What is entitlement anyway? The right to something? Why does socialized health care have to be considered "bad" when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?
Good health would certainly be a benefit to society as a whole. People are able to work more and better if they are healthy.
Why not socialize health care, like education is socialized in America? It could be paid for in taxes like everything else that is important is.
Take away unfair taxes such as the Earned income credit, where people get up to $6000 a year for free.
And I have another idea. What about some kind of civil service? If someone can't pay for their share of taxes, why not have something like civil service program, where people can put in work according to their skills, on their own time to help defer the costs of things like health care. You want health care, you help the country in your own way.
What is an entitlement? An irrational decision that you have an innate right (because you say so) to the belongings of someone else, usually in the form of cash. Only because "might makes right" is a workable hypothesis does the concept hold any truth at all - ethically and morally it is a total failure.
So what about the rest of what I said? How about the thought of civil service? What do you think about something like that? Could it be workable?
I would have no problem with civil service, whether for food stamps or health care. Problem is, is that it seems to be "demeaning" to have to work for what you get to a great many people. At least to those that take it; those that give it don't mind for the most part.
Although I do not believe the citizenry is required by some moral, ethic or supernatural law somewhere to provide health care to anyone at all, it could be done through taxation just as the rest of the entitlement program is; just more Robin Hood games taking from the "rich" (middle class and down) to support the poor in their wants. We just can't begin to afford it PLUS provide huge profits to hundreds of independent insurance companies while providing anything but absolutely minimal care. As in "You get sick, you die but if you want an aspirin come see us".
No one is entitled to health care. This is what's wrong with this country, people believe that they should receive health care. I believe that if one has the money, then he/she should receive health care. I am totally against socialized medicine, the idea of socialized medicine is going to socioeconomically bankrupt the nation. The American health care system was fine before Obummler and his cronies wanted to implement the fiasco called Obama"care". America doesn't need socialized medicine; however, unfornately, this fiasco will came to pass but hopefully the American people will rebel against Obama"care". Socialized medicine is one step towards socialism!
Did you even read my post? You didn't even address any of the issues in detail. I think I might have a case for a new approach, and you didn't even mention any of that in your response.
There is nothing socialist about Obamacare.
Yes it IS. Obama"care" should not have been implemented in the first place. Americans are mandated to take this insidious plan. Obama should have mind his own business and left our health care the way it presently is.
Sorry no, it's pure capitalism, designed to pump money into the pockets of capitalist insurance companies.
For it even to begin to be socialist it would need to be removed from the dead hand of the capitalists and put in the hands of the people and be available to all without exception - which your system isn't.
You're falling into Wilderness's way of thinking, if you don't like or approve of something it must be socialism,
Nothing's wrong with Wilderness, he represents intelligence, reason, and logical thinking.
Except when it comes to something he doesn't either like or approve of and then logic goes out of the window and the bogey man of socialism comes in! I don't think he'll disagree that many times he's claimed something is socialist I've disagreed with him.
No, John - that isn't true and you are very well of it. I only consider the "share the wealth" concept, when actions fall into that entitlement philosophy of robbing Peter to give to Paul, to be Socialistic (from an economics standpoint). Whether I like a specific program or not, if it uses the tax base to give money to those that haven't earned it, it is socialism in action.
Sometimes it's a good thing. Our food stamp program is often good. Free education, through 12th grade, is always good. Although it is painful to say, bailing out our banking system (and probably GM as well) seems to have been a good thing for the country. There are times when socialism is the right thing to do. Giving money to insurance companies in the guise of providing health care (that doesn't even exist) to the poor is NOT one of them, and taking from Peter to give Paul "free" medical care isn't either.
So the bank bail out was an act of socialism!
Giving money to insurance companies is not socialism, not by a long way.
I'm afraid neither have the slightest whiff of socialism about them.
Well, capitalism is well known for requiring a quid-pro-quo for the money it hands out - seemingly your primary complaint - and neither had any return whatsoever for the money given away.
Would you call it marxism then? Or communism? Keep in mind that just because it was a corporation receiving it does not mean it wasn't socialistic...Still a "Robin Hood" ploy to re-distribute the wealth from rich to poor.
Capitalists may require a quid-pro-quo for the money it hands out, but we aren't talking about capitalists handing out money, we are talking about them receiving it.
There is nothing socialist about redistributing income, capitalists are as ready as any other to do that.
And it certainly has nothing to do with "taking from the rich to give to the poor" rather it is about everybody having their fair share, though you don't see a man having the profit of his work as fair do you?
Where in handing out huge sums of money to bankers is putting the means of production in the control of the people?
Absolutely, everyone should get their fair share. But it isn't YOU that gets to determine what "fair" is - the free marketplace, capitalism in action, determines that and all the sobbing and tears in the world, with all the laments that "They are just disadvantaged" won't change it. It may change what the poor gets, but not what is fair.
Bankers, in general, do not own the means of production, but even if they did then those means would be in control of the people. Bankers are people, too, you know...even if they're not poor and under-educated.
But what does ownership of factories have to do with the masses of people that can't build one have to do with anything? Except socialism, of course, where we all pretend that such people are competent to RUN that factory.
It seems we have been misled about political economics, maybe this will explain it a little better.
SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.
COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows
The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.
BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull..
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has died.
A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.
AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.
A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.
A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.
AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.
A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.
AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.
AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.
A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive..
A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.
You eat both of them.
The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.
The IMF loans you two cows.
You eat both of them.
The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.
You are out getting a haircut.
Or
SOCIALISM
You have two cows, you give the surplus milk to somebody who needs it.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have no cows.
You buy your neighbours milk and sell it back to him at a profit.
You then tell him his milk is too dear and he must reduce his price.
He cuts the price until he's selling at a loss.
You take "pity" on him and buy his cows off him, though at a high discount because they are underfed.
You raise the price of the milk you sell to your neighbour.
Socialism
A idealistic look at the world with no knowledge of how it could work. If indeed it could.
Capitalism
A system that has worked since the dawn of time. Although not perfect it is the generally accepted ideal that suits the basic instincts of human nature. Survival of the fittest.
Blimey, I never realised that the dawn of time was so recent! That makes time about 200 years old!
Sorry John I forgot you thought capitalism only started about 200 yrs ago and that everyone was a socialist before that.
I am quite sure people made, grew, mined and obtained things for trade or for profit well before 200 yrs ago!
"Now that there is funny, I don't care who you are."
Good one.
GA
So you get to decide what is fair! Thought so.
You would be as hard pressed to name a truly free market economy as I would to name a truly socialist economy, what passes for a free market economy is nothing like a free market economy. Very few, if any, capitalists want a free market economy. They move heaven to make sure that the people that they employ do not get treated fairly.
Bankers don't own the means of production! Where then do your capitalist bosses get their money from and how do the lenders secure that money?
The people who own the factories are generally incapable of building one but they still own them don't they? Why shouldn't the people who actually lay the bricks, fix the steel work and pour the concrete have a share in the factory they build?
And who pretends that everybody is capable of running that factory? You don't actually have to be able to do a job to know who can do that job.
So, the poor can just starve and die, then?
What a good Christian you are! Jesus would be proud--oh, wait, no...he'd be pretty pissed at you.
"Why does socialized health care have to be considered 'bad' when we pay taxes for things that benefit everyone, like roads and education?"
The government is a necessity, but it doesn't function efficiently in most instances. "The federal highway trust fund will run out of money by 2015." "A global education survey released Tuesday shows when it comes to math, reading and science, teens in the U.S. rank 36th in the world."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/25/2 … rylink=cpy
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.as … 0c-XP3jhjo
Based on current government inefficiencies, we shouldn't expect socialized health care to be efficient. If the government were a business, it would be bankrupt. It has little financial accountability or interest in being efficient.
"And I have another idea. What about some kind of civil service? If someone can't pay for their share of taxes, why not have something like civil service program, where people can put in work according to their skills, on their own time to help defer the costs of things like health care. You want health care, you help the country in your own way."
These people could just as easily find another job that wasn't government-provided, IF there were more jobs available. . . . Why does the government need to come in and offer something that the market could offer? People can negotiate a payment schedule with the hospital, something that millions of people do, and start making payments.
Now SOMEONE besides Wilderness who MAKES SENSE! +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in agreement. Goverhment has NO PLACE in terms of health care! The less government the better but the socialists and communists among us refuse to acknowledge this!
Government has its place but that place isn't drumming up profit for private businesses.
Ever tried to work out a payment plan on debt that totals 5 time your yearly income? And still living off that income? It's almost like making the minimum payments on a credit card....especially if you continue to incur that same debt with no alternative but...maybe death.
Obamacare is NOT socialized medicine. It's government regulated insurance. And it won't work any better than before for those of us who aren't solvent enough to be middle class but are just too solvent to be poor.
Yes, I have struggled to pay hospital bills, even recently. I just negotiated a bill with the hospital. Not only will they allow you to set up a payment plan, but they will also discount your bill if you tell them that you are paying out of pocket rather than using insurance.
I negotiated a new bill even though I have insurance. All I had to do was ask, and they were all too willing to reduce the bill by 30%. I wonder how many people know they can do that.
I'm glad that after my stroke and still with problems of mobility and speech, I din't even have to think of the bill, let alone start negotiating it down.
Have to wonder how many hospitals will do it, too. That your's did is no indication others will.
It's not necessarily about whether or not doctors and hospitals will work with you. MANY will. It's about the sheer size of the debt and the fact of catastrophic illnesses that continue as chronic and must be maintained, often through days long hospital stays. It's debt that piles on and piles on with no dramatic upswing in income and no end in sight. That's the legacy of America's "best health care in the world," and Obamacare is not going to make it better. All those unpaid bills and taxpayer funded hospital and ER visits will remain unpaid or never be paid while we funnel tax money into a useless INSURANCE (not health care) reform.
Those supporting socialized medicine are saying that could have been-or might be-avoided by making preventive health care free or very low cost in the first place.
+1
You've nailed it down tight. Obamacare is not health care reform, just insurance reform and not much of that. Mostly a way to funnel huge amounts (trillions) into insurance companies for policies that cannot be used by those who own them.
I can't say I would support socialized medicine, but anything - anything would be better than the boondoggle that is Obamacare.
I think you're making a great point. The Left talks about how insurance companies are taking us for a ride. Then, the Left turns around and mandates health insurance for everybody. It's bound to increase profits for the very companies for which the Left complains.
+1.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! Obama was hellbent in pushing Obama"care" above all odds. He really does not care about the socioeconomic ramifications of Obama"care"-his main impetus that Americans need medical care and they WILL HAVE IT! Obama proclaimed that Americans are on his side and that mandating Obama"care" is the MORAL thing to do. His supporters vehemently sing the praises of Obama"care" and how "necessary" it is! Obama maintained that America ought to have nationalized health care. C'mon, the health system was fine before Obama TOOK over the health care system. The SOONER he gets out of office the better. Maybe the next president will have an overhaul of this Obama"care". Who cares about Obama"care"-there are MORE important things on the agenda such as job creations. Told ya, this man is a bona fide socialist or rather yet COMMUNIST!
Hi Wilderness. I hope I can interupt a bit at this point just to insert an element of truth.
The often repeated claim that insurance companies are issuing policies that cannot be used by those who own them is utter nonsense. This statement is untrue. It is not even remotely close to being true. It is an imaginary fantasy having no basis in reality.
Not everyone is unhappy with the ACA or with the policies they purchased on exchanges. It is the nature of insurance that some fare better than others.
According to Scott Harrington, a professor of health care management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, at least 80 percent of all premium dollars, maybe more, he says, go directly towards paying medical claims of enrollees {1}
Close to 182 million people are covered under group and individual healthcare policies in the US. Of the 182 million now insured, an estimated 169 million have had healthcare policies before the ACA took effect and another 13 million have enrolled in healthcare policies since. A very large segment of them have or will have an occasion to use their policies on an ongoing basis. Most of them recognize that their policies will limit their financial risks from costly illnesses. Contrary to the claims quoted above, many probably wish that they did not have to use their policies too often but are still grateful to have the benefits when they are needed.
Wilderness wrote:
“Obamacare is …mostly a way to funnel huge amounts (trillions) into insurance companies,”
Really? Those dollars will cover the cost of premiums for millions of citizens who need the help. More than 80%, as noted above, will be paid out for medical costs. The ACA is expected to provide $43B this years and perhaps $90B next year for subsidies. Last year, before the ACA startup, the eleven companies on the Fortune 500 list in the Healthcare Insurance and Managed Care industry had combined revenues of $319B. Government subsidies are not likely to even make it down to the bottom lines of these insurers. Of the eleven, only two saw profits exceeding 4.9 % of revenues.{2}
Under the ACA, by the way, the insurance industry must absorb nearly $11.4B in additional taxes that flows back to the government.
Those who claim the ACA is a boondoggle know little or nothing about the impact of the bill on those already insured. Most of the criticism comes with anecdotes but rarely with nationwide data.
{1} http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … llion-ins/
{2} http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ … full_list/
I'm sorry, Quill, but you are far, far off base this time. I've talked about this before, you've read the posts and understood them. Bronze packages are intended for poor people that can't afford any better, that's who buys them, and the deductible is far beyond what most of those people can ever pay. My own deductible is over $12,000 - at least quadruple what I can afford to put into health care.
The policy is thus worthless to me, and will never pay anything outside of a catastrophic illness/injury, whereupon I'm bankrupt with or without insurance, the same as all the others "buying" these crap policies. These are the very people that were touted as needing insurance so badly the rest of the country had to give it to them; well, they have done just that, but the policy is of zero value to the insured.
And the insurance companies are eating up the $700 per month that govt. is giving them for my policy. I can't use it, won't use it, and that leaves that $9,000 per year as pure profit. Or do you mean to insinuate that that money well be used to subsidize the gold/platinum plans? I don't think so - every plan is to stand on it's own, without being subsidized by another set of plans. Nor is the money being used to cover premiums for other "insured"; insurance companies do not give people money to pay them for premiums.
Yes, it is an anecdote, but do you really think that the poor, being subsidized for the cheapest premiums, can afford $10,000 deductibles? You're living a dream, listening to the politicians selling you a lie and providing carefully prepared "statistics" and numbers that prove nothing. Sometimes anecdotes are what needs looked at: this time it is a very common occurrence but one the politicians don't want to discuss or allow to see daylight.
You want to provide facts? Useful facts? Find out how many bronze packages were sold, and who bought them. Find out what the medium income for those purchasers is, and how much disposable income they have available to pay the enormous deductibles. Put that together, and look carefully at just how useful those plans are.
Hi Wilderness. I hope you are well.
I actually think that I understand your situation a little better than I did before. Never the less, my comments are not intended to change your mind about the ACA only to correct false and misleading statements.
Each of us is responsible for our own medical bills. However, not everyone is aware that the objective of healthcare insurance is to allow some of us to spread the risks of extraordinary medical expenses among a large pool of insured. Our individual policies are intended to share above average bills but some of us are complaining because they do not pay ALL of our medical expenses. The real problem here is not actually caused by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) at all. The real problem is that some of us are unable to pay for our own typical medical bills. We should not blame the ACA for our situation nor should we falsely proclaim that the insurance policies we chose are worthless or worse, that millions of insured citizens will never use their policies. Most of us recognize the that the most important benefit of healthcare insurance comes from having it and not from using it.
Wilderness wrote:
“Bronze packages are intended for poor people that can't afford any better, that's who buys them, and the deductible is far beyond what most of those people can ever pay. My own deductible is over $12,000 - at least quadruple what I can afford to put into health care.
Income level does not matter. Bronze plans are designed so enrollees will be responsible for 40% of their own projected healthcare services. These plans tend to have the lowest premiums of the four metallic categories of plans but they also have the highest out-of-pocket costs for healthcare services. {1}
Those who find they can not afford to pay 40% their own anticipated medical bills should not be blaming the ACA or the insurance companies for their dilemma. Those with inadequate income should explore the other alternatives included in the ACA such as opting to pay an annual penalty which is a fraction of the typical insurance premiums or applying for extended Medicaid.
For guidance with the tax penalty see “Should I Pay the 'Obamacare' Tax Penalty?” {2}
In states that have not expanded their Medicaid program under the ACA, citizens in need should be asking their governors why those in need are NOT receiving the expanded Medicaid benefits that are going to more than half of the country. {3}
An important thing to remember is that the insurance coverage provision of the ACA is not intended to eliminate poverty. Rather, it attempts to ease the cost of premiums and to provide access to healthcare insurance for millions who had been denied insurance before the bill was enacted.
{1} http://www.healthpocket.com/individual- … 0wtsVVdVA2
{2} http://health.usnews.com/health-news/he … int=2d2e1b
{3} http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … -medicaid/
"Income level does not matter. Bronze plans are designed so enrollees will be responsible for 40% of their own projected healthcare services."
Let's discuss that projected cost, can we? Bronze plans typically have a deductible of around $12,000, payable by the insured (along with a few other minor costs). That figure, then, is 40% or their projected health care costs?
That puts the projected costs, presumably average for the country as a whole, at $30,000 for a couple such as my wife and I. I leave it to you to do the math and come up with a total health cost for the US, with it's 350,000,000 citizens, but I assure you it is far, far beyond anything being paid, including profits on inflated insurance policies.
Now, what do you think the average per capita income of a bronze policy purchaser is? Given that most people treat insurance as something that pays all the bills, I don't think you will find many buying bronze if they could do better. No, bronze buyers will be at the bottom of the barrel, income-wise. What do you think is a reasonable guess, for that group? $10,000 per person? $5,000? Less, given the numbers of people in the country with no income at all?
Whatever income number you choose, do you believe that the normal person could ever pay the $12,000 bronze deductible for a couple without going bankrupt? Of course they can't!
But then, the projected health cost isn't $30,000, either. After 40 years, I've seen just one year that I built health costs anywhere near that figure (mentally adjusted for inflation) and that year saw 5 hospital stays in one year. In addition, the insurance company is only going to take in around $9,000 in premiums. Given a 10% profit rate (estimated), that means expenditures of $8100, including administrative costs. Projected health care costs can't be above $19.000 ($12,000 deductible + $7000 paid by insurance), meaning that the insured is required to pay for 63% of their costs - costs that we are assuming to be beyond anything reasonable. The insured that is likely to be living hand to mouth in the first place, mind you.
Conclusion? Bronze purchasers, on the average, are expected to cover nearly the entire cost of their care, with Uncle Sam paying for a plan that is nearly 100% profit. Bronze plans are basically a scam, serving only to pad the insurance company pockets.
And finally, the ACA is NOT being promoted as "affordable insurance", it is being promoted as "Affordable Care" (Act), which it is not. It eases the cost of buying cheap policies (can't speak for gold//silver/platinum plans) but those plans are worthless to anyone poor enough to be forced into buying one. The ACA thus does absolutely nothing to make health care affordable to anyone that can't afford it already, save for a small handful with pre-existing conditions that will now be able to force others to pay for their projected health care.
Hi Wilderness.
The statement “that leaves that $9,000 per year as pure profit.” appears to reveal a disconnect from the real world.
Nearly 80%, some times more, of ALL premiums, that is ALL premiums, pass through the insurance companies to pay for healthcare services. It does not matter if the money pays for one family’s treatment or for another’s. The mindset that some premiums are “pure profit” is actually pure fiction! This false statement then leads to another:
“Or do you mean to insinuate that that money will be used to subsidize the gold/platinum plans? I don't think so - every plan is to stand on it's own, without being subsidized by another set of plans.”
I am afraid that this statement is also untrue! Risk pools under the ACA are defined as ALL the insurance company’s policy holders in a state and NOT as the different type of plans they have. Bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans represent different premium vs. out-of-pocket structures but not different risk pools.
“The adjusted community rating rule in the ACA requires that issuers must consider all members of their small group and individual plans part of a single risk pool, including members in small group and individuals plans both inside and outside the exchange. The premiums for each group in the insurer’s pool will be based on the average experience of that insurer’s entire pool, adjusted for the rating variation factors that the ACA permits” {1} [underscores added for emphasis.]
As a result, ALL premiums are applied to reimburse ALL valid claims received from ALL policy holders in ALL metallic groups in the company’s state wide risk pool.
{1} http://pioneerinstitute.org/wp-content/ … -Final.pdf Sec.4.4
In that case, perhaps bronze premiums actually DO subsidize silver/gold plans. I didn't know that.
Still, I question that. I had the option of paying for a silver plan; I could have afforded the additional premium. Unfortunately, after a thorough study of possible expenses/costs through the year, it became apparent that under no circumstances, no possible combination of two people getting ill whether minor or major, would the silver plan cost me less. (there was a very limited exception where both people got ill with total bills in a very limited range of possibilities and the total cost was less than the bronze plan).
I actually DO understand insurance and what it is intended to do (spread unusual costs over a large number of people) and am quite capable of picking the best choice of plans - I've been here before in a cafeteria employer plan. And I can spot it when insurance premiums are far beyond expected costs, as they are in bronze plans.
But allow me another observation about the Affordable Care Act - certain people are being offered Affordable Care via requiring others to pay for their reasonably expected costs. Specifically those with known conditions that WILL require much higher costs, but can buy insurance at far less than what those known costs will be. And, of course, those wishing the insurance to pay for their entertainment in the form of birth control benefit as well.
But the people that can't afford care at all - the poor among the country - don't have such an option. They STILL can't afford any care, with or without the bogus bronze plans being paid for by tax money. The Affordable Care Act has done absolutely nothing for them except threaten them with ever increasing fines if they don't pay for something they can't afford with money they don't have. I fully understand that this travesty is being touted as "helping" the unfortunate people that cannot afford to see a doctor, but it is an out and out LIE - it doesn't do a single thing to lower the cost of care or help anyone that cannot afford health care.
"Really? Those dollars will cover the cost of premiums for millions of citizens who need the help. More than 80%, as noted above, will be paid out for medical costs. The ACA is expected to provide $43B this years and perhaps $90B next year for subsidies."
You're just not getting what I'm saying. Absolutely, those dollars will cover the cost of premiums, they just won't buy any actual health care. Just an insurance policy. The people that have those worthless, bronze plans with super high deductibles (the only plan they can afford even with a subsidy) can't pay the deductible, and will very seldom have any illness that runs their health care cost beyond that deductible. The insurance company thus pays out nothing - keeping nearly all the premium as profit. 80% will NOT be paid out for health costs - not unless you think half the people insured are going to have a catastrophic illness such as a heart transplant. That the ACA is going to increase their subsidies next year does absolutely nothing for the poor - just add profit to the insurance companies. It looks very good to the entitlement crowd, it sounds wonderful to the high school dropout that thinks they can now see a doctor without losing their home, but it does nothing for anyone but the insurance company. And, of course, the politician raking in the brownie points with their lies.
And right there is the truth of the entire debacle.
Hi again, Wilderness.
Yes, I do understand what you are saying. Again, I really have no interest in what you believe about the ACA. I only post facts whenever I come across false claims and statements that distort the truth.
Yes, a bronze "plan is just an insurance policy" but it is far from being worthless and such hyperbole is untrue in a practical and legal sense. Figuratively speaking, they may appear worthless in the minds of some but they have real value in the real world. The inability to pay the full deductible amounts DOES NOT render the policies worthless. They are legally binding contracts as long as the premiums have been paid without regard to the solvency of the policyholders. The insurance companies must and will pay major claims minus the remaining deductibles and they do not care if the policyholders can satisfy their out-of-pocket responsibilities. The deductible amounts are responsibilities that exist between the insured and the providers. Therefore, the insurers are not concerned at all with the abilities of the insured to pay the remaining out-of-pocket deductibles.
Those plans, my friend, are not worthless policies. Furthermore, you will not consider your policy worthless if you should have to submit a major claim.
And what is the worth of these policies to those that are being forced to purchase them? What value do they add to those lives?
Why wouldn't I find them worthless in the face of a major claim? Bankrupt is bankrupt, whether for $10,000 or $1,000,000 - the actual number makes absolutely no difference, just the fact that it happened. So what value does that policy give the owner in case of a major claim?
This has been my beef with the AC(are)A. It does not, not, not make healthcare at all affordable. It makes insurance affordable...but what is the point in paying for health insurance if you ultimately can't afford health care to begin with, and where is the justice in forcing anyone to pay for something that does not help them at all?
There is NO justice in it at all. To reiterate, Obama"care"- HELL!
Hi Wilderness,
Since you asked, I will try to answer. Focusing on the deductible under a bronze plan should not distort our perspective on life. Insisting bronze insurance policies are worthless seems out of touch with reality.
You asked, “Why wouldn't I find them worthless in the face of a major claim? Bankrupt is bankrupt, whether for $10,000 or $1,000,000 - the actual number makes absolutely no difference, just the fact that it happened. So what value does that policy give the owner in case of a major claim?”
The value of a bronze plan, Wilderness, lies in one’s perception of the future. Without your plan, you could possibly be financially solvent and dead. With your plan, you could be bankrupt but your wife might have a new pacemaker, or perhaps a new heart. You may have to file a few documents at the local court house but one of you might have a hip or knee replacement following an accident. The cure for Hepatitis C runs $84,000.
“So what value does that policy give the owner in case of a major claim[/b]”, you asked? What value do you place on your life or your wife’s?
But I get exactly the same result without the plan. Bankrupt but my wife has a new hip or new heart. With or without the plan I get the care and am bankrupt. The only detectable difference is that with the plan the insurance company will earn great profits in all but a small number of cases (where my wife needs a new heart).
So what value does it add to my life again?
*edit* I would absolutely agree with you, and happily purchase the plan, if I got a different level of care. But I don't, and haven't for years and years. Nearly all hospitals are required to provide care regardless of ability to pay and Obamacare has not changed that.
If your explanation of the "workings" of the described healthcare insurance plan, (a Bronze plan), is correct, (I believe it is)...
And if Wilderness' explanation that given the, (apparently), typical financial parameters of the plan's owners; the plan's deductibles are beyond the owner's capabilities to pay, is accepted as close to accurate... (Hmm...)
Then it appears a conclusion that the two primary beneficiaries of the ACA are folks with pre-existing conditions and healthcare service providers is logical because;
1) minor illness use*, (less than the deductible), will not benefit the plan owner, (they still have to pay 100% of those costs), and a major illness use of the plan will bankrupt, (or at least burden them with a lifetime of medical bill "payment" arrangements for their 40% responsibility), the plan's owner.
(*it occurs to me that a plan prescription benefit may not be susceptible to meeting deduction requirements - ?????)
2) the healthcare services providers from major loss from non-payment, (because the plan still has to pay).
But that probably isn't a very accurate conclusion because that makes it sound like the Exchange plans are designed to serve the interests of health care providers, and an extreme minority of Americans - instead of the low income "I couldn't afford healthcare before" citizens it is supposedly designed for. Just sayin'
GA
We have a winner, folks!
As an aside, you all are entirely too reasonable to participate in a discussion on HP.
Moral of the story: stay the hell away from Obama"care'. Run, run, run from Obama"care" as if it was leprosy. Stay AWAY from the "plan", there is a hidden clause in Obama"care"- HELL to pay in more ways than one!
Howdy, GA. Your middle of the road analysis is always refreshing.
You are so right! It “isn't a very accurate conclusion.” This is mostly because it is based upon two other observers: about one you say you believe and about the other you are not so sure.
The latter consists of assumptions one of which is that “most” bronze plan enrollees can not pay their policy’s deductible. This is an unproven hypothetical rooted in the author’s own personal situation. There is no evidence this assumption is true on a national level.
Your "I couldn't afford healthcare before" citizens of Idaho are being screwed, not by the ACA, not by insurance companies, but by their own governor. This CNN report sums up the dire straight in which these needy folks find themselves.
“An estimated 48 million Americans are uninsured. Americans are now required to have health insurance. If they aren’t already covered through a job or government program, they have the option to buy a policy through a health insurance marketplace or, in some states, to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.” [Underline added for emphasis.]{1}
Folks unable to pay insurance deductibles usually qualify for Medicaid and do NOT enroll in healthcare insurance plans in the marketplace. Twenty-four states, including the DC, have expanded Medicaid bringing healthcare coverage to 8.9 million low-income Americans. However, Idaho, a GOP dominated state, declined to expand its Medicaid program under the terms of the ACA thereby cutting off 150,000 of its own citizens from additional Medicaid benefits. These residents will either remain without insurance or they will signup for insurance plans with deductibles they can not pay! For this they can thank Gov. Otter. {2}
As for your conclusion that your conclusion “isn't a very accurate conclusion,” again I agree. The primary beneficiaries of the ACA are a far greater number than the needy and those with pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans stand to benefit from the ACA, particularly…
Policyholders who had annual or lifetime limits on their healthcare before the ACA,
Policyholders who in the past could have been dropped for becoming sick or for making a mistake on their applications,
Policyholders who prior to the ACA could not appeal their health insurance company’s decisions,
Insured Americans who now have the right to get an easy-to-understand summary about their health plan’s benefits and coverage,
Young adults who can now stay on their parent's plan until age 26,
Women who now have access to greater women's health services,
Insured Americans who paid higher than necessary premiums because of wasteful spending in the healthcare industry,
Senior citizens who are now eligible for better care and protections,
Policyholders who now must receive new preventative services at no-out-of pocket costs,
Policyholders who must now be entitled to essential health benefits like emergency care, hospitalization, prescription drugs, maternity and newborn care on all non-grandfathered plans at no out-of-pocket limit,
Those who, in the past, were charged more based on their health status or gender,
And, the list, Gus, goes on. {3}
I am grateful to you, my esteemed friend, for your summary of the debate.
{1} http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/ … obamacare/
{2} http://familiesusa.org/product/50-state … nsion-2014
{3} http://obamacarefacts.com/benefitsofobamacare.php
I think I have heard that before, your "middle of the road" salutation that is. My spidey-sense is telling me to look under the covers. But it is, (the spidey-sense), probably off - of course I couldn't suspect The Quilligrapher of innuendo.
As for being "not do sure" of the latter observer, it was more like "I wonder..." than a "not so sure"
"...This is an unproven hypothetical rooted in the author’s own personal situation. There is no evidence this assumption is true on a national level."
Without your penchant for linked sources for every point, on this one I am relying on personal life perceptions and what could be explained as apparently logical agreement.
(yes, I do see the danger in that reliance)
Speaking of groups in general - not one or two anecdotal exceptions:
1) I would wonder why someone would choose a Bronze plan, the "least" best choice available - unless that was all they could afford.
2) And if that were the case, then doesn't that put them in, or on the cusp of Wilderness' evaluation?
You say there is no national level of evidence this is true, but is there that same level of evidence it is false?
I am not married to it, but I think I would favor his take on this one. Sort of like the Duck Test
"...declined to expand its Medicaid program under the terms of the ACA thereby cutting off 150,000 of its own citizens from additional Medicaid benefits. These residents will either remain without insurance or they will signup for insurance plans with deductibles they can not pay! For this they can thank Gov. Otter. {2}...
Aren't you trying to add another dimension to this discussion? (I think I have heard, somewhere before, of this being called a "tactic." Hmm...
Where is the relevance? What does this have to do with the quality and affordability of any of the Exchange plans? Is there a danger that this statement could be turned around and considered to buttress Wilderness' evaluation of who most Bronze plan enrollees might be - folks that maybe/should qualify for free medicare healthcare coverage?
"...The primary beneficiaries of the ACA are a far greater number than the needy and those with
pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans stand to benefit from the ACA, particularly…"
Now you really have surprised me - presenting a list of claims instead of your typical linked proofs. Wasn't that what you were trying to help Wilderness correct?
For instance:
Policyholders who had annual or lifetime limits on their healthcare before the ACA,
Sounds like a talking point. Is there evidence this was a problem for a large group of pre-ACA insured Americans, or is it an anecdotal few promoted by ACA proponents? (I am hopeful you will not present the Democrat "junk" health plan mantra)
Policyholders who in the past could have been dropped for becoming sick or for making a mistake on their applications,
Again, sounds like a talking point. Have you seen proof this problem affected a significant number of insured folks? (Yes, I am aware one is significant if it is you or a loved one - but as you noted, these are issues of a national level, meaning there will always be a few exceptions or examples)
Policyholders who prior to the ACA could not appeal their health insurance company’s decisions,
Yes, this is an Obamacare proponent claim, but I suspect you might have a problem finding significant numbers of examples to make this a valid slam against pre-ACA policies - in general. I have several personal and family-related examples of appealing insurer's denials. Am I just an example of an insignificant number. Or could my experiences represent the typical rather than the unusual?
Insured Americans who now have the right to get an easy-to-understand summary about their health plan’s benefits and coverage,
OK, was this a big enough problem to warrant promotion as a validation?
Young adults who can now stay on their parent's plan until age 26,
And this is a plus? I grew up thinking you were a young adult until you hit 18, (OK, stretch it to the drinking age - 21), then you became an adult. A stand-on-your-feet and be a man, (or woman), now point in your life. It sounds like you think a societal shift that has our government declaring adulthood, and personal responsibility doesn't start until 26 now is a good thing.
Stay under Mom and Pop's wing, (financial umbrella), for another few years while we take care of you does not seem like a positive or proper government initiative. And why 26? What is the magical determination for 26? Why not 30 or 36?
Women who now have access to greater women's health services,
Yep, that hot potato is still being tossed from hand to hand. We better wait and see who ends up holding it.
Insured Americans who paid higher than necessary premiums because of wasteful spending in the healthcare industry,
You know better than to try to slide something like that into this type of discussion. But, I will readily acknowledge you have proven your credentials in past discussions - so show me your proof of this one that is more than just claims of coming waste, fraud, and abuse reform
.
Senior citizens who are now eligible for better care and protections,
Sounds pretty vague to me. Sort of like a slowly dissolving video image. You started with defined points, but now seem to be asking me to "see the grand" picture instead of asking for details. (yes, I am aware this is a cut & paste Obamacare.org "benefits" list - but if you present it, back it up)
and as you said, the list goes on... but my perception of its value to this discussion remains the same.
Policyholders who now must receive new preventative services at no-out-of pocket costs,
Policyholders who must now be entitled to essential health benefits like emergency care, hospitalization, prescription drugs, maternity and newborn care on all non-grandfathered plans at no out-of-pocket limit,
Those who, in the past, were charged more based on their health status or gender,
And, the list, Gus, goes on. {3}
Quill, I do enjoy your contributions. And I have admired, and learned from, some masterful ones from you. But in this case I am reminded of the time when there was a challenge about some of President Obama's campaign promises, and you presented a Politifacts, (I think it was them), link to a list that included a promise to his daughters to get them a dog if he was elected in the same breath as ones that dealt with closing Gitmo.
You may disagree with my conclusion and assumptions - as you have described, but I do not think you have refuted them.
Just sayin'
GA
We agree that health care is really expensive. We both agree that Obamacare won't make it better.
"Why not socialize health care, like education is socialized in America?" I agree, healthcare should be socialised, just like education. Why do one without the other? Surely a healthy population is as important (if not more so?) than an educated one? But then I'm British, so I believe that it's normal that everyone should be entitled to healthcare. Why should people who are already disadvantaged because they don't have money also be disadvantaged because they can't get medical treatment? Should we just let poor people die? Our health system is far from perfect, but it's unthinkable that this should happen.
Are you entitled to vote?
Move freely from one state to another?
Have the career of your choice?
Free education?
If you have some "rights", why not others?
Americans are overly taxed as it is. Now this president is pushing Obama"care". Why, no one is entitled to health care. We had the best health care in the world before Obummler took over with his socialized medicine. Poor people in America had free or very low cost health care, it AIN'T broke, so DON'T FIX IT! Oh no, our dictator in chief wants to revamp the health care system much to the WORST! Can't wait for him to get out of office!
You didn't have the best health care in the world either before or after Obama care.
Not true. I wasn't able to get any affordable health care before Obamacare. I could get some things, like low cost medical care, but nothing "expensive" like...bloodwork, tests etc. I could see a doctor to tell me what was wrong with me for around $20 (if I could afford tests, which I couldn't) but treatment? No way. Some meds I could afford, some not. My psych meds were a gift from the pharmaceutical company that made them.
I could get to see my med doctor for $11, so that was affordable. If I could get the meds, that is. Otherwise, there would be no point.
Dental...don't even ask(and I had problems that could kill me if not taken care of. I got my dental work done in emergency rooms, at your expense). Vision? I got free cataract surgery from OHSU hospital, funded by donors.
Now, with Medicaid (Forced onto the states for low income adults, by Obamacare) I can get dental, medical, necessary vision, and mental health care for low cost(not free, but close). My meds are better, and I am starting to feel like a human being again.
I am thinking about getting a job now (through a program at my mental health facility) and becoming a tax-paying member of society again, because I am getting healthy and feel I might be able to handle it again.
Medicaid sounds amazing. When you have socialised healthcare, you do take for granted that you don't have to pay for medications, as well as medical visits. So we have been spoilt. And being ill in another country is always a shock, as it always ends up being so expensive. I don't know how the normal person affords all of that.
When I was a legal resident of a country with socialized medicine, I appreciated the fact that people with health problems could get the treatment they needed, rather than languish and cause a further burden on society by remaining untreated. Even though I rarely availed myself of cheap healthcare, I indirectly benefited from it.
But like many things, if people have never experienced it, they can't easily see the value in it.
Socialized medicine is a waste of taxpayer's money. There is no point to socialized medicine. If one wants health care, there are ways that he/she can obtain such care without the added impetus of so-called socialized medicine which decreases the overall quality of health care. Remember, one gets what one pays for!
I don't understand why people here are saying people should have a right to an education...
...but not a right to stay alive.
"Oh, we'll give your kid this great free education until the cancer kills her. But you'd better pay for the cancer treatment yourself if you don't want to watch her die in agony."
Can't anyone else see the disconnect here?
I can! (It seems fundamental and obvious, doesn't it?)
But I'm really not sure that anyone else can...
What's obvious is there is no such thing as a free anything when it comes to either education or healthcare.
The problems arise from the question how much will healthcare cost? And it seems no one actually knows.
So where you can easily equate the cost of your education its not so easy to do so for your healthcare costs.
affordable health care will never happen until we address the 9 dollar asprin .
Hospitals don't sell $9 aspirins. Doubt they get more than 25 cents, PLUS the cost of the paperwork, the extra malpractice insurance, the doctors time, the nurse's time, the paper cup, the pharmacist's time and the janitor's time to properly dispose of materials (cup) with your (contaminated) bodily fluids on it and likely another dozen associated costs. It DOES add up, doesn't it?
Yep - for profit hospitals (rare but still around) must have profit added in.
Not for profit hospitals are allowed to make a profit, there are restrictions on how they use that profit though.
recent billing statement from a hospital stay. charge to to ins comp . for comfort items . a blanket and a coke.150 dollars. dose that seem like a fair amount to pay?
Actually, it does. Being insured means, even with a higher deductible, that you get the insurance company's negotiated rates, which are a fraction of what they charge people with no insurance.
But, I still feel the ACA is a bandaid on a gaping wound.
I think you are only "technically" right. Although insurers do negotiate reduced rates for providers that participate in their network, there is a lot of real life anecdotal evidence that providers do reduce rates to cash customers based on ability to pay - with the "ability to pay" being the key phrase.
It is common practice in many doctor's offices to use a "professional courtesy" discount to financially challenged patients. They might bill the office visit or medical service at the going rate, but when asked by a self-paying patient, they very frequently will discount the charges.
I offer this anecdotal evidence from two perspectives; I have benefited from this discount personally, and my wife has worked in doctor's offices for 20+ years. She confirms this as a common practice.
GA
by lostgirlscat 15 years ago
How many different terms can the left come up with, to try to make socialized medicine more palatable to the general public?Let's see, I can come up with 3- "public option"," consumer option", and the latest I've heard, the "competitive option." Anybody know any more?...
by Barefootfae 11 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/27/s … s-to-rise/To all those who swore and I am certain will still swear ACA won't raise premiums:Kathleen Sebelius.
by marinealways24 15 years ago
All opinions respected. Who would win a debate between Obama and Limbaugh?
by dentist83 15 years ago
What type of health system you prefer?1. You believe in socialized medicine Or 2. the health system should be just for the people that can afford it. If you can't, well start saving!!Tell me your impressions.Thanks.
by Sooner28 12 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 … 29455.htmlHe is done .
by OLYHOOCH 12 years ago
This is just one of many Re-plys, I receive each day. I thought I might share this one with you,,,,, Thanks. And from one of my favorite pundits, Stella Paul, more motivation to work our tails off in this election season. June 30, 2012 A Surgeon Cuts to the Heart of the ObamaCare Nightmare By...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |