# Doctor visit limits...what else...



## billc (Oct 6, 2012)

Well, it begins, the decline of the American medical system...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...it-Doctor-Visits-For-Benchmark-ObamaCare-Plan



> *As part of its &#8220;benchmark&#8221; health care plan to satisfy ObamaCare&#8217;s requirement of the establishment ofEssential Health Benefits (EHB&#8217;s) in each state, the state of New York has requested that annual doctor visit limits be substituted for lifetime and annual dollar limits in health care plans.*





> States had until October 1, 2012 to choose an existing health care plan to serve as the minimum &#8220;benchmark&#8221; plan that would contain the EHB&#8217;s as required by ObamaCare. President Obama&#8217;s signature health care law gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sole authority to determine the EHB&#8217;s for the insurance plans in the state health insuranceexchanges.





> In its letter to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMMS), the state of New York wrote:Removal of Annual/Lifetime Dollar Limits - New York State awaits further federal guidance on the process for substituting dollar limits on benefits with actuarially equivalent quantitative limits (e.g., annual visit limits).​If ObamaCare is not repealed, millions of currently uninsured people will be sent into the state exchanges to purchase health insurance, or pay the &#8220;tax&#8221; as the Supreme Court defined it. The sheer numbers of new patients alone will make for longer waiting times to get in to see doctors. In addition, as many businesses find it is too costly to offer health insurance benefits to their employees, these individuals, and their families, will also be sent into the exchanges. Finally, as New York, and perhaps other states, are granted permission by HHS to make annual doctor visit limits part of their EHB package, the number of visits will be carefully monitored, leading to an even greater rationing of health care.





> ObamaCare is gradually setting up a two-class system of health care access in this country. Only the very wealthy will be able to obtain the types of treatments and access to health care that many Americans have enjoyed in the past.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 6, 2012)

The decline is just beginning _now_? Really?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 6, 2012)

The systems pretty much broken now. Costs are continuing to spiral out of control, gouging is insane, doctors are dropping accepting any insurance at all and going cash-only.  While the so called 'fix' helped a few million people, it hurt about the same number.  Businesses are phasing out plans or going bare-minimum coverage and opting to pay the fines rather than the insurance companies. I still hold to my opinion that it's an overreach, and not much besides an unethical forced bail out of insurance campaign contributors.  The so called "free" stuff that insurance companies are 'required' to offer doesn't seem to apply to existing clients, just new ones.  Seems by already having coverage I'll get less than the guy who signs up on Monday.   Great fix.  But, whatever.  The more the government fiddles with anything, the more the **** it up.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 6, 2012)

And obamacare and Medicare themselves are looking for and finding as many reasons not to pay as they can, even for legitimate claims.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Oct 7, 2012)

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...or-Hospitals-That-Readmit-Sick-Patients-Begin



> *Hospitals who re-admit patients within 30 days after they were discharged will now have to, under an Obamacare provision, pay fines as of October 1, 2012, which could force hospitals to slash programs that help the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill. *
> 
> According to a study, "about two-thirds of the hospitals serving Medicare patients, or some 2,200 facilities, will be hit with penalties averaging around $125,000 per facility this coming year."
> This provision was inserted into Obamacare as a cost-cutting measure, but it will force hospitals to give the poor, elderly, and chronically ill substandard care.





> As the _Examiner_ notes:
> Some observers believe that the new provision will place an enormous amount of added pressure on these populations, given that patients cannot be certain that their treatment will be up to par in the event of the need for readmission to the hospital after discharge. And hospitals that are already feeling the squeeze financially due to cutbacks in reimbursements from the government may be forced to limit the level of care given during readmission, resulting in patients being discharged long before they are ready.​


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The more the government fiddles with anything, the more the **** it up.



On the other hand, private insurance was hardly doing a bang-up job on its own...and you certainly do want _some _regulation here, dude. Imagine what they'd be doing without it.


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 7, 2012)

The 17,000 peole a year who die in th US because they cannot afford medical care would argue that something needs to be done...if they could.  If not what has been done, then what?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 7, 2012)

arnisador said:


> On the other hand, private insurance was hardly doing a bang-up job on its own...and you certainly do want _some _regulation here, dude. Imagine what they'd be doing without it.



I can imagine it.


> *2.9 Health Care*
> 
> We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.



Remove handcuffs, allow free market competition, and enforce existing laws against "price setting". Encourage competition, which will drive prices down and improve efficiency.

As it stands now, all the system does is encourage bloat and rising prices. 

The system as it is now, thanks to the government's "helping" is well represented by the Sunday, October 7th 2012 Crankshaft.
http://www.seattlepi.com/comics-and-games/fun/Crankshaft/

My doctor visit's a $40 "co-pay". Insurance pays the other $270.

If I didn't have insurance, the cost is $60.

Hmm...  Of course, that insurance payment can take 6+ months to show up to the doctor, with a ton of paperwork involved.

My chiropractor basically said he could cut he fees in half if he didn't have to have staff spend so much time dealing with insurance red tape, and waiting half a year to get paid.  He also said that the additional requirements he's being hit with are why he's raising rates. But just for cash customers. The insurance company sets his rates for him, and only pays him what they want. So as his costs of complying go up, his income from those companies does not. Hence why doctors are dropping accepting insurance.

Of course, if too many of them do that, I'm sure the government will "Mandate" they do accept insurance or find other work. More "Helping", while we already face an artificial shortage of qualified medical personnel due to the AMA's quota system.   

Of course, medical school costs a fortune too, which goes back to that system you and I bounced around a while back. Every doctor I've brought it up to has loved it. 

Now everyone says "single payer, single payer", which is nice, in principle.  But I think Canada's the only nation I know of that's single payer that's not got high taxes and still buckling under the strain.   Single payer is another term for monopoly. And as someone who's dealt with the gas company, electric company and cable company with their 'single payer' authorized monopolies, I can say, the customer service isn't too great.  

When the government and their authorized monopolies control supply and funding, you get shortages and inflation.  Always.
Comes with subsidies and mandates. 


You don't get a ship moving by first miring it in concrete, and making the engine so complex MENSA goes "Huh?". Well, that's government 'fixing' of anything.


----------



## billc (Oct 7, 2012)

This just appeared tonight...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/annals-of-government-medicine-15.php



> Recent investigations have revealed hospitals administered by Britains National Health Service to be veritable houses of horrors. Here is the latest shock headline: Patients starve and die of thirst on hospital wards. Hospital conditions under socialized medicine appear to be trending toward the medieval:
> Forty-three hospital patients starved to death last year and 111 died of thirst while being treated on wards, new figures disclose today.
> The death toll was disclosed by the Government amid mounting concern over the dignity of patients on NHS wards.
> The Office for National Statistics figures also showed that:
> ...


----------



## billc (Oct 7, 2012)

There are many fixes for the problem of healthcare, the ability to cross state lines, medical savings accounts and other ideas that have been brought up in other places to address the problems.  It has never helped a situation for the government to step in and start mandating fixes to problems.  This cost cutting feature of fining a hospital if a patient is re-admitted before 30 days is up...how will they track that accurately.  Law enforcement officers here on the study...how often do you bring the same people into the E.R. for treatment during a month, homeless people without coverage, guys who get into fights?  Will the hospital get dinged for guys like this, and then have to wade through the morass of red tape to explain to the government that no...these guys were brought in for brand new problems and not for a problem stemming from their last visit.  We'll they have to pay the fine first, and then file a counter claim to try to recoup that money?  How much time, effort and money will go into that. 

There were a lot of people who were happy with their current health care plans.  Why was it necessary to ruin their plans to help the people who don't have coverage?  You may say that isn't going to happen, but explain why a company would keep their health plans if they can just drop them and let their employees try their hand at obama mandated insurance?  From what I have read, the fine is less than a lot of companies pay for the insurance plans.  I know one company that pays over 10,000 dollars a year for their coverage...dropping their health coverage would save them a lot of money, why wouldn't they?  

I guess an even bigger question is, Why is a company required to pay a tax/fine for not offering healthcare to their employees?  That is the big question.  Why did it all of a sudden go from being a "perk/benefit" to a government enforced mandate?  Why shouldn't a company then be required to provide all employees with nutritional food each day...or be taxed/fined if they don't.  Why shouldn't a company be forced  to pay for the homes of their employees, since employees need somewhere to live, and why not do that with a tax/fine as well?

When did a private company become the mandated caregiver to their employees?


----------



## billc (Oct 9, 2012)

First, the government steps in to fix a problem that could be fixed without their help.  Then, when people try to avoid the government "fix" new laws will be created to close that gap and new policing agencies will be needed...a case in point...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/obamacare-transforming-america-into-part-timer-nation/




> Under ObamaCare, companies of more than 50 workers who do not provide  health-insurance coverage have to pay significant fines, although not  nearly as costly as the insurance itself.  That alone might have  employers bailing out of the health-insurance market, but the Orlando  Sentinel reports that at least one company is testing a way to avoid _both _costs.   Employers do not have to provide health-insurance coverage to part-time  workers under ObamaCare as long as they work less than 30 hours a week,  and one restaurant company has begun experimenting with changing over entire staffs to part-time work to avoid the ObamaCare mandates and fines (via Instapundit):
> 
> In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has  stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least  a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses.
> Darden said the test is taking place in a select number of  restaurants in four markets, including Central Florida, but would not  give details. The company said there has been no decision made about  expanding it.
> ...


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 9, 2012)

Bill, really?  Do you even know what you are supporting when you talk about buying across state lines?  You do realize that was legal at one time and the states put a stop to it.  Insurance companies would set up shop in a state that has rather lenient insurance laws then sell cheap to whomever.  The problem came when a person would start submitting claims.  Then those insurance companies would deny claims or find an excuse to drop the consumer all together, effectively bilking the customer and his home state out of thousands of dollars.  All perfectly legal because the insurance companies were following the very low statutes in thier state of origin. The state letting them do this wins because they get tax money from the profits.  This also used to happen with banks and credit cards quite a lot.  Look at a few credit cards and you might be suprised they are issued from only one or two states.

Medical savings accounts already exsist.  You put a portion of your check into them tax free.  You get to pull money out of the account only to reimburse yourself for medical expenses. Of course if you don't spend all the money you place in that account, you lose the money.  It also does not help someone with a sudden onset illness or someone too poor to pay enough into thier account to cover medical cost.  There is also a cap amount on how much you can put in the account, though I do not remember what that is.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 9, 2012)

We use a health savings account each year.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2012)

Here is a nice description of obamacare...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/interminable_sentence_nails_obamacare.html




> In  August 2012, a candidate for Illinois State Senate, District 18, Dr.  Barbara Bellar, thought she would start a fundraising event with a  lighthearted tone.  She claimed that she could describe ObamaCare (the  ACA) in one sentence -- one very long sentence.
> 
> Because  Dr. Bellar so accurately portrayed the current national sentiment about  the ACA, a video of her speaking her very long sentence went viral.  As  of 10/7/12, it had received 2,434,958 hits on YouTube.






> This is what she said, _verbatim_.  (Bullets were inserted by this author.)
> 
> We are going to be gifted with a healthcare plan [the ACA]:
> 
> ...




​


----------



## WC_lun (Oct 10, 2012)

This doesn't really have anything to do with the point being made, does it?  People are dying and going broke due to how things were.  change was neccesary.  Don't like the change, make valid suggestions on how it could be better.  The status quo is not acceptable.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 10, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> This doesn't really have anything to do with the point being made, does it?  People are dying and going broke due to how things were.  change was neccesary.  Don't like the change, make valid suggestions on how it could be better.  The status quo is not acceptable.



Simple fix.

Increase the Medicaid and Medicare deductions from paychecks by 5% (starting number).
Raise the limit on eligibility to $30,000.
Simplify the application process.

Instant national single payer system providing basic coverage to the lower incomes while maintaining the existing private insurance system.

To go further, establish minimum coverage guidelines nationally, and require all private insurers to comply while opening up competition nationally.

There was no need for the mechanism of Obamacare and it's unconstitutional except under a loophole mandate.


----------



## billc (Oct 10, 2012)

Yeah...what Bob said...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 10, 2012)

What amazes me about this whole argument is that no one seemed to notice when Romney said we need to repeal Obama care and

 replace it with something that works 

Which means next up.Romney Care. Don't think he'll do it.... just look at Massachusetts... Of course politics being what it is (broken) it is likely to be called unconstitutional by the Democrats should Romney beat Obama in the election.


----------



## Steve (Oct 10, 2012)

Single payer...  look around at what's working and what's not and figure it out.  There is no perfect health plan, but there's a lot out there that's a hell of a lot better than what we have.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Oct 11, 2012)

Steve said:


> Single payer...  look around at what's working and what's not and figure it out.  There is no perfect health plan, but there's a lot out there that's a hell of a lot better than what we have.




Agreed

I am just amazed at the partisan politics around this issue from those that appear to be selectively deaf based on the person making the statements political affiliation

_But we should not forget that some of those systems, that appear to work, do cut you off for certain procedures and treatments based on age&#8230; and some of those are very necessary if you wish to keep breathing

_*NOTE:*
Just did a bit of research, I did not delete the above statement about age cut offs, because I made it, however, I did _italicize_ it. That may not be true based on what I was just reading and I need to do more research to be certain


----------



## billc (Oct 13, 2012)

Here is Dr. Berwick on how modern medicine should work...treat at home...by your family...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_for_clearing_hospital_beds_of_patients.html



> Dr. Donald Berwick, senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. The former head of Centers for [COLOR=#11B000 !important]Medicare[/COLOR] and Medicaid(CMS) was best known for being "in love" with the British healthcare system and for his 2009 statement: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."






> Berwick also told the audience of medical doctors, administrators and students that the situation is critical. He recommended expanding the health field to include more nurse practitioners, nurses, and physician's assistants while teaching patients and their families to care for themselves to lower costs.





> The socialist doctor's proposals reduce health-care costs by reducing the number of doctors and increasing home health care. Only the sickest and most critical patients will end up in a hospital, thereby spreading lesser cases into the community by way of neighborhood clinics, urgent care clinics, and in-home care. What he never addresses is the reduction in expertise and the lower quality of care which inevitably accompanies the leveling down of services.
> 
> Dr. Libby Baxley, senior associate dean for academic affairs at ECU's Brody School of Medicine, agreed with Berwick, suggesting that medical schools need to "go beyond the traditional education...of the care of the individual and have our students think about populations... That's a different set of skills than we've been teaching medical students in the past."
> 
> Of course switching traditional thinking from the tried and proven method of treating patients like they're individuals to the socialist approach where human beings are simply cogs in the wheel of society fits well with the plan to make our health-care system into single-payer program.




Hmmmm...I thought if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan and if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.  That is what the President promised under obamacare...


----------



## billc (Nov 3, 2012)

Here is some more "what else."

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/03/more-obamacare-high-jinks-conflicts-of-interests-rising-costs/



> QSSI, a Maryland-based contractor, in January won a large contract to build a federal data services hub to help run the complex federal health insurance exchange. &#8230;
> The quiet nature of the transaction, which was not disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has fueled suspicion among industry insiders that UnitedHealth Group may be gaining an advantage for its subsidiary, UnitedHealthcare.
> UnitedHealth Group&#8217;s acquisition has caught the attention of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. He has expressed alarm over what he calls a lack of transparency in setting up a national insurance marketplace covering more than 30 states.​The Hill&#8217;s story has much more on the detail on the potential conflicts-of-interest that are going on here, if you care to try and stomach the rampant cronyism, underhandedness, and &#8220;business as usual&#8221; in the federal government that&#8217;s only going to metastasize with the continuing onset of ObamaCare &#8212; but that&#8217;s the Obama Way, I suppose: When in doubt, _just add more bureaucracy_, because it&#8217;s not like that ever creates a whole host of problems of its own or anything.





> In that same vein, California is one of the few states that&#8217;s actually charged forward in creating one of ObamaCare&#8217;s prescribed state insurance &#8220;exchanges,&#8221; and they&#8217;re already trying to combat what&#8217;s looking like substantially rising costs, via the LATimes:
> California insurance officials have expressed concern about substantial rate hikes for some existing policyholders going into the exchange.
> Under a new rating map approved by state lawmakers, the Department of lnsurance estimated that premiums for similar coverage could increase as much as 25% in West Los Angeles, 22% in the Sacramento area and nearly 13% in Orange County.
> Janice Rocco, the state&#8217;s deputy insurance commissioner for health policy, said her agency is pushing a new rating map that would cap increases at 8%. That proposal could be considered during a special legislative session in the coming months.​Yes, by all means, let&#8217;s try to _legislate _caps on price increases &#8212; I&#8217;m sure that insurers not being able to cover their costs won&#8217;t have any adverse effects _at all_, right?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2012)

billcihak said:


> *Hospitals who re-admit patients within 30 days after  they were discharged will now have to, under an Obamacare provision, pay  fines as of October 1, 2012, which could force hospitals to slash  programs that help the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill. *



Just as a clarification on this:  

It does not relate to all readmission.  It relates to certain classifications of illness, If you come in for, say, head trauma, are sent home in 2 days, then come back 3 days later because of it, the hospital is fine.

HOWEVER: the part that is messed up is that Lets say you come in for Pneumonia. (one of the no readmit ones) are treated and released a week later, go home, fall down the stairs and break your hip... that counts as a Pneumonia readmission, EVEN THO THE READMISSION WAS FOR SOMETHING ELSE, and the Hospital pays the fine.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> The 17,000 peole a year who die in th US because they cannot afford medical care would argue that something needs to be done...if they could.  If not what has been done, then what?



I get where you are coming from, but what has this done for them?  If they can't afford it, how does mandating they buy it or get taxed *actually* help them?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2012)

Not everyone who says he can't afford it can't afford it.

Also, there are tax credits.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Not everyone who says he can't afford it can't afford it.
> 
> Also, there are tax credits.



I'm confused by this, can you elaborate?  Are you saying some people lie to avoid getting it, or that it can be accessible?  Also the Tax Credits... I know those are written in to cover the cost, but... is it necessary to mandate everyone buy insurance?  If those tax credits are all it takes to make insurance affordable to everyone, can't we just offer a tax rebate on the cost of insurance to anyone earning under a certain amount or who is not covered by their employer?  

I still don't understand how the Mandate will help anyone but the insurance companies.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 4, 2012)

System works like this:
You buy the insurance. 
You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
They will then tell you how much you'll get "back" as a "credit".
Then 4-12 weeks later they'll give you a check containing other peoples money.

The above is according to US Congressman Brian Higgins office.  If Mr. Higgin's is wrong, I would like to know.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 4, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> System works like this:
> You buy the insurance.
> You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
> Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
> ...



So again, I ask my original Question:



> Originally Posted by *WC_lun*
> 
> 
> 
> The 17,000 peole a year who die in th US  because they cannot afford medical care would argue that something needs  to be done...if they could.  If not what has been done, then what?






			
				Cryozombie said:
			
		

> what has this done for them? ... how does it  *actually* help them?


----------



## bluewaveschool (Nov 4, 2012)

bob hubbard said:


> increase the medicaid and medicare deductions from paychecks by 5% (starting number).



zomg tax increase evil liberal blah blah blah


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> System works like this:
> You buy the insurance.
> You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
> Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
> ...




http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/06/mandatory_health_insurance_how.html



> If you qualify, credit payments will go directly to your insurer to lower the cost of your monthly premiums.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 4, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I still don't understand how the Mandate will help anyone but the insurance companies.



Being without health insurance is a well-known health risk--it decreases life expectancy. (Google it.) This will be addressed by the mandate.

People using ERs for non-emergency care, or the uninsured using it for major emergency care (no car accident victims are turned away), is a significant financial drain. This will be addressed by the mandate.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 4, 2012)

I gotta say, if Er care could be used as a substitute for regular physician care, even for chronic or acute conditions, I'd just go in and get the transplant i need.  Doesn't work that way and never will.  The healthcare reform, while I do not think is perfect, is a damn site beyond what we have now.  Remember, thousands of our citizens are dying needlessly because of the status quo.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Being without health insurance is a well-known health risk--it decreases life expectancy. (Google it.) This will be addressed by the mandate.
> 
> People using ERs for non-emergency care, or the uninsured using it for major emergency care (no car accident victims are turned away), is a significant financial drain. This will be addressed by the mandate.






> "7,000 peole a year who die in th US  because they cannot afford medical care"



If you CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE HOW DOES MANDATING YOU BUY IT DO ANYTHING?  Why is this question so hard for Supporters to understand?  It's not a hard concept.  If you need something that costs 50.00, and don't have 50.00, the government telling you you have to buy it, STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE 50.00 TO BUY IT... And offering to give you the money back later ALSO does not give you the 50 bucks to buy it either.

It's pretty simple maths... even *I* can figure out that if you need 50 and have 0 being told you need 50 doesn't give you 50.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2012)

bluewaveschool said:


> zomg tax increase evil liberal blah blah blah



I actually support eliminating all government social programs and their associated thefts, I mean taxes. That includes social security, medicare, unemployment, and so forth.
I also support eliminating all forms of subsidy and bail out.
That puts me in heavy opposition to both liberals and conservatives.
Just sayin.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> If you CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE HOW DOES MANDATING YOU BUY IT DO ANYTHING?  Why is this question so hard for Supporters to understand?  It's not a hard concept.  If you need something that costs 50.00, and don't have 50.00, the government telling you you have to buy it, STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE 50.00 TO BUY IT... And offering to give you the money back later ALSO does not give you the 50 bucks to buy it either.
> 
> It's pretty simple maths... even *I* can figure out that if you need 50 and have 0 being told you need 50 doesn't give you 50.



They'll just 'find it' like people always do. Duh.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2012)

By breaking and entering or armed robbery?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> By breaking and entering or armed robbery?



No silly. By doing what you always do when you need something. Cutting back on other things and budgeting better.  

The B&E and armed robbery will come later when the IRS shows up to enforce the law and takes your car on you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2012)

Now sarcasm aside, in theory, the idea of more people contributing to the pool should lower individual costs.  In theory.  The problem is, it doesn't work that way.
If a provider (hospital, doctor, pharmacy, drug company, etc) knows that the government will pick up the bill, they will increase the price they charge. Government subsidies and mandates increase prices then offset them with taxpayer money.  In effect, we're going to pay twice, maybe even three times for our care.
This is why you have $100 anti-venom that gets billed out at $50,000, with insurance paying the majority of that.

Doctors are dropping insurance as payment.  I know several who no longer accept any insurance. Cash only.  Funny thing is, their fees have gone down, and their practices are not hurting for patients.

So the next step for the government will be to mandate that if you are a doctor, you must accept insurance.  That'd be like me being forced to accept money orders as payment.  I don't like that at all.

Of course, we can argue theory all we want.  The truth is a simple one:  Obamacare didn't bring costs down, they've gone up, and projections continue to show them increasing, while the government insists they'll go down. This is however a government that hasn't got a clue about basic math and can't balance a budget to save their life.  So, not much credibility there.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 5, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No silly. By doing what you always do when you need something. Cutting back on other things and budgeting better.



Oh, sorry.  I didn't know the Insurance companies were taking Food Stamps now.  Gotcha.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 5, 2012)

arnisador said:


> http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/06/mandatory_health_insurance_how.html





> If you qualify, credit payments will go directly to your insurer to  lower the cost of your monthly premiums. To qualify, you have to buy  insurance on your own, not through an employer, and choose from plans  offered through one of the state health insurance exchanges established  by the Affordable Care Act.



What's the ETA on the state exchanges being set up?  Last I heard, so far no state's got one up and running and 28 states haven't even started the process, with a few refusing to do so.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> If you CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE HOW DOES MANDATING YOU BUY IT DO ANYTHING?



Tax credits...and it's an assumption--that the penalties will now test--that all those people can't buy health insurance. That doesn't follow just because they don't now have it. Penalties have a way of changing priorities--an incentive, as the economists would say.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I actually support eliminating all government social programs and their associated thefts, I mean taxes. That includes social security, medicare, unemployment, and so forth.



We've tried those approaches. People won't plan for retirement, and pensions are increasingly rare. It's one thing to say "I don't care if old people starve" but experience shows that when middle-aged kids have to start buying food for their parents, everyone starts to change their mind. If you don't mandate savings, and find a way to address disabled who can never work, it isn't tenable. Ditto Medicare--the cost of medical products has increased too rapidly compared to other price measures to figure they'll borrow from their kids for an MRI.

Your plan is theoretical. It doesn't survive contact with reality. Find a country practicing it that has an average life expectancy over 60.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The truth is a simple one:  Obamacare didn't bring costs down, they've gone up, and projections continue to show them increasing, while the government insists they'll go down.



The truth is even simpler than that: Obamacare doesn't go into effect until 2014, and there are price controls built in that will be strengthened. You're judging it 2 years before any but a few provisions have taken effect. And BTW...health care premiums have increased at a lower rate the past two years. That's an improvement.



> This is however a government that hasn't got a clue about basic math and can't balance a budget to save their life.  So, not much credibility there.



Unlike the [FILL IN THE BLANK] administration.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 6, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What's the ETA on the state exchanges being set up?  Last I heard, so far no state's got one up and running and 28 states haven't even started the process, with a few refusing to do so.



Colorado is pretty close:
http://www.getcoveredco.org/Index


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 6, 2012)

arnisador said:


> and it's an assumption--that the penalties will now test--that all those people can't buy health insurance. That doesn't follow just because they don't now have it.



Well, if you CAN afford it and just CHOOSE NOT TO, then you AREN'T one of the aforementioned 17,000 who are dying because they _can't afford it..._

So again, the mandate does nothing for them...   

Look it's pretty simple, I think a ten year old can understand it:  Either you can't afford health insurance, and mandating you buy it is a useless gesture that doesn't actually do dick since you still can't afford it, Or you CAN afford it but choose not to, in which case are not actually one of these Poor People who can't afford it this is supposed to be helping anyhow. 

I don't see why that's so hard to comprehend.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2012)

They claimed that starting Aug 1st birth control would be included, free.  Funny how that hasn't kicked in yet.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/08/i-tried-to-claim-my-free-birth-control.html

Or just how many exclusions are in there.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fact-checking-free-birth-control-day/story?id=16900144



On the exchanges, NY claims to be on track to meet the 2014 deadline. Of course, this is a State that's less on time than the airlines during a storm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2012)

arnisador said:


> We've tried those approaches. People won't plan for retirement, and pensions are increasingly rare. It's one thing to say "I don't care if old people starve" but experience shows that when middle-aged kids have to start buying food for their parents, everyone starts to change their mind. If you don't mandate savings, and find a way to address disabled who can never work, it isn't tenable. Ditto Medicare--the cost of medical products has increased too rapidly compared to other price measures to figure they'll borrow from their kids for an MRI.
> 
> Your plan is theoretical. It doesn't survive contact with reality. Find a country practicing it that has an average life expectancy over 60.



So what you're saying is that it's the governments, not peoples, responsibility to be responsible for their future.

You do realize that if we did this to education, you'd have to give A's to kids who didn't study right?
If you don't mandate people exercise, they won't.
If you don't mandate people eat healthy, they wont.
etc.


As to life expectancy, once you hit 30 it should be time to Run!


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So what you're saying is that it's the governments, not peoples, responsibility to be responsible for their future.
> 
> You do realize that if we did this to education, you'd have to give A's to kids who didn't study right?
> If you don't mandate people exercise, they won't.
> ...



So who is responsible when the future brings things like catstrophic illness that no one can really afford?  What if it is something that has been a life long issue so the person cannot get insurance...at least until next year?  It isn't the people who can but don't prepare that some sort of safety net needs to be in place for.  Private charities just do not fill that role.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> So who is responsible when the future brings things like catstrophic illness that no one can really afford?  What if it is something that has been a life long issue so the person cannot get insurance...at least until next year?  It isn't the people who can but don't prepare that some sort of safety net needs to be in place for.  Private charities just do not fill that role.



Fair question.

The argumentative debator in me holds the line that it's wrong to 'mandate' me into taking care of you. That you are responsible for you.  Exceptions to this should be rare and minimal.

The compassionate person I am says ideally we will all step up and do what's right.

The realist says that's BS.

So, I don't have an answer here. Sorry.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Fair question.
> 
> The argumentative debator in me holds the line that it's wrong to 'mandate' me into taking care of you. That you are responsible for you.  Exceptions to this should be rare and minimal.
> 
> ...




At least you are honest   Thing is, YOU are not taking care of ME.  You pay your taxes to take care of everyone who NEEDS it, including your friends, family, or your self if needed.  Same as the taxes and most other people pay..


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2012)

I prefer the pre-1913 tax code though where we kept 100% of our earnings and did with them as we wished.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> At least you are honest   Thing is, YOU are not taking care of ME.  You pay your taxes to take care of everyone who NEEDS it, including your friends, family, or your self if needed.  Same as the taxes and most other people pay..



The problem with that model is that we keep giving up more and more and more and more and more and more... I posted my earnings vs taxation breakdown earlier this year here on MT... I keep less than half of what I make once all the Federal, State, Local, Sales, Utility taxes passed onto the consumers and misc "fees" (like municipal parking stickers which are just a tax on owning a car) are factored in.

At what point do we all have no more motivation to waste our lives taking care of everyone else?  And when no one wants to do it, where does the money come from, and who will even provide the services?  Why should I work to make sure the hospital systems are functional, just so my wages can be taken to pay for the people using those systems?   And when people like me aren't there, what benefit is the "free"  healthcare if there is no infrastructure to use it, because we all decide why the **** should we work, when everyone else will do that for us?

And you can say that this is a far-fetched example, but I'll tell you... our Hospital just got bought out by another one, and there is a good chance of us all being laid off, and the general consensus amongst our entire department is "**** it, we get an 11 month vacation, on the Government."   None of us are in a hurry to get back out there again.  I'm ready to sit on my *** eating free food and collecting a paycheck to watch Honey Boo Boo.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 6, 2012)

Cryzombie, taxes are at thier lowest rates since the 1950's so you are not spending more and more and more.  Bob, infrastructure cost money.  Prior to 1913 there weren't many maintained roads in the US.  Should we go back to horses because we don't want to pay for the roads for our automobiles?  Goods and services would skyrocket in cost then.

I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.  Those taxes spent to help people from falling through the cracks helps yourselves as well.  It isn't "them" your taxes are going to help, but yourselves if you find yourselves in a situation that you need help.  If you think that being in a position where you need help could never happen to you, you are niave.  All it takes is one accident or illness, even if you are well employed and have great insurance.  As the system is now, you would still pay even if no tax dollars went to help those people because as a society we are all connected through the minimum of our shared economy.  The "F you I got mine mentality" is just not part of reality anymore.  Our society is too interconnected and inter-dependant in today's world.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Cryzombie, taxes are at thier lowest rates since the 1950's so you are not spending more and more and more.  Bob, infrastructure cost money.  Prior to 1913 there weren't many maintained roads in the US.  Should we go back to horses because we don't want to pay for the roads for our automobiles?  Goods and services would skyrocket in cost then.
> 
> I don't understand why this is a difficult concept.  Those taxes spent to help people from falling through the cracks helps yourselves as well.  It isn't "them" your taxes are going to help, but yourselves if you find yourselves in a situation that you need help.  If you think that being in a position where you need help could never happen to you, you are niave.  All it takes is one accident or illness, even if you are well employed and have great insurance.  As the system is now, you would still pay even if no tax dollars went to help those people because as a society we are all connected through the minimum of our shared economy.  The "F you I got mine mentality" is just not part of reality anymore.  Our society is too interconnected and inter-dependant in today's world.



I'm ok with going back to horses.  How about this though, since maintaining infrastructure such as roads IS a Constitutional requirement, but paying people to plow fields under ISNT, we simply drop all the things the government does that's not in the Constitution.  80% savings, and we can drop income tax entirely then. 

This includes medicare, social security, subsidizing doctor visits, and paying 10,000% over cost for drugs.

I've seen the detailed "if we cut this unauthorized bs we save a crap load of coin" idea in detail, but on a quick glance I can't find it (ie quick google and look at first page). It's out there and was associated with one of the indy candidates from the 08 election I think.  Got bounced around on here a bit so might be in an old thread.

Old age, or just general tiredness though, keeps me from really caring to 'debate'.  To be honest, if they'd cut the bs out of the budgets, actually keep costs down, and make sure most of the taxes go towards keeping the country safe, strong and healthy, I'd be fine with it all. If a few bucks a week helps kids get safe educations, I'm cool with it.  $2,000 hammers, not so much. Arni and I argued alot about this way back when, and I still act cranky out of hobbit. But he's right, people ain't gonna prepare and having 100,000,000 seniors wandering around broke would just be wrong on so many levels. So, while I'll argue the Constitutionality of things, sometimes they are things I'm ok with, at least in principle, if not implementation. 

pax.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 6, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Cryzombie, taxes are at thier lowest rates since the 1950's so you are not spending more and more and more.



Here's the deal:

If I'm taxed on 10 things at a rate of 20%

Or if I'm taxed on 50 things at a rate of 16%...

I'm NOT paying less in taxes, even if the RATE is lower.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 7, 2012)

So you are saying you have new taxes to pay that most others don't?  What would those be, if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, if you CAN afford it and just CHOOSE NOT TO, then you AREN'T one of the aforementioned 17,000 who are dying because they _can't afford it..._
> 
> So again, the mandate does nothing for them...
> 
> ...



It isn't.

But the "can't afford it" is self-reported. Let's see what happens, eh? I can't afford to pay my taxes either unless they make me. (Hint: That's why they're taken right out of your paycheck.)


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So what you're saying is that it's the governments, not peoples, responsibility to be responsible for their future.



No. I'm saying people demanded this. They saw it as a solution to a problem. Soc. Sec. and Medicare/Medicaid passed with huge bipartisan majorities. It was something the people desired. There's a name for that type of govt., dude.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 7, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I prefer the pre-1913 tax code though where we kept 100% of our earnings and did with them as we wished.



How many post-1913 services have you taken advantage of?

The Interstate highway system, the R&D that funded any number of discoveries, social services, the benefits of a military that could win World Wars, the down-to-earth benefits of the space program, ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 7, 2012)

arnisador said:


> How many post-1913 services have you taken advantage of?
> 
> The Interstate highway system, the R&D that funded any number of discoveries, social services, the benefits of a military that could win World Wars, the down-to-earth benefits of the space program, ...



I'll have to do some research. I'll try and telegraph you later.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2012)

> (Hint: That's why they're taken right out of your paycheck.)



The reason they are taken right out of your paycheck is because if you actually had possession of that money, and then had to send it to the government, many people would be less likely to be happy with paying those taxes. Now, the money is gone before you even realize what it was like to possess it,  It was designed that way.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 7, 2012)

That's not exactly a stunning insight, Bill   Some people actually choose to take even more money than they'll owe out of thier paycheck as a form of savings.  My wife does this.  I find it kinda wierd, but it is her paycheck.


----------



## billc (Nov 7, 2012)

It's not savings...it's taxes...that are then spent by corrupt politicians and you never see the money because it doesn't even make it to your paycheck.  It is your money, that you never see, and never spend, taken by politicians who don't want you to see how much you are actually not getting.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 7, 2012)

More nonsense.  YOU determine most of the money taken out of your paycheck for taxes.  Heard of a W-2 form?  You know, that form you fill out when hired so your employer knows how much taxes to take out of your check?


----------

