Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

Obamacare

Poll ended at Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:07 pm

Obamacare is just fine; let's fund it and let it run already
1
9%
Obamacare is a step in the right direction; fund it and fix it later
6
55%
Obamacare is a disaster; fund it and watch it implode
0
No votes
Obamacare is a disaster: defund it and fight it with everything possible
1
9%
Obamacare has a couple of good ideas. Scrap the program, take those ideas and start over
3
27%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Obamacare...health care for everybody, really?

Post #1

Post by dianaiad »

Some of you know that I have a problem; I haven't been all that shy. Frankly, it makes me mad as all get out.

Oh, not because I HAVE this condition, though frankly, I feel like I would have had better chances of winning the lottery.

I have Multiple Myeloma, stage II, 'high risk.'
It's an odd duck; cancer of the bone marrow. What makes it 'high risk,' is a chromosomal abnormality that doesn't mean good news for survival.

Now I'm actually blessed with great insurance, paid by my husband's retirement; Kaiser Permanente. Because of that, I had a doctor who saw that I was slightly anemic and sent me for some 'further tests.' Those 'further tests' ended up being a LOT of tests (including a bone marrow biopsy, which I recommend to the Spanish Inquisition, or the CIA...perhaps especially the CIA, since nobody could object to the government 'taking care of the prisoner's health') The verdict was, yup, I got this thing; 75% of my bone marrow was cancerous plasma cells.

The REALLY odd thing is that most people who have this don't find out until they have broken bones, kidney failure, dementia, liver failure....it's a nasty disease. Me? My bones are fine and so are my kidneys and liver.

No cracks about my mental capacity, please. ;)

I'm in GREAT health...except for the dying of cancer part.

This Friday I'm going in for a bone marrow transplant. I'll be in the City of Hope for two to three weeks, while they destroy my immune system and then 'reset' it, in hopes that this will put me into a good, long term remission. There's a really good chance that it will work, despite the 'high risk' thing, because they caught it before it did any damage to my bones and organs. It has been borne upon me that this is EXTREMELY rare, that someone with as an aggressive form of this condition as mine is gets caught this early. OK, I'll take that.

After all, this disease mostly affects African American men over 65. I am about as lily white a redheaded blue eyed female as you can find. Why in the world would they even LOOK for something like this?

Now, why this longwinded introduction, she asks?
I'll tell you.

In the normal course of events (pre-Obamacare) I would get the transplant, have the rest of the stem cells (that were collected from me last week) frozen and kept in reserve for another one...which I'm almost guaranteed to need, and if that doesn't work, I'd do a third, using donor cells from one of my sisters. I hope. Neither my age nor my life condition would affect this, because, well, I have Kaiser and I would transfer that to a 'Senior Advantage' Kaiser membership next August. All done. Good thing, because I'm going to be taking extremely expensive medication (as in, $2000 per pill) for the rest of my life.

If I had NOT had good insurance, the City of Hope and the pharmaceutical companies that make the novel drugs for this have all sorts of programs: once you have Multiple Myeloma, you get the care. All you have to do is get to a facility that specializes in it.


I have been told, however, and I have since confirmed this, that if Obamacare gets through as written, this will no longer be true. For one thing, there will be no possibility of a donor transplant, (which is the only hope for an outright cure) the most effective medication won't be available , and it's highly possible that I won't be offered even the second transplant using my OWN stem cells. My prognosis, thanks to Obamacare, will go from a possible ten to fifteen years down to two or three....because the decisions for my health care won't be mine or my doctor's. They will be made by committees according to guidelines, which will include the idea that no matter what, people over 70 won't get that sort of treatment.

It doesn't matter what my doctor says, or what my insurance company now pays for; the government will regulate this.

I'm OK now. Things are getting paid for.

But what about next year, when Obamacare takes me over?

Now me, I'm an example, and of course this is hitting home hard for me....but I'm hardly unique. I have been talking to a great many MM patients from all over the world, and the ones from 'universal health care' nations, like Canada, Australia and Great Britain do not do well. They are sicker and die sooner, and many of them don't even know that there are novel agents that can treat them; because THEIR healthcare won't provide them.

Those of you who know me know that I don't LIKE Obamacare. Now you know why.

So.....here's the topic for debate (and I'll participate for the next three days...). If you wanted to fix health care in this nation, how would YOU do it? Obviously Obamacare isn't going to work.

Remember: the object is to make certain that:
1. Those who need health care GET it...the best available, not just the least expensive.
2. The decisions regarding health care should be made by the patient and the doctor, not by some faceless bureaucrat looking at cost/benefit charts.
3. Nobody has to go bankrupt because of health care expenses.
4. Healthcare is delivered efficiently, with no long waiting times.
5. Health professionals get paid enough to justify the student loans, and have autonomy.
6. So do patients, in their ability to choose who provides them health care.


Obamacare does NONE of the above, btw.

Go.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #111

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote:
It's UNBELIEVIABLE that in the United States of America, we are all being forced to sign up for healthcare at a government website.

UNBELIEVIABLE:

As in forced to sign up for Medicare at 65?

As in forced to participate in government healthcare when enlisting?

None of the teachers that I work with are being forced to do anything other than carry the district insurance that they have always carried. I don't understand your word, 'all'.

The individuals who are being 'forced' into government healthcare services are those who cannot afford private insurance. Go buy a private policy and you will not be forced onto any government website.

If this is the depth of your argument, I can hardly wonder how you could be persuasive.

Oh, Wait...

As I understand it, you are a freeloader on our healthcare services. Somehow you believe that by not purchasing insurance, you can rely on Emergency Room Services and Free Clinics. We have had this conversation before. (Emergency Room Services are expensive and Free Clinics do not exist in the abundance that you suggest)

Somehow you think that you can skate through this life for nothing.

But it is costing the rest of us plenty. No healthcare treatment is 'free' Someone picks up the tab for you and other freeloaders and it is past time for something to be done about that.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #112

Post by bluethread »

Nickman wrote:
bluethread wrote:

I might need a Prius later? I might need a side by side refrigerator to, but I don't want to be forced to buy side by side refrigerator insurance. Who do you say should get to decide what I need and on what basis?
If you don't have insurance adequate enough to take care of you, guess who gets to fit the bill?


You are arguing cost not fairness. Who gets to decide what is fair? Now if cost is the issue, why force compliance. Why not just mandate that certain products be made available and let them compete. If they are such a good deal, then people will buy them.
Because that is what we have right now. Health insurance companies put good health care out of reach for the middle and lower class. If you have a preexisting condition you cannot get coverage. If you don't have a preexisting condition and don't have insurance that will cover you later, (paying crazy premiums for it) if you end up with cancer or diabetes, well good luck getting someone to cover you.
Sounds like a great business opportunity. If the middle and lower class can not get healthcare insurance at a reasonable price, why aren't some of those middle and lower class people providing those policies and making a reasonable profit?

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #113

Post by johnmarc »

bluethread wrote:

Sounds like a great business opportunity. If the middle and lower class can not get healthcare insurance at a reasonable price, why aren't some of those middle and lower class people providing those policies and making a reasonable profit?
It would take millions of dollars in start up money to provide a broad based healthcare system. And you are asking this of the "middle and lower class"

More than that, hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of individuals would be needed provide the stability that a program like that would need.

The best entity to do that would be the government---and guess what? They have.

All to the criticism of individuals like you who seem to think that it is as simple as:

"...why aren't some of those middle and lower class people providing those policies and making a reasonable profit."

You're kidding---right?

The democrats have taken a serious swing at the problem and conservative factions in this country are responding with this kind of comedy.


Rather than whine about what Obama has done, put something better together and show it to the American people.

Conservatives want to destroy Obamacare and replace it with...what?
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #114

Post by bluethread »

johnmarc wrote:
bluethread wrote:

Sounds like a great business opportunity. If the middle and lower class can not get healthcare insurance at a reasonable price, why aren't some of those middle and lower class people providing those policies and making a reasonable profit?
It would take millions of dollars in start up money to provide a broad based healthcare system. And you are asking this of the "middle and lower class"

More than that, hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of individuals would be needed provide the stability that a program like that would need.

The best entity to do that would be the government---and guess what? They have.

All to the criticism of individuals like you who seem to think that it is as simple as:

"...why aren't some of those middle and lower class people providing those policies and making a reasonable profit."

You're kidding---right?

The democrats have taken a serious swing at the problem and conservative factions in this country are responding with this kind of comedy.


Rather than whine about what Obama has done, put something better together and show it to the American people.

Conservatives want to destroy Obamacare and replace it with...what?
Yes, I am kidding, but the point is serious. The amounts invested are high and so are the risks. These have value. Is it wrong that man who has a million invested in the convenience store has more rights with regard to that business than the clerk who is just investing his time on a daily basis?

Should that store be required to sell a bill of goods at a price that everyone can afford? The government has tried that with the school lunch program. Much of that food simply goes directly into the garbage, because the customer does not want it.

One could look at the EBT program, but, even if we ignore the fraud and abuse, that is a voucher system in addition to the market and is voluntary. Speaking of republican ideas, Newt Gingrich suggested that we introduce such a system into the healthcare market. This was roundly rejected by the left.

The argument that those without means get treatment in the emergency room is not a valid argument, because one has to show that one does not have the ability to pay in order to be released from the bill. Those who are truly not able to pay are covered by Medicaid. The reason why the entire system is being turned upside down is to find money to support Medicaid. So, the question isn't about providing everyone with insurance coverage for transplants and such. It is about establishing a feasible way to provide minimum care for the poor. If one were cynical, one could also say that it is a way of buying votes, but far be it from me to suggest such a thing. :lol:

I talked to a local doctor and he told me that Medicare and Medicaid had a program working with local clinics to provide these services that was working rather well. However, as part of the ACA, this program was shut down.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #115

Post by johnmarc »

bluethread wrote:

I talked to a local doctor and he told me that Medicare and Medicaid had a program working with local clinics to provide these services that was working rather well. However, as part of the ACA, this program was shut down.
With Republican attempts to scuttle ACA at every turn, we are going to hear bundles of stories like this. Please provide some factual backing for it.

To my knowledge, in each case where something was taken away, it was immediately replaced with something better. Can't say that is true in all cases, but the second half of this equation is left out of the conservative talking points.

Let's for the sake of argument accept your evaluation of the program and scuttle it----for what exactly? Democrats want 'Medicare for all' A single payer program. The ACA is a compromise and as such is going to be the butt of a lot of criticism. But, replace it with what? Be specific.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

WinePusher

Post #116

Post by WinePusher »

johnmarc wrote:The individuals who are being 'forced' into government healthcare services are those who cannot afford private insurance. Go buy a private policy and you will not be forced onto any government website.
What a load of nonsense. Every single person in the United States is being forced to purchase health insurance, otherwise they will be forced to pay a penalty. This violates every single principle this country was founded upon.
johnmarc wrote:As I understand it, you are a freeloader on our healthcare services.
I am a freeloader on our healthcare services? How the hell would you know anything about my personal finances and insurance plans?
johnmarc wrote:Somehow you believe that by not purchasing insurance, you can rely on Emergency Room Services and Free Clinics. We have had this conversation before. (Emergency Room Services are expensive and Free Clinics do not exist in the abundance that you suggest)
No, actually my position has been that our healthcare system should be socialized to a certain extent. There should be a basic safety net within the healthcare industry that provides care to individuals who are actually in need of it. But, all of this is besides the point. Obamacare forces healthy people to pay into an insurance plan, and this is a violation of that individuals freedom. People are smart enough to weigh the risks, and if a person feels like they don't need health insurance due to their superb health then they should not be forced to buy health insurance. Sorry to break it to you, but some people are on a tight budget and can't afford to be paying hundreds of dollars every month for healthcare services that they are unlikely to use.
johnmarc wrote:Somehow you think that you can skate through this life for nothing.
Do you know how arrogant stuff like this sounds? You don't know ANYTHING about me so stop making foolish personal remarks.
johnmarc wrote:But it is costing the rest of us plenty. No healthcare treatment is 'free' Someone picks up the tab for you and other freeloaders and it is past time for something to be done about that.
I have no problem with a basic safety net that provides healthcare to people who cannot afford it. I honestly don't think you understand anything about Obamacare because you keep bringing up this freeloader nonsense that has nothing to do with the issue. Here's a simple question, do you support forcing people to pay part of their income into a health insurance plan EVEN IF they don't want to and can't afford it?

WinePusher

Post #117

Post by WinePusher »

Nickman wrote:I don't want to turn this into a debate about TYT. If you call a source that has no pundits for big corporations, who calls out everyone on their faults and also gives credit where it is due even for those they called out, then by all means call them disreputable. You won't find a more unbiased news channel.
The Young Turks spews out liberal propaganda on all its videos. Please, try using the Young Turks as one of your sources on the next academic paper you write and see what your professor or adviser has to say. It's funny how people will complain about Fox News and then turn around and use a fake news source like the Young Turks. For the record, Fox News > The Young Turks.
Nickman wrote:Socialized health care allows the poor to get healthcare. Our current health care market is not favorable to the poor. Only the rich have adequate healthcare and the middle class have substandard care. The health care market is favorable to those who have money. In the military, we have a form of socialized health care. We all pay for it with a small premium and everyone benefits from it. I can get care for anything and everything. I can go to the doctor as many times as needed without risk of penalty or fee. Extending this benefit to the poor and middle class is optimal for society.
Actually, I don't have a problem with anything you've written. Yes, I agree that there should be some socialist components within our healthcare system that takes care of those who genuinely cannot help themselves. But, what does any of this have to do with Obamacare? The problem with Obamacare is the individual mandate. Forcing people to buy something against their will is completely against everything this country was founded on. And not only does this atrocious law destroy our personal liberty, it is also a drag on economic growth and employment. The negative economic impacts of Obamacare are well documented.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #118

Post by dianaiad »

johnmarc wrote:
bluethread wrote:

I talked to a local doctor and he told me that Medicare and Medicaid had a program working with local clinics to provide these services that was working rather well. However, as part of the ACA, this program was shut down.
With Republican attempts to scuttle ACA at every turn, we are going to hear bundles of stories like this. Please provide some factual backing for it.

To my knowledge, in each case where something was taken away, it was immediately replaced with something better. Can't say that is true in all cases, but the second half of this equation is left out of the conservative talking points.

Let's for the sake of argument accept your evaluation of the program and scuttle it----for what exactly? Democrats want 'Medicare for all' A single payer program. The ACA is a compromise and as such is going to be the butt of a lot of criticism. But, replace it with what? Be specific.
"replaced with something better."

I haven't heard one case like this.

the cases I hear are: we got canceled. Now the only policies we can get cost from 20% to 120% more in premiums, the deductables are far higher, we can't go to the doctors we are used to and some of the hospitals in the area do not accept this new plan.

Yes, it covers prenatal and pediatric care. We are in our fifties.

...............and we can't afford the premiums and we make too much money to get subsidies (which, btw, do NOT HELP WITH THE 50% DEDUCTABLES). That leaves us without health care.

Completely without it.

There's an old saying I made up: fifty cents or fifty dollars, it's all the same if you aint got the fifty cents.

So YOU can sit there and crow about how a $800 per month policy is a 'better' one than the $400 one that was canceled, but it's not better if the guy paying the premium CAN'T COME UP WITH $800.

You say that ALL of these people end up with BETTER policies?

Prove it.
Show us some. Ten, perhaps. Thirty.

Or.....how about the thirty MILLION who have just lost their policies and are faced with huge premium increases and deductables. G'head.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #119

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote:
What a load of nonsense.
Moderators?
WinePusher wrote:
Every single person in the United States is being forced to purchase health insurance, otherwise they will be forced to pay a penalty.

Forced? You mean like Social Security and car insurance? These are illegal activities??? My grade school understanding is that once a bill passes the House and Senate and is signed by the President (and validated by the Supreme Court) it becomes law. Do you have a different understanding?
WinePusher wrote: This violates every single principle this country was founded upon.
Every principle? This is hyperbole right? This appears to be the catch-all phrase for off the grid thinkers who don't like much of anything the government is doing. It really doesn't mean anything, but it looks good on paper. (or if it does mean something---spill it out here---specifics would be nice)
WinePusher wrote:
I am a freeloader on our healthcare services? How the hell would you know anything about my personal finances and insurance plans?

We have had several conversations about this. Do a search with the words, "free clinics" and the author, "Winepusher" and perhaps some of these conversations will come back into focus.
WinePusher wrote:
Obamacare forces healthy people to pay into an insurance plan, and this is a violation of that individuals freedom. People are smart enough to weigh the risks, and if a person feels like they don't need health insurance due to their superb health then they should not be forced to buy health insurance.

People are 'smart' enough to know their healthcare future? No. They are just smart enough to know that they can freeload on others when healthcare issues come up. (emergency room services and 'free' clinics')

I guess that paying into Social Security is also a violation of that individuals freedom also. If I am young, why should I be paying into a system that benefits the old? I don't plan to get old.

Are you clairvoyant? You are young and healthy and plan to remain healthy until the day that you die (at home in your own bed) You plan to incur zero medical costs in your lifetime? Injury, diabetes, heart problems, and cancers of all kinds are for others. You somehow just know that injury and illness are not a part of your future?

The major cost of healthcare services comes in the last five years of one's life. If we were to pull a "Winepusher" and wait until then to purchase healthcare coverage---and pick it up from some private 'for profit' company...

Well everyone on the forum (except three) can quickly see where this is going.
WinePusher wrote: Sorry to break it to you, but some people are on a tight budget and can't afford to be paying hundreds of dollars every month for healthcare services that they are unlikely to use.
And again. Are you clairvoyant? If you could prove that you will not use the services that you are unwilling to pay for, that would be one thing. But short of that, you become a freeloader on the system that the rest of us have to pay for. Emergency rooms are full of individuals just like you who 'wish' themselves healthy until the next emergency room visit. One of the major problems with healthcare is rising costs and another is the number of freeloaders that saddle our Emergency Rooms and clinics with costs that are never paid. Someone pays for that---you are apparently satisfied that that someone isn't you. (how does that fit into your Christian ethic?)
WinePusher wrote:
Do you know how arrogant stuff like this sounds? You don't know ANYTHING about me so stop making foolish personal remarks.
Have your completely forgotten our previous conversations? Again. Do a search with the words, "free clinics" and the author, "Winepusher" and perhaps we can refresh some of these memories.
WinePusher wrote: ... you keep bringing up this freeloader nonsense that has nothing to do with the issue.
Freeloaders are a huge component of the issue. Emergency Room treatment for non-payers runs up the tab for everyone. Folks like you who choose to be without insurance (as a constitutional right) and then find themselves sick or injured and end up with costly treatments that are written off onto 'rising costs for the rest of us' are by definition, 'freeloaders'.

Can you GUARANTEE that you will never make use of the services that you here and now claim that you choose not to pay for? Can you GUARANTEE that you will never become a costly senior citizen having skated through your healthy years without a dime out of your pocket? And then (and only then) expect the hated government to pick up the tab?
WinePusher wrote: Here's a simple question, do you support forcing people to pay part of their income into a health insurance plan EVEN IF they don't want to and can't afford it?
I support a single payer 'Medicare for All" kind of a plan that takes private insurance out of the equation completely.

But I could learn to love your plan which seems to be: Pay nothing until Medicare.

It appears that your 'antisocialism' positions are in place to keep the nickels and dimes in your pocket.

And I was hoping for some kind of higher goal.

You are an amazing guy. You know that laws passed by the House and Senate and then signed by the President (and validated by the Supreme Court) are not legal and you know your complete healthcare history in advance.

I wish I could be you.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #120

Post by johnmarc »

Welcome back,
dianaiad wrote:

You say that ALL of these people end up with BETTER policies?
No. I didn't say that and you are smart enough to know that. I can defend what I said, but I can't defend what you said I said.

There is nothing in your post except polemic and generalities. Not a single specific. Not a single fact. Not a single data point. You don't like Obama---I understand that. But to be more persuasive, you will have to quantify and qualify your rather general negative conversation with something more than...well...conversation.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

Post Reply