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
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #81

Post by Nickman »

[Replying to post 76 by Darias]

Although I am not a fan of the President I voted for, the ACA is a good thing. It is socialized health care. We all pay taxes for roads, social security, Medicaid, FDIC, and many others. ACA is no different. We are just tacking on another tax which potentially helps all of us, even the poor. You may have great income now, but one day you may not be able to afford it. BOOM we got you covered. There is a 97 dollar fee for not having health care, yearly, for families, and a 47 dollar fee for singles. Why? Because they look at it the same way as car insurance. Anytime a person goes to the ER and doesn't have coverage, who pays for it? Tax payers. So to make things more even, the ACA makes health care mandatory and affordable.

ACA is a great idea. Will it work? IDK. We may not be ready, but it is a good thing.

Do you get mad when a senior citizen gets social security? That is money that came out of your check. The same principle applies for those who need health care. You have been an advocate against public schooling, yet if a person doesn't get public schooling, how can they even afford health care? ACA is a good answer.

ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #82

Post by Darias »

[Replying to post 81 by Nickman]


The presentation wasn't a criticism of the president, it was a criticism of ACA. If you haven't seen it already I would encourage you to take a look at it.

Right now you're just telling me universal healthcare is good because it's healthcare and it's affordable, just like the Patriot Act is patriotic and good and beneficial.

While I do not advocate breaking the law and while I certainly submit to the law, I am not in favor of using force in the form of extortion in order to create services society needs. But you don't have to be a voluntaryist, let alone a fiscal conservative to see the major problems with ACA.

ACA/Romneycare/Obamacare actually increases the costs of healthcare in my state by about 200% for someone a little older than me. And the premiums increase for everyone regardless of gender across the country. Millions of people are losing their coverage because of this. And all the people who want to save money by not having health insurance now have to pay for it.

Explain how this is good. Who is it good for? It seems parasitical to me, and I sure as hell ain't a member of the 1%.

Telling me that costs will go down for everyone is just substituting one of Obama's talking points or failed campaign promises for reality. You might as well just say Obama supports closing down Guantanamo or ending the aerial campaign over Pakistan because he won a Nobel Prize.

And insurance is something you pay into before an emergency. People did not seek flood insurance during Katrina. It's tragic that those things happen to people, but there's not a national policy in place to force car insurance providers to give insurance to reckless drivers or to reimburse uninsured people who've already been in an accident.

Did you know that the number of auto accident deaths in the US every year is comparable to the number of deaths of the uninsured? Where is the public outrage over the lack of universal car insurance in America? Screw the safe drivers and the pedestrians; they need to take care of their irresponsible neighbors, legally if need be. In the US, about 14% of drivers are uninsured, which is about the exact same number of people who don't have healthcare. I suggest we pressure Obama to get Congress to create a solution after they get done passing CISPA, and we can name it Progressive... crap that's already taken.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #83

Post by Goat »

Darias wrote: [Replying to post 81 by Nickman]


The presentation wasn't a criticism of the president, it was a criticism of ACA. If you haven't seen it already I would encourage you to take a look at it.

Right now you're just telling me universal healthcare is good because it's healthcare and it's affordable, just like the Patriot Act is patriotic and good and beneficial.

While I do not advocate breaking the law and while I certainly submit to the law, I am not in favor of using force in the form of extortion in order to create services society needs. But you don't have to be a voluntaryist, let alone a fiscal conservative to see the major problems with ACA.

ACA/Romneycare/Obamacare actually increases the costs of healthcare in my state by about 200% for someone a little older than me. And the premiums increase for everyone regardless of gender across the country. Millions of people are losing their coverage because of this. And all the people who want to save money by not having health insurance now have to pay for it.

Explain how this is good. Who is it good for? It seems parasitical to me, and I sure as hell ain't a member of the 1%.

Telling me that costs will go down for everyone is just substituting one of Obama's talking points or failed campaign promises for reality. You might as well just say Obama supports closing down Guantanamo or ending the aerial campaign over Pakistan because he won a Nobel Prize.

And insurance is something you pay into before an emergency. People did not seek flood insurance during Katrina. It's tragic that those things happen to people, but there's not a national policy in place to force car insurance providers to give insurance to reckless drivers or to reimburse uninsured people who've already been in an accident.

Did you know that the number of auto accident deaths in the US every year is comparable to the number of deaths of the uninsured? Where is the public outrage over the lack of universal car insurance in America? Screw the safe drivers and the pedestrians; they need to take care of their irresponsible neighbors, legally if need be. In the US, about 14% of drivers are uninsured, which is about the exact same number of people who don't have healthcare. I suggest we pressure Obama to get Congress to create a solution after they get done passing CISPA, and we can name it Progressive... crap that's already taken.
What you are repeating is EXACTLY propaganda.. taking things out of context, and trying to make false equivalencies.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Darias
Guru
Posts: 2017
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:14 pm

Post #84

Post by Darias »

[Replying to post 83 by Goat]


‣ Ad lapidem

Perhaps you could demonstrate why my fact based argument is propaganda, and why my equivalencies are false (amusingly enough, the last time I said "false equivalencies" was when I was "defending" marriage -- I didn't like it when someone compared anti-gay marriage laws to prohibition). Otherwise you're just labeling and dismissing rather than debating. If you can't be bothered to offer me a fair and sophistry-free rebuttal, then please don't needlessly bump the thread with your version of "nuh-uh."

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #85

Post by Nickman »

[Replying to post 82 by Darias]

I never said it was a criticism of the Prez. I was just stating that I am not a fan of him, yet ACA is something I am for. You also didn't address my post. You said that I was just saying it is good and not supplying any form of good reason why it is good. So ill repeat what I said.
Do you get mad when a senior citizen gets social security? That is money that came out of your check. The same principle applies for those who need health care. You have been an advocate against public schooling, yet if a person doesn't get public schooling, how can they even afford health care? ACA is a good answer.

ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?
It is the sick and poor who need health care. The middle class and the rich already have it. How do we extend the same health care to the poor? Make it affordable and unbiased towards preexisting ailments such as diabetes, and cancers. For someone who claims to be progressive and liberal, you don't seem to be in favor of socialized healthcare. If you have healthier people, you have a healthier society.

Car insurance is mandatory in most states. You get fined for not having it, if you get pulled over. Also, most states I have registered in will not allow you to register unless you provide proof of insurance.

With ACA, each person is required to get insurance, and there is a yearly fee for not doing so. 97 dollars for families, and 47 for singles. We all pitch in a little for the lot. This works the same way that social security does. We pitch in a little so that people can have social security when they are too old to work. Do you petition against social security when they take it out of your check?

I would like to see some figures that show that health insurance will rise 200% in your state. Can you show me how ACA will cause this?

According to what I have read they will decrease.
When open enrollment begins on the online, state-based marketplaces established under Obamacare, premiums nationwide are expected to be around 16 percent lower than originally predicted, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department said in a new report released Wednesday.

The administration sees the lower-than-expected premiums as a sign that the plan to drive down health costs for consumers by increasing competition is working. They also point to the insurers entering the individual health insurance market for the first time as a sign of strong competition, as well as the variety of plans that will be available on the market.

For families nationwide, "these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday. [CBS News, 9/25/13]
A new report released today by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows that 56 percent, or nearly six in ten of the people who don't have health insurance today may be able to get coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace for less than $100 per month.

Beginning on October 1, individuals and families will have a new way to shop for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. They'll be able to compare their options using side-by-side information about price, quality and benefits. With one application they'll be able to see if they qualify for premium tax credits or Medicaid that lower the costs of coverage right away. Coverage through the Marketplace starts as early as January 1, 2014. [HHS.gov, 9/17/13]
There is a constant theme you have promoted on the forum. Government is bad. Socialized anything is bad. Thats what I gather from your posts. Public School [-X Health Care for all [-X. I enjoy most of your posts but on these issues I disagree vehemently.

WinePusher

Post #86

Post by WinePusher »

Nickman wrote:ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?
Do you know why insurance companies refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions? Because people with preexisting conditions are considered liabilities, and Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to essentially take on an unlimited amount of liabilities by forcing them to cover preexisting conditions. This is not feasible. It's the same as a person going to buy fire insurance after their house as already been burned down, or a person going to buy car insurance after their car has been wrecked. Fire insurance companies do not cover people who already lost their house to a fire, and car insurance companies do not cover people who already got in a car accident. The same is true with health insurance.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #87

Post by Nickman »

WinePusher wrote:
Nickman wrote:ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?
Do you know why insurance companies refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions? Because people with preexisting conditions are considered liabilities, and Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to essentially take on an unlimited amount of liabilities by forcing them to cover preexisting conditions. This is not feasible. It's the same as a person going to buy fire insurance after their house as already been burned down, or a person going to buy car insurance after their car has been wrecked. Fire insurance companies do not cover people who already lost their house to a fire, and car insurance companies do not cover people who already got in a car accident. The same is true with health insurance.
I understand why, but it is unethical to deny a person health care whom can afford it. Health care is an industry that only wants the healthy to pay for insurance. They might get sick or they might not, but in the meantime insurance companies are making a fortune off of monthly premiums that are never applied to the person paying them. Also, the premiums paid are being applied to other people's health care. This is the same way that banks work in lending. ACA doesn't change any of this. In fact it creates more competition which our economy thrives on as stated in my last post.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #88

Post by Goat »

Nickman wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
Nickman wrote:ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?
Do you know why insurance companies refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions? Because people with preexisting conditions are considered liabilities, and Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to essentially take on an unlimited amount of liabilities by forcing them to cover preexisting conditions. This is not feasible. It's the same as a person going to buy fire insurance after their house as already been burned down, or a person going to buy car insurance after their car has been wrecked. Fire insurance companies do not cover people who already lost their house to a fire, and car insurance companies do not cover people who already got in a car accident. The same is true with health insurance.
I understand why, but it is unethical to deny a person health care whom can afford it. Health care is an industry that only wants the healthy to pay for insurance. They might get sick or they might not, but in the meantime insurance companies are making a fortune off of monthly premiums that are never applied to the person paying them. Also, the premiums paid are being applied to other people's health care. This is the same way that banks work in lending. ACA doesn't change any of this. In fact it creates more competition which our economy thrives on as stated in my last post.

Do you know what one of the 'pre-existing' conditions that many insurance companies considered to refuse health care for someone??? Being a victim of domestic violence.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #89

Post by Nickman »

Goat wrote:
Nickman wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
Nickman wrote:ACA also makes insurance companies value their patients. Most health care companies do not value those who have preexisting ailments. ACA says that these companies cannot turn these people away. Why should they be able to only provide health care to the healthy?
Do you know why insurance companies refuse to cover people with preexisting conditions? Because people with preexisting conditions are considered liabilities, and Obamacare is forcing insurance companies to essentially take on an unlimited amount of liabilities by forcing them to cover preexisting conditions. This is not feasible. It's the same as a person going to buy fire insurance after their house as already been burned down, or a person going to buy car insurance after their car has been wrecked. Fire insurance companies do not cover people who already lost their house to a fire, and car insurance companies do not cover people who already got in a car accident. The same is true with health insurance.
I understand why, but it is unethical to deny a person health care whom can afford it. Health care is an industry that only wants the healthy to pay for insurance. They might get sick or they might not, but in the meantime insurance companies are making a fortune off of monthly premiums that are never applied to the person paying them. Also, the premiums paid are being applied to other people's health care. This is the same way that banks work in lending. ACA doesn't change any of this. In fact it creates more competition which our economy thrives on as stated in my last post.

Do you know what one of the 'pre-existing' conditions that many insurance companies considered to refuse health care for someone??? Being a victim of domestic violence.
Thank you, I was not aware. This is just another reason why people should be allowed health care when they can not afford it.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #90

Post by Goat »

Nickman wrote:
Goat wrote:

Do you know what one of the 'pre-existing' conditions that many insurance companies considered to refuse health care for someone??? Being a victim of domestic violence.
Thank you, I was not aware. This is just another reason why people should be allowed health care when they can not afford it.

And, if you want a reference, here is one from before the ACA was enacted.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/10/04/7 ... sting.html
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply