The New American Politics thread

[CaramonLS]

Still have no idea how the US Government spends more GDP per person than Canada does on health care and you guys still have medical bills like that. What a broken system.

At least you guys have your "Freedom" and "Choice".

[Minnie]

"In network" has already gained a foot hold in Canada, with the insurance companies. It's started with pharmacies but it will grow from there.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Bachman is an idiot, but then again, so is every other politician. She sticks out like a cyst amongst a bunch of giant zits.

Here's how Obamacare has affected me personally so far:

My company had to switch from one insurance carrier to another because they could no longer afford the original. After the switch, my premium co-pay per month was still hiked, my deductible is now $10,000 instead of $5,000. My co-pay at an office visit is now $40 instead of $25, and my kids' pediatrician is no longer 'in network' so now I have to drive about 45 minutes to get to a decent doctor who is 'in-network.' Also, my insurance can now decline paying for treatment unless I provide them with any sort of paperwork on preexisting conditions, which is a tactic they can use to delay payment and make me jump through 500 hoops to get them their information, which is a pain, and their attempt to not have to pay for treatment. My co-payment for medication has been hiked from $5-$25 to $20-100. Oh, and my husband, who previously paid cash for all doctors' visits because he never ever went to the doctor (one time in the past 15 years), now has to pay $337/month for 'affordable' insurance because I have to wait until next year for 'open enrollment' to add him to my plan, which will cost me another $175/month.

Thank you Mr. Obama. So glad you're working for the middle class.

Several states have actually seen premiums decrease with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (because how about we use actual terminology not a stupid rhetoric the GOP likes to throw around?). My premiums for next year have actually dropped, for the first time in the seven years I've worked for my company, and it's better coverage than I was getting previously.

Is the ACA going to be perfect for everyone? Of course not. But now a whole lot more people will have access to healthcare that did not before. As for your always healthy husband--I was the same way, up until this year, when I had a rash of health issues which, out of pocket, would've cost me well over $30k to fix. Instead, I paid about $400 in copays. You can't just skip insurance until you get sick, otherwise it screws up the whole system.

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Still have no idea how the US Government spends more GDP per person than Canada does on health care and you guys still have medical bills like that. What a broken system.

At least you guys have your "Freedom" and "Choice".

Because in the US the healthcare industry is not about making people well, it's about making pharmaceutical and insurance companies a crap-ton of money.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Several states have actually seen premiums decrease with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (because how about we use actual terminology not a stupid rhetoric the GOP likes to throw around?). My premiums for next year have actually dropped, for the first time in the seven years I've worked for my company, and it's better coverage than I was getting previously.

Is the ACA going to be perfect for everyone? Of course not. But now a whole lot more people will have access to healthcare that did not before. As for your always healthy husband--I was the same way, up until this year, when I had a rash of health issues which, out of pocket, would've cost me well over $30k to fix. Instead, I paid about $400 in copays. You can't just skip insurance until you get sick, otherwise it screws up the whole system.



Because in the US the healthcare industry is not about making people well, it's about making pharmaceutical and insurance companies a crap-ton of money.

At least before we had a choice to not pay and pay cash instead at a considerable discount to boot. I figure we've saved about $60-80K in the past 15 years on insurance premiums.

Glad your insurance is going down. The broker who does our insurance at my place of work said that decreases in premiums were virtually unheard of, and the entire company he works for highly discouraged Obamacare for that reason. It's making millions of people either pay for benefits they can't afford or forcing people to be penalized on their taxes if they don't. The people who got medicaid aren't affected- just the middle class.

I'll be the first to say Obama had good intentions with the health care bill, and it certainly wasn't working before he took office. I am just pointing out, as you say, it's not going to work for everyone.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

At least before we had a choice to not pay and pay cash instead at a considerable discount to boot. I figure we've saved about $60-80K in the past 15 years on insurance premiums.

What would've happened if your husband had a heart attack or was diagnosed with cancer, with your previous setup of him paying oop?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

At least before we had a choice to not pay and pay cash instead at a considerable discount to boot. I figure we've saved about $60-80K in the past 15 years on insurance premiums.

This point of view is one of the big reasons why health care is the way it is in the United States.

It's just insanely selfish.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by evman150

This point of view is one of the big reasons why health care is the way it is in the United States.

It's just insanely selfish.

Why? What is selfish about it? If something catastrophic happened, we are perfectly in position to pay cash, at a lowered price. I know that if something were to happen, if I do not pay the bills I am chancing losing my home. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I do. I don't think that Obama gets to say 'You have to pay $337/month for health care whether or not you need it, or you're screwed on your taxes. It's extortion really when you think about it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Why? What is selfish about it? If something catastrophic happened, we are perfectly in position to pay cash, at a lowered price. I know that if something were to happen, if I do not pay the bills I am chancing losing my home. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I do. I don't think that Obama gets to say 'You have to pay $337/month for health care whether or not you need it, or you're screwed on your taxes. It's extortion really when you think about it.

Is auto insurance extortion?

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by nik-

Is auto insurance extortion?

No, but with auto insurance you get it in case you hurt someone else and you are liable. It makes sense to have to carry it, because it's a responsibility to others as well as yourself. Health insurance affects no one but yourself, so if you choose not to have it and pay cash for services at a discount, I think that should be your right. It's not affecting anyone else but you.

[nik-]

But if you're in an accident and aren't insured they don't just leave you at the side of the road to die. They expense resources on you to save your life, services that in the end you would not have contributed to.

[Dion]

Why Is American Health Care So Ridiculously Expensive?

The U.S. medical system is absurdly expensive. You knew that already. But you probably didn't realize just how absurdly expensive it is compared to other countries.

These 21 graphs (one of them you'll see above) from the International Federation of Health Plans, via Ezra Klein, start to paint the picture. The average routine office visit in the U.S. is three-times more expensive than in Canada. The average CT scan is five-times more expensive than in Canada. And as a share of GDP, our health care costs are an ignominious colossus towering over the rest of the world:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ensive/274425/

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Why? What is selfish about it? If something catastrophic happened, we are perfectly in position to pay cash, at a lowered price. I know that if something were to happen, if I do not pay the bills I am chancing losing my home. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I do. I don't think that Obama gets to say 'You have to pay $337/month for health care whether or not you need it, or you're screwed on your taxes. It's extortion really when you think about it.

Unless required by your employer, opting out of health insurance is still an option. Is 1% of taxable household income more than the $4044 in premiums he's currently paying?

Beginning on January 1, 2014, any person without qualifying health coverage must pay a tax penalty, either a flat rate or a share of household income, whichever amount is greater. The flat rate penalty is phased-in: starting in 2014 at $95 per year, increasing to $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016. After 2016, the flat rate tax penalty increases annually with a cost-of-living adjustment. The maximum a flat rate tax for a family per year is $2,085 (3 times $695), no matter how large the family.

The other option is a penalty based on a share of household income that is also phased in, starting in 2014 at 1 percent of taxable income, increasing to 2 percent of taxable income in 2015 and maxing out at 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016 and the years that follow.

ACA 101

I'm certainly not an expert on the topic, but the biggest issue I see with the ACA is that no one knows what it really entails. People are getting their information from third parties and not researching it themselves. Yes, this also includes the legislators that had the responsibility of making it law.

On a personal note, my company rep on the health insurance commission had no idea that the 80% rule even existed, so I've got that going for me. We weren't given a refund because our insurance company is a self funded co-op and spends much more than 80% on services. I know a few people that have, though.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Why? What is selfish about it? If something catastrophic happened, we are perfectly in position to pay cash, at a lowered price.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What would've happened if your husband had a heart attack or was diagnosed with cancer, with your previous setup of him paying oop?

So you would pay cash for a heart attack or cancer treatment?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

At least before we had a choice to not pay and pay cash instead at a considerable discount to boot. I figure we've saved about $60-80K in the past 15 years on insurance premiums.

Glad your insurance is going down. The broker who does our insurance at my place of work said that decreases in premiums were virtually unheard of, and the entire company he works for highly discouraged Obamacare for that reason. It's making millions of people either pay for benefits they can't afford or forcing people to be penalized on their taxes if they don't. The people who got medicaid aren't affected- just the middle class.

I'll be the first to say Obama had good intentions with the health care bill, and it certainly wasn't working before he took office. I am just pointing out, as you say, it's not going to work for everyone.

Yeah, and insurance companies are totally impartial sources of information

[DuffMan]

Arkansas teachers to carry 9 mm guns on campus come fall,

Teachers and staff at Clarksville High School in Arkansas have undergone 53 hours of intensive weapons training in recent weeks, and they stand ready for school doors to open this fall — locked and loaded, ready to fend off the type of disaster that rocked a Connecticut community in December and left 20 children dead.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2adSCxLth

arming more and more people is definitely the answer of reducing gun violence. I wonder if teachers in Yemen, the second most armed country in the world also carry guns in school.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Arkansas teachers to carry 9 mm guns on campus come fall,



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2adSCxLth

arming more and more people is definitely the answer of reducing gun violence. I wonder if teachers in Yemen, the second most armed country in the world also carry guns in school.

I wonder how long until a student gets ahold of a gun that a teacher left unattended

[nik-]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Arkansas teachers to carry 9 mm guns on campus come fall,



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2adSCxLth

arming more and more people is definitely the answer of reducing gun violence. I wonder if teachers in Yemen, the second most armed country in the world also carry guns in school.

I've been to Clarksville. It has one of those old fashioned Main Streets that I think the politicians always talk about when they say stop thinking about Wall Street and start thinking about Main Street. This doesn't really surprise me.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by nik-

But if you're in an accident and aren't insured they don't just leave you at the side of the road to die. They expense resources on you to save your life, services that in the end you would not have contributed to.

That's a great point, however our auto insurance allows copious amounts of medical coverage in the case of an accident, for the driver and for anyone else in the accident. If you don't medically insure yourself, you aren't hurting anyone else. You shouldn't be forced to pay for something if it only affects you. You can argue with me all you want, but the fact is, if you don't have medical insurance and something catastrophic happens, you'll pay one way or another- whether it be losing your house, your business, making payments, having crap credit- whatever. Hell, most medical insurance has a cap anyway, and you're left owning a ton of money regardless of the situation. It should be the choice of a person.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

That's a great point, however our auto insurance allows copious amounts of medical coverage in the case of an accident, for the driver and for anyone else in the accident. If you don't medically insure yourself, you aren't hurting anyone else. You shouldn't be forced to pay for something if it only affects you. You can argue with me all you want, but the fact is, if you don't have medical insurance and something catastrophic happens, you'll pay one way or another- whether it be losing your house, your business, making payments, having crap credit- whatever. Hell, most medical insurance has a cap anyway, and you're left owning a ton of money regardless of the situation. It should be the choice of a person.

Right, because when you declare bankruptcy and creditors wind up collecting pennies on the dollar nobody gets hurt. C'mon, think these things through. Your actions have impacts, despite how sheltered you may believe they are.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

That's a great point, however our auto insurance allows copious amounts of medical coverage in the case of an accident, for the driver and for anyone else in the accident.

Which, of course, you pay for through your auto insurance premiums, so in this respect paying for auto insurance (which you don't apparently object to) isn't much different than paying for health insurance (which you do apparently object to).

Regardless, for your car-insurance medical coverage to apply, mustn't the claim giving rise to the medical issue be auto related? If so, you should really plan on having your heart attacks and strokes in conjunction with your car wrecks.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

If you don't medically insure yourself, you aren't hurting anyone else.

Your statement, while possibly being accurate, is similarly untruthful. By not having health insurance, you are imposing the costs that you cannot afford onto others.

You say that you have "cash" to pay for health matters. It is highly improbable that you have enough "cash" to pay for all of the health matters that you may face.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

You shouldn't be forced to pay for something if it only affects you.

Great logic there---my car only affects me, so I shouldn't have to pay for it, right? My food choices only affect me, so I shouldn't have to pay for food either, right?

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

You can argue with me all you want, but the fact is, if you don't have medical insurance and something catastrophic happens, you'll pay one way or another- whether it be losing your house, your business, making payments, having crap credit- whatever.

No, not really, since even the most ruthless creditor realizes that once the money is gone, there is no point in expending additional funds and effort in trying to recover something that isn't there. So once the "cash" medical consumer has exhausted all of their "cash," the prudent* consumer would file for bankruptcy**, which would effectively--when all is said and done--shift the unpaid medical costs onto others. Namely, those who have health insurance (and, I suppose, other cash medical consumers).

Similarly, once you have run out of "cash" and assets, you can apply for Medicaid, which is, of course, paid for by all US taxpayers and generally allows for reduced-cost, if not outright free, medical care to those in the program. If, because of your earlier decision to be a cash medical consumer you end up enrolled in Medicaid, I'd appreciate it if you limited your use of that program, since my taxes are already high enough as it is and I don't particularly like subsidizing free-loaders.

So your whole argument about how your decision not to have health insurance only affects you is, clearly, an exceptionally bogus one.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Hell, most medical insurance has a cap anyway, and you're left owning a ton of money regardless of the situation.

Ironically, the ACA does away with both lifetime and annual limits and caps.



* Something of a oxymoron here, since a truly prudent medical consumer would have had health insurance coverage, but that's beside the point.

** Which, depending upon the laws of the bankrupt's residence, would allow the bankrupt to possibly keep their house, their business, their tools, etc.