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.

WinePusher

Post #141

Post by WinePusher »

johnmarc wrote:
WinePusher wrote:
...Whenever the government intervenes prices increase and quality decreases. Plain and simple.
This is an absolute---plain and simple. And it is simply wrong. Oftentimes prices do increase but sometimes quality increases as well (airbags?) Are school lunches more expensive due to government school lunch programs? Are you here on record saying that each and every time (whenever) the government intervenes quality decreases? These kinds of absolutes put you on the fringe of this conversation and I won't hold my breath until we see a retraction or an apology.
Public schools in general are failing because they are government run. And why would I retract or apologize for a statement just because it hurts your feelings? You've made multiple false statements in this thread that you need to retract and/or apologize for.

WinePusher

Post #142

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:What a load of nonsense. Provide the quote where I said this along with the link. I dare you.
johnmarc wrote:Once upon a time in an average neighborhood in an average city lived an older gentleman who was well liked by his neighbors except for one little quirk. He hated processed sugar and corn syrup, electing instead to trumpet the natural goodness of raw honey in all of his sweetening. Now that wouldn't have been a problem, but his penchant for 'raw and natural' seemed to be his focus on earth. We never came in contact with him without the subject coming up. He seemed to be one of those 'save the earth' kind of folk with a severe case of tunnel vision. Now, I for one, don't particularly care for pineapple, but the subject never came up.

Once, he was invited to a function put on by one of the neighbors and he no more that walked through the door and spied a sack of U&I in the corner of the kitchen and immediately turned heel and disappeared.

One fateful day, we all saw a medical van parked in his driveway and then saw it leave. As he had no known relatives but did keep an old one-eyed cat which he called, 'Cat' we thought to check out the house to make sure it was locked and the cat was taken care of. The paramedics had thoughtfully locked the front door, but the back was unlocked and we went in to find 'Cat'.

We were surprised in our search by a half eaten Snickers bar on the counter. And in the search for cat food and liter box, uncovered what appeared to be a year's supply of Costco sized boxes of every kind sugary confection known to modern retailing. The man was huge and no wonder. Now, he never directly 'said' that he didn't eat refined sugar, he just wore us down with his constant rant about the evils of 'processed' and 'unnatural'.

When he arrived back home form what turned out to be a minor stroke, he had to know that we were on to his little game, but he took no notice of it. He was the same champion of 'natural and raw' that he ever was, but we became a little concerned. It seemed to us that to hold that kind of contradiction in one's head was for some of the connections to be loose. So we asked the kids to come home on the other side of the street, and I found more and more excuses to be somewhere else when I saw him in his yard.
So you CAN'T provide a quote or link? All you can do is write down an irrelevant rant and try to divert attention away from your false claim?
johnmarc wrote:I support 'Medicare for All' (A single payer program) Yes, there will be indigent individuals who receive benefits without paying. But I consider that kind of 'freeloading' in a different category than that category that you support---able to participate and pay but for financial advantage won't. That is a different kind of freeloading altogether.
Freeloading is simply receiving something without paying for it. There are not different types of freeloading. I don't mind giving healthcare to people who genuinely need it and can't afford it, which is why I have repeatedly said that I support a basic healthcare social safety net. You criticized me for this position and called me a freeloader, and yet here you are saying that you have no problem with freeloaders. Your position is inconsistent and nonsensical.

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

Post #143

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote:

So you CAN'T provide a quote or link? All you can do is write down an irrelevant rant and try to divert attention away from your false claim?
The two really strange things about conservative (as in literal Jesus and literal Heaven and Hell) is that (1) their positions are so counter to Biblical instruction that it is hard to believe that there is any Christian in Christianity anymore.

The other strange thing about conservative (as in literal Jesus and literal Heaven and Hell) is that they can't read parables. Jesus taught in parables and there is little cause to believe that they are read or understood. This is a prime example. To call this irrelevant is to completely misunderstand it. You may disagree and you might not understand, but neither of those are irrelevance.
WinePusher wrote:

I don't mind giving healthcare to people who genuinely need it and can't afford it, which is why I have repeatedly said that I support a basic healthcare social safety net.
Walking the talk would be helpful. EVERY Christian (when pinned down) wants to 'help folks who 'genuinely need it and can't afford it. But when asked for a specific plan or comprehensive direction, the details get muddy in a hurry. Be specific---exactly what program might implement this lofty goal? Other than 'charity should be private' (a goal and not a plan) what exactly are you envisioning? Without the specific plans for implementation all of this is just talk. If this was a conservative Christian consensus, we would be able to see all of this 'caring' at work by now.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

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

Post #144

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote:

Freeloading is simply receiving something without paying for it.
Often 'simply receiving something without paying for it' is called charity. Freeloading is the handing out of goods and services to the undeserving. For the deserving, we have coined the word, "charity".
WinePusher wrote:

There are not different types of freeloading.
Weird. Therefore the word 'charity' doesn't exist??? There are no deserving poor??

There are folks who can't (and charity is extended to them) and there are folks who can but won't (buy insurance which leads to dependence on others)

One is clearly charity and the other is clearly freeloading
WinePusher wrote:
I don't mind giving healthcare to people who genuinely need it and can't afford it...
But you can't discern the difference between charity and freeloading?

Charity is when goods and services are voluntarily given. But in the example that you support (non-payment of insurance premiums) the goods and services are forced from the hands of individuals who are making a public outcry over the unfairness and expense of supporting those who should be contributing to both the public and private good but choose not to. That is freeloading.

And not to make too big a deal of this, but it is the Conservative Christians who seem to use the word 'charity' both often and loudly, but don't seem to know what the word means.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

WinePusher

Post #145

Post by WinePusher »

WinePusher wrote:So you CAN'T provide a quote or link? All you can do is write down an irrelevant rant and try to divert attention away from your false claim?
johnmarc wrote:The two really strange things about conservative (as in literal Jesus and literal Heaven and Hell) is that (1) their positions are so counter to Biblical instruction that it is hard to believe that there is any Christian in Christianity anymore.

The other strange thing about conservative (as in literal Jesus and literal Heaven and Hell) is that they can't read parables. Jesus taught in parables and there is little cause to believe that they are read or understood. This is a prime example. To call this irrelevant is to completely misunderstand it. You may disagree and you might not understand, but neither of those are irrelevance.
Nobody knows what you're talking about. You made a false claim about me, I asked you to provide the quote for your claim and all you've done is write down irrelevant dribble in a failed attempt to divert attention away from your false claim.
johnmarc wrote:You have publicized that you don't have and don't want healthcare insurance. You were the one that made that public, not me.
Produce the quote where I said that I don't want or have health insurance or retract it.

Produce the quote where I said that I don't want or have health insurance or retract it.
WinePusher wrote:I don't mind giving healthcare to people who genuinely need it and can't afford it, which is why I have repeatedly said that I support a basic healthcare social safety net.
johnmarc wrote:Walking the talk would be helpful. EVERY Christian (when pinned down) wants to 'help folks who 'genuinely need it and can't afford it. But when asked for a specific plan or comprehensive direction, the details get muddy in a hurry. Be specific---exactly what program might implement this lofty goal?
The negative income tax.
johnmarc wrote:Other than 'charity should be private' (a goal and not a plan) what exactly are you envisioning? Without the specific plans for implementation all of this is just talk. If this was a conservative Christian consensus, we would be able to see all of this 'caring' at work by now.
Most charitable causes should be privately run as opposed to publicly run. I have no problem giving money and supporting efficient, privately run charities as opposed to inefficient publicly run 'charities' like the entire federal welfare bureaucracy.
johnmarc wrote:Often 'simply receiving something without paying for it' is called charity. Freeloading is the handing out of goods and services to the undeserving. For the deserving, we have coined the word, "charity".
That's just your opinion, and I honestly couldn't care less about your opinion. When somebody freeloads off of society they are receiving something without paying for it, plain and simple.
johnmarc wrote:But in the example that you support (non-payment of insurance premiums).
I support people choosing for themselves whether or not they should buy health insurance and put aside a large portion of their income into their health insurance plan. Should we force all people to purchase life insurance, especially households where only one person is the breadwinner? If that person dies their family will slowly drift into poverty and they will be a burden upon society. So, we should just preemptively force people to buy life insurance and pay into a life insurance plan because YOU think it will benefit the public. Give me a break, your argument is complete nonsense.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #146

Post by Furrowed Brow »

I was about to write I have no skin in this game but that might not be true in the long term. But being over here in London I am not immersed in the details of Obamacare. However what I have been seeing smells of a mess. If Obamacare can't be fixed and turns into the nightmare some are warning this would be a sad day.

As for my cryptic comment about maybe having some skin in the game over the long term, the fear here is that government is slowly edging towards the privatization of our national health service and that it is being run down in order to introduce private management and profit based schemes. We have just sold off our national post office to hedge funds. There have been some trade agreements signed recently and the suggestion is that these will give access to American companies to enter the British national health system. Maybe we'll end up with Obamacare II or III. Have to say even the hint of the idea makes me feel sick. Which I guess means that I would not wish Obamacare on me I should wish it on anyone else either.

I'm not sure what the answer is for the US. Maybe you guys just love going bankrupt trying to pay your health bills when your insurance runs out. I know what is best for the UK and it is not private healthcare. Long live the NHS.

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

Post #147

Post by johnmarc »

johnmarc wrote:Often 'simply receiving something without paying for it' is called charity. Freeloading is the handing out of goods and services to the undeserving. For the deserving, we have coined the word, "charity".
WinePusher wrote:
That's just your opinion, and I honestly couldn't care less about your opinion.
No. That actually came from the dictionary. You seem to be claiming that there is no difference between 'deserving' or 'undeserving' (freeloading vs. charity) in "simply receiving something without paying for it"

(1) That makes you one of a kind. I think that everyone else here and elsewhere can determine the difference.

(2) How do you support the poor as you claim you are willing if you cannot separate the deserving from the non-deserving?
WinePusher wrote: I support people choosing for themselves whether or not they should buy health insurance
I support a single payer (Medicare for all) plan which subsidizes the poor and premiums are spread over the largest possible demographic which lowers costs for all and wields a huge hammer in negotiating the costs of medical goods and services. This is a powerful way to attempt to control the rising costs of medical care.
WinePusher wrote: and put aside a large portion of their income into their health insurance plan.
Besides yourself, is there anyone out there that believes that this would work on a large scale? Americans are not savers. And besides, how does the individual who cannot afford healthcare premiums begin to go about 'putting aside a large portion of their income for anything?
WinePusher wrote:
Should we force all people to purchase life insurance, especially households where only one person is the breadwinner?
Yes, with subsidies for those on low incomes.
WinePusher wrote:
If that person dies their family will slowly drift into poverty.
You rarely use the qualifiers, 'might', and 'can' opting for the absolutes like 'will'. but your 'absolute' examples are usually anomalies and rarely the norm.

(1) They might quickly descend into poverty (no drift about it)

(2) It is common for one income families to purchase life insurance for the non-breadwinner. The few 'stay at home' widows that I know are relatively well off from decent life insurance policies.

(3) They might be supported by family

(4) They might remarry.

I am sure that brighter folks than me could get this list up to twenty or thirty options but the bottom line is:

"If that person dies their family WILL slowly drift into poverty." is a patently false statement. Consider using the words, 'could' or 'might' from time to time.

None of the widows of which I am aware, "slowly drifted into poverty"
WinePusher wrote:
and they will be a burden upon society
And this probably bothers me the most. The phrase 'burden on society' seems to come almost exclusively from the religious right. Folks who KNOW that there is a God in Heaven---that a future reward waits in Heaven or a punishment in Hell. But, for the Bible itself, there are no 'burdens on society' This whole notion that a socialized healthcare system might benefit the poor more than it might benefit the rich is exactly why the Conservative Christian Literal Believers should have been the very individuals who created, championed, pushed into legislation, passed, and implemented a comprehensive heath care policy. But each and every time that party had power----nothing. I notice that you did not challenge me on my phrase, "There is very little Christian in Christianity" As far as this healthcare debate goes, the phrase is just about as glaringly true as anything could be. Careful---Jesus is watching.
WinePusher wrote:
So, we should just preemptively force people to buy life insurance and pay into a life insurance plan because YOU think it will benefit the public.
I have seen instances on this forum where I believe that you and only you hold a particular position. But in this case the issue extends far, far, beyond me. This policy was not passed in both houses of Congress and signed by the President because only I felt this was a good idea.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

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

Post #148

Post by johnmarc »

WinePusher wrote: Produce the quote where I said that I don't want or have health insurance or retract it.
Thread: Socialized Medicine. Post 137.
WinePusher wrote: If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.
WinePusher wrote: In my world and in America, there are these things called ER's and Free Clinics that take care of people regardless of whether they can pay or not.
Not buying insurance because you BELIEVE you will continue to be healthy and then making the use of ER's and Clinics when you are wrong is not a sustainable healthcare policy. It is not even Christian---should injury or illness (entirely likely) occur, you will be the same burden on others that you abhor. You become the same individual that you condemn---someone who receives something without paying for it---by your definition---a freeloader.
WinePusher wrote:
When somebody freeloads off of society they are receiving something without paying for it, plain and simple.
Thank You
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

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

Post #149

Post by bluethread »

Just to add a little joy of the moed(season), enjoy this divertissement.

Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Build a website and begin
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
When it falls down we spin again.

Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Like your plan, you stay in.
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
I meant only if prenatal's in.

Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Have no money, Medicaid.
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Others double what they paid.

Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Everybody must come in.
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Not our staffers and unions.

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

Post #150

Post by johnmarc »

bluethread wrote:
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Have no money, Medicaid.
Have no money, what a shame
Please feel free to die in pain.

Other than ridicule and rhyme, what is a practical conservative solution to the problem?
bluethread wrote:
Obama, Obama, spin, spin, spin
Others double what they paid.
Without any factual real support
This claim is going up in smoke.

Provide some factual support for this assertion.
Why posit intention when ignorance will suffice?

Post Reply