Even More Obamacare Follies

#176
#176
lawgator1 said:
Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.
Click to expand...

Try again. I asked about Obamacare. Your first word can't be Romneycare. I don't care about Romneycare. Now try again. And don't forget the "Good" for America part? At what cost?
 
#177
#177
lawgator1 said:
"They need"? How do you know what you need until it happens to you?

And if by this you refer to the fact that risk that would not apply to a given person is nonetheless spread to them, even in the tiniest increment, I again ask -- what is the point of insurance?
Click to expand...

Only females (OEM females) and FL Lawyers need OBGYN and birth control. Single males didn't need it last I checked.
 
#181
#181
lawgator1 said:
Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.
Click to expand...

Overall decent post.

However, you the failure of RomneyCare and Obamacare is that neither actually addresses the true problem of healthcare in this country which is the price. Romneycare and Obamacare only shift the booming costs of healthcare instead of actually lowering the cost of health. It is completely disingenuous to insinuate that Obamacare is going to lower costs (see the bold).

The only way one is going to lower costs is to either deregulate the market so buyer-seller transactions happen or go completely to single payer with very strict regulations.
 
#182
#182
lawgator1 said:
By your logic, there would be no such thing as insurance, at all.
Click to expand...

I am perfectly OK being billed directly and paying cash for any obgyn visits I schedule. There should be no insurance coverage for males that need it

Obamacare removes individual choice and replaces it with a govt mandate which is never positive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#183
#183
lawgator1 said:
Romneycare was promoted by the GOP originally because what it does is force everyone to contribute to the costs of health care. The problem now is so many people get health care for free, and in very inefficient ways, which drives the cost of care up for those paying for insurance. It is the number one reason that hospital aspirin are $10 each on your bill -- to cover the cost of uncompensated care.

And so what the individual mandate does -- as adopted by Romney and as he and the GOP argued should be done nationally -- is force everyone to pay into the coverage. No more 100 % free care.

It is similar to the argument the GOP makes all the time about how everyone should pay income tax of some kind since everyone uses public services.

Moreover, because previously uninsured people will now have some coverage, they can seek medical care for minor problems at low cost before they become major problems at high cost. The current system, is much more inefficient in that it drives the uninsured to the hospital for primary care.

You can't have it both ways: You can't force the system to absorb the cost of care for everyone, and then relegate to a smaller and smaller group of people the cost of care for everyone. So you either start turning people away at the ER doors, telling them good luck, hope you don't die in our parking lot, or you force everyone into a better, more even handed, more efficient system.

If you want to argue otherwise, that's a fine debate to have. But be honest. Admit that you would prefer the uninsured go without care, the consequences of which are their problem. Because that is the only realistic alternative out there, short of spreading the cost of care to everyone via universal health care and single payer.
Click to expand...

Question 1. If what you have posted is true, why have between 1200 - 1800 waivers been given out to large corporations?

Questions 2 and 3. Isn't the freeloader issue in hospitals, which contributes to $10 aspirin, a result of regulations prohibiting hospitals from turning patients away? Are you required to represent every prospective client who walks into your office regardless of their intention of paying?

Question 3. Since this law has only positive effects, why is the implementation of certain aspects being delayed?
 
#184
#184
lawgator1 said:
Ask Romney and the GOP, who endorsed doing this at the national level.

Until Obama said okay let's do that.
Click to expand...

It was endorsed by a think-tank; it was not part of the official GOP platform. At least try to get something as simple as that correct.

Explain why this boondoggle is good for America.
 
#187
#187
lawgator1 said:
By your logic, there would be no such thing as insurance, at all.
Click to expand...

You think poorly.

Mandatory purchases should be unconstitutional in America. Govt using its power and vote buying to turn insurance into near monopolies and then claiming it's unaffordable is silly. The unaffordable is the easier freeloading, guaranteed issue and extra govt employees.
 
#188
#188
lawgator1 said:
Ask Romney and the GOP, who endorsed doing this at the national level.

Until Obama said okay let's do that.
Click to expand...

This is the dumbest of all answers. Another guy pandering for votes did it to get elected in a nearly socialist state, whose high water political marks are the monarchy loving Federalists and the Kennedy mafia. His touting that to try and get elected federally is absolute proof that it's brilliant.

Now, find another university blogger to help.

In the meantime, you've forgotten about the apples to apples pricing. Could you not find help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
Yeah, this will work out well...

Not Qualified For Obamacare's Subsidies? Just Lie -- Govt. To Use 'Honor System' Without Verifying Your Eligibility - Forbes

The government is going with what Kliff and Somashekhar call “the honor system.” “We have concluded that the…proposed rule is not feasible for implementation for the first year of operations,” say the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “The exchange may accept the applicant’s attestation regarding enrollment in an eligible employer-sponsored plan…without further verification, instead of following the procedure in §155.320(d)(3)(iii).”

And it’s not just there. The feds will also allow people to gain means-tested subsidized coverage on the exchanges without having to…test their means. “For income verification, for the first year of operations, we are providing Exchanges with temporarily expanded discretion to accept an attestation of projected annual household income without further verification.”
Click to expand...

All moves to avoid the insanity of implementation prior to the mid-term elections.

What a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#190
#190
HHS Admits: You Might Not Be Able to Keep Your Doctor Under Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

THE PRESIDENT: Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.
Click to expand...

Picture%207_0.png


"Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor." The bottom line is that Obamacare guarantees neither. Doctors may be only available through certain networks, just as in the current system. And only plans that existed in their current form on March 23, 2010, are even eligible to be "kept." The vast majority of plans will be new, subject to a raft of new regulations, requirements, and restrictions.
Click to expand...
 
#192
#192
#197
#197
a little more on the above

Obamacare

This spring, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawyers were also told by HHS that, despite the fact that navigators will have access to sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and tax returns, there will be no criminal background checks required for them. Indeed, they won’t even have to have high-school diplomas. Both U.S. Census Bureau and IRS employees must meet those minimum standards, if only because no one wants someone who has been convicted of identity theft getting near Americans’ personal records. But HHS is unconcerned. It points out that navigators will have to take a 20–30 hour online course about how the 1,200-page law works, which, given its demonstrated complexity, is like giving someone a first-aid course and then making him a med-school professor.
Click to expand...

But early reports are that the federal government will be offering navigators between $20 and $48 an hour. In many states, that’s far more than many private-sector workers with corresponding responsibilities earn.
Click to expand...
 
#199
#199
The term "boondoggle" may also be used to refer to protracted government or corporate projects involving large numbers of people and usually heavy expenditure, where at some point, the key operators, having realized that the project will never work, are still reluctant to bring this to the attention of their superiors.
 
#200
#200
BigPapaVol said:
Or, why on earth should a 24 year old, well paid person be required to buy insurance, particularly at a stated premium, given that said person is statistically the cheapest user?
Click to expand...

It's like the social security ponzi scheme. Without the money from young healthy people, it can't function.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top