL I'm going to pay 3% for my premium. It also doesn't matter how old I am, so a 64 year old at 200% FPL pays the same as a 26 year old at 200% FPL. That's the magic of the chart I provided: it's universal (except for Hawaii and Alaska, which have different FPL measures). It doesn't matter if you live in Rochester or Cour D'Alene, if you're 21 or 61, the chart is the same.

When I looked at the recently released Kaiser Family Foundation study of 18 markets, anything over 400% of FPL showed "no cap"... is that true, or did I read it wrong? I thought you had previously stated that the max is 9.5% for anything 400% or higher...?

(PDF found here, see the chart in Figure 6 on page 7):
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

If I did it was an error. The 9.5% cap is up to 400% FPL. Once you hit 400% FPL and higher there is no tax credit so in effect there is no cap, you pay the "sticker price."

 

[nehalem256]

I'm a conservative and I can see the value of single payer. That said, I'd much prefer a tiered approach to single payer in the U.S.

This is the middle ground for me on single payer is a tiered approach. If you are a productive member of society you get access to better health care - perhaps not way better, but you might be allowed access to a larger subset of tests, equipment, and procedures... If you are truly disabled and unable to be productive that would also apply. If you are the typical welfare lifer, you get basic access. Perhaps there would be only two or three tiers of access based on your income level.

That quite frankly is the only way to get conservatives to start liking single payer. I know the progressives would flip out because they feel health care is a right, and are all about equal access. That said, at some point someone needs to be realistic that there are members of our society that work hard, produce and are generally zero drag on gov't services and are indeed paying more than their fair share to provide services to others that are in need.

And leave the fucking rich out of it. They are always going to have access to the best health care their money can buy regardless of what system is forced upon us. This is about the poor, the working poor, and the middle class.

:thumbsup: Well put

 

[palehorse]

If I did it was an error. The 9.5% cap is up to 400% FPL. Once you hit 400% FPL and higher there is no tax credit so in effect there is no cap, you pay the "sticker price."

Swell... 🙁

 

[fskimospy]

Swell... 🙁

That means for the standard family of 4 you don't start having to buy unsubsidized insurance until your household income exceeds $94,200 per year.

What percentage of households do you think that covers?

 

[werepossum]

That means for the standard family of 4 you don't start having to buy unsubsidized insurance until your household income exceeds $94,200 per year.

What percentage of households do you think that covers?

That's one of my biggest problems with Obamacare. There is no possible way that families earning above $94,200 can subsidize everyone below that level; it just doesn't work. What will happen is that we'll borrow more and more money to pretend it's working until such time as they can declare the system unfixable and have the federal government take over completely.

 

[Pens1566]

What about the patients that do such due to wait times for the services being too long?

Too long according to whom? The patient or the doctor?

 

[fskimospy]

That's one of my biggest problems with Obamacare. There is no possible way that families earning above $94,200 can subsidize everyone below that level; it just doesn't work. What will happen is that we'll borrow more and more money to pretend it's working until such time as they can declare the system unfixable and have the federal government take over completely.

What are you basing this on? Are you saying that the CBO got their math wrong? (they are under the impression that the ACA will reduce the amount of money we borrow each year) If so, can you pinpoint the flaws in their calculations?

 

[bshole]

Why are Americans also going to foreign countries for medical care if they can find it easily at home without waiting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Details from the story. Holy crow, the difference in cost is staggering...
13K vs 78K for the exact same procedure. Yea America is definitely doing something wrong.

Desperate to find an affordable solution, he reached out to a sailing buddy with friends at a medical device manufacturer, which arranged to provide his local hospital with an implant at what was described as the “list price” of $13,000, with no markup. But when the hospital’s finance office estimated that the hospital charges would run another $65,000, not including the surgeon’s fee, he knew he had to think outside the box, and outside the country.
:
“Very leery” of going to a developing country like India or Thailand, which both draw so-called medical tourists, he ultimately chose to have his hip replaced in 2007 at a private hospital outside Brussels for $13,660. That price included not only a hip joint, made by Warsaw-based Zimmer Holdings, but also all doctors’ fees, operating room charges, crutches, medicine, a hospital room for five days, a week in rehab and a round-trip ticket from America.

 

[Lithium381]

Details from the story. Holy crow, the difference in cost is staggering...
13K vs 78K for the exact same procedure. Yea America is definitely doing something wrong.

That's the price of regulation and mal-practice insurance! Also medical school graduates are stacked with debt!

 

[monovillage]

Our insurance went from $800 a month to $1,200 a month, but i'm sure it has nothing to do with Obamacare.....right? .........right? .......right?

Yeah, it's Obamacare and everyone knows it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's the price of regulation and mal-practice insurance! Also medical school graduates are stacked with debt!

You might want to go look at two things:

1.) The level of medical regulation in other countries with much lower costs.

2.) The percentage of health care costs attributable to malpractice (both premiums and judgments)

 

[palehorse]

That means for the standard family of 4 you don't start having to buy unsubsidized insurance until your household income exceeds $94,200 per year.

What percentage of households do you think that covers?

We'll revisit this topic if/when my employer drops coverage as a result of ACA, and I subsequently lose 5% of my household income.

"I won't increase taxes on those making less than $250k..."

my ass.

I just love how the progressive pricks in DC, and their supporters, keep moving the goalposts lower for what constitutes "being rich."

 

[Juddog]

That is certainly a downside to the Canadian system. Still, US costs are about 60% higher as a percentage of GDP than Canada's, yet vastly more Canadians are happy with their health care system than Americans are.

Spend less, like it more? Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

Exactly - the US system sucks balls unless you're rich.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why are Americans also going to foreign countries for medical care if they can find it easily at home without waiting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Due to high medical fees to those who do not have health insurance or insurance that covers pre-existing conditions. Several of my co-workers have had their knees and hips replaced, none paid more that the maximum out of pocket fee of $2,000.

 

[CountZero]

That's the price of regulation and mal-practice insurance! Also medical school graduates are stacked with debt!

From the article

His joint implant and surgery in Belgium were priced according to a different logic. Like many other countries, Belgium oversees major medical purchases, approving dozens of different types of implants from a selection of manufacturers, and determining the allowed wholesale price for each of them, for example. That price, which is published, currently averages about $3,000, depending on the model, and can be marked up by about $180 per implant. (The Belgian hospital paid about $4,000 for Mr. Shopenn’s high-end Zimmer implant at a time when American hospitals were paying an average of over $8,000 for the same model.)

Looks to me like it was cheaper in Belgium because of regulation.

 

[fskimospy]

We'll revisit this topic if/when my employer drops coverage as a result of ACA, and I subsequently lose 5% of my household income.

"I won't increase taxes on those making less than $250k..."

my ass.

I just love how the progressive pricks in DC, and their supporters, keep moving the goalposts lower for what constitutes "being rich."

I love when the conservative pricks on this board try to dishonestly conflate two issues.

The $94k level is the point at which you stop getting free government money to buy health insurance. I like how entitled people such as yourself think that the government not giving you free money is the same as raising your taxes. Moocher.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I love when the conservative pricks on this board try to dishonestly conflate two issues.
The $94k level is the point at which you stop getting free government money to buy health insurance. I like how entitled people such as yourself think that the government not giving you free money is the same as raising your taxes. Moocher.

lol what a moron

 

[werepossum]

What are you basing this on? Are you saying that the CBO got their math wrong? (they are under the impression that the ACA will reduce the amount of money we borrow each year) If so, can you pinpoint the flaws in their calculations?

The CBO bases this on projected new taxes and cuts in tax deductions. If you wish to believe this will happen, it's a free country and people believe any number of fool things, but don't forget that the CBO has already greatly increased its original estimated cost and most parts haven't even kicked in yet. CBO is government, and government is not in the business of making government look impractical. Also, a big part of the difference is the $400 billion taken from Medicare. That providers will provide an even higher level of service (as legally mandated) for $400 billion less seems to me to be as impressive an act of faith as believing in the latest CBO estimate even though the last one didn't even last until the bill took affect.

"This CBO estimate is gospel!"
"Okay, THIS CBO estimate is gospel!"

From the article

Looks to me like it was cheaper in Belgium because of regulation.

Seems to me that is typical in health care. Other nations limit what can be charged for a particular product; since America does not, we become the main source of profit. Some of that can be blamed on our higher standard of living, but nations with even higher standards of living also sharply limit the cost of medical products. Sooner or later we must follow, which will be a huge shake-up in the medical industry. But at least we won't be subsidizing other nations. A pill researched, designed, and manufactured in the USA should not sell for $100 in the USA and $3 in Mexico. That is one of the things Obamacare gets right.