One of the first things conservatives want to do is repeal the ACA individual mandate designed to get healthy people into the insurance exchanges. Without them, premium costs WILL skyrocket ... meaning "if you think the 2017 rate hike was bad, you have seen nothing yet". As premiums increase, so will subsidies, but conservatives won't fund that. Consequently, people, many of whom voted for Trump, can't afford coverage and will drop out.
Statistics currently show Obamacare, along with saving money in total, saves about 24,000 lives a year Trump's main supporters and voters are blue-collar labor. Just one example, 80% of those without college degrees will lose coverage (with the repeal of ACA). Nearly 60% of those voted for Trump. Doing a little math, 48% of that cohort of Trump voters will lose insurance coverage.
Question, how many of the that 48% who voted for Trump and Repeal will be one of the 24,000 lives lost from said repeal?
No. Some people will die and some will live. Trump, nor Obama, can be credited with either.
You can't repeal the individual mandate without repealing the entire law.
The mandate generates income that limits the increase in premiums. It also puts a stop to scam bankruptcies.
Gotta love that "generates income". Nice poli-speak, but what it really means is that some people are paying for other people's wants - in this case the relatively young and poor are paying for someone else's insurance. You cannot generate wealth (or income) by splitting what there is into more piles. Or by taking from a large pile to add to a smaller one.
I'm glad I can count on you as always for a mocking and misleading reply.
I am a small business owner with a $12,900 deductible for my wife and I plus $9,000 in annual premiums thanks entirely to age discrimination. I have not cost my insurance companies a dime in 10 years in business because I take care of myself.
By your thinking, I shouldn't pay anything at all instead of paying for chain smokers and obese Americans of all ages to cover their diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure.
Funny how you just set aside the statistics of different groups of people to get additional money from those that statistically don't need as much health care.
Health "insurance" has gone from paying for the average cost of your group and thus sharing the cost of unusual requirements to simply grabbing money from anyone that can be found to funnel it to those with high expected costs. Normal socialism from liberals, but this time those with low expected costs are dragging their feet at contributing far more than they should.
That should have been obvious, and was, from the start of this fiasco but somehow liberals never looked into the real world, preferring to pretend it wouldn't happen.
"Funny how you just set aside the statistics... ." I didn't mention groups or statistics anywhere. I guess you are putting words into my mouth again.
Don't you believe in individual responsibility? Isn't that the cornerstone of conservative philosophy?
Why should I pay an enormous amount of money for someone else who is a smoker or obese? Should I not be rewarded for good behavior?
Then why should I , a healthy smoker, be forced to pay for hereditary diseases? It's not my fault someone didn't place a life guard on the gene pool.
Smokers pay more - it's a part of the original package and even included in the ACA. Obesity - IMO obesity is one of those things that fall under PC. While it's quite acceptable, and even encouraged, to attack smokers for poor health choices obesity is to be ignored. Because the obese are a large group and politically risky? Maybe.
Good behavior - yes, you should be. Just as we are with auto insurance. The problem is that it is next to impossible to prove that behavior; unlike information readily available on auto crashes, along with police statements of cause, people DO get sick without having unhealthy habits. Of course, the ACA moves away from that argument with the requirement that past history not be considered in selling health insurance...
What you miss in Wilderness' thought process is that he is a social Darwinist who believes that individual members of society who benefit from that society existing owe no obligation to any other member of that society..
You and I believe members of society have a moral obligation to help others in society because the whole of society is what lets us live as well as we do.
Your points are well taken. I believe we do have a moral obligation to help others who can't help themselves. We used to have more people in this country who thought that way.
I do volunteer work for an agency that supports people with mental illness, substance addiction and intellectual disabilities. My time with them has opened my eyes about the number of people who need help and don't choose the life that bad luck has given them (i.e., the brutal gang rape victim who descends into mental illness).
I understand the fear of conservatives that overdoing the help will lead to socialism. But not helping at all isn't an option either.
Esoteric is mistaken, for I agree that we have a moral obligation to help others when needed.
The difference is that you and Esoteric feel you have a moral right (as opposed to obligation, although that might apply as well) to force others to help the poor. To play Robin Hood at the point of a gun. I disagree, although will admit that some government charity is useful to the state, therefore the individual citizens and should thus be forced.
How is it that "not helping at all" always seems to come up as the only option to charitable total support for life? Is there no in between for the liberal; either all or nothing?
What if everybody (30% actually do) thought like you, Wilderness; that society does is not able "to force others to help the poor."; and therefore society doesn't; would even you want to live in such a country?
I would presume you are 100% against any sort of taxes or fees since that is "forcing" you to do something you may not want to do. If you are for even one tax or fee, how does not contradict you premise ... unless, of course, the poor are a special category that needs no help.
It has always been evident, but never more so than the response to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927.
American politicians and conservatives firmly believe what you do regarding those needing help and thought there are enough people who "want" to help and will do so through things like the Red Cross and churches to satisfy the need. That was proven to be idealistic and Pollyanna; many people suffered greatly and/or died of malnutrition, sickness caused by the flood, mistreatment by the whites, and many other causes as the result..
Then, of course, the same naive view was doubled down on with the Great Depression two years later.
It is my view that if someone is NOT willing to help others in our society, then all benefits received from that society should be withdrawn from them as they have not earned them.
What if everyone thought like you do and demanded that everyone have the same wealth? The obvious answer is total socialism or communism; both utterly failed systems that result in far more poverty than we have, but that is something not to be discussed as we continue down the road to that very goal.
No, I don't think your view is that at all. Your view is that if someone doesn't want to help you will support forcing them at the point of a gun, and the level of "help" (actually chaining the poor to you and your politicians) is irrelevant; it is whatever you wish it to be. And you will then justify it with rationalizations that you have an ethical right to help the poor...with resources owned by yet a third party.
Finally, very sorry to contradict you, but withdrawing benefits (police, military, roads, etc.) from members of society that have paid dearly for them but decline to "help others" to a sufficient level in your opinion can only be termed madness. An egotistic opinion that you have the right to take whatever you wish from anyone you wish, and punish as you wish anyone that objects to your money grabs.
Wilderness, I'm glad we agree that we have a moral obligation to help others when needed.
Just to be clear, I don't believe in forcing others to help people. I believe we need laws to correct problems in our society. We force people to obey laws for the good of society. Some people think the mandate is necessary to make ACA work and stop the skyrocketing medical bankruptices.
And also to be clear, I wasn't defending the individual mandate in my original post. I was simply pointing out that the entire law has to be killed if the mandate is killed.
I don't have the answers to such a complex problem as this one. At least Obama tried a solution. Now it's up to Trump to deliver a better one.
I'm not arguing with you. Just clarifying.
Well, I suspect we differ a little on the definition of "needed", but we are closer than what might otherwise be assumed. Although that little rationalization about being forced to obey laws (laws that say give of your wealth to the poor, maybe?) is OK does make one wonder. Tossing in the "for the good of society" only makes the wonder grow, too.
I don't have any answers, either. And I don't truly blame Obama for trying something, although I very much do blame him for what was attempted and how it was pushed through Congress. Anyone with half a brain could have looked at that and found the worthless plans that do nothing but pad the pockets of insurance companies. Anyone with a quarter of a brain could have (and often did) predict that it would fail financially, and some of the reasons for that failure. Finally, there is that Pelosi statement of “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" - the basic method used to get it through congress and it absolutely stunk.
Why does "Tossing in the "for the good of society" only makes the wonder grow, too." make your wonder grow? If not for society (which includes you) and yourself, what else is there?
Where does the money come from to pay for the operation of the gov't and provide for the "... to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty ..." in today's world?
From those that can't find jobs? From those where minimum wage is the only alternative (regardless of the reason)? From those who make just enough to cover normal living expenses without having to trade off food for medicine and the like? I just described almost 40% of America.
What do you have left? Another 14% who earn between $40,000 and $60,000; are these the ones who are supposed to foot the bill? They are ones who now earn enough money to actually afford to pay taxes without having to do without some necessity and may even have enough left over to save a little.
OR. How about the kid who inherits $1 B tax free and sits on his ass having done nothing productive to earn it and does nothing productive in the rest of his life living off the welfare from his father.
You've done will, with a near perfect example of soaking the rich to pay for someone else's wants. A good point, that your concept includes that form of socialism. Then you decide that whatever is good for the individual is automatically good for the country, something that is false on the face of it.
Next is a rant on who should pay for health care for the poor, with the built in assumption that it is for the good of the nation (promoting the general welfare?) that everyone have worthless insurance they cannot use. You don't support that assumption, for it is built into the socialist without needing support; an assumption whose truth is assumed without discussion.
And then finally is a rant about the state not being able to legally steal one's inheritance, as if that state has an ethical right to take whatever it wishes. It doesn't, but the socialist assumption is once more that it does and needs no support.
If you really want a rational discussion you're going to have to learn that you do not have unlimited access to unlimited resources. That your "cause" is no more important than that of others, and that being poor does not automatically create some kind of god given right to what others have earned. At that point a reasonable discussion can be had - if instead you demand that all share equally in the wealth of the nation you're not going anywhere fast.
No, "I" don't decide. My elected representatives to the House and Congress do. I can either agree with what they do or not. If I don't, then I can try to elect someone who does reflect my interests. That is how it works in America.
And yes, the state and federal governments DO have the Right to tax (or steal as you call it) you, me and all other citizens. It is contained in both the original Constitution and in its Amendments.
If you don't like it, then you have three and only three options: 1) get over it and live with it, 2) try to get the Constitution revoked, or 3) move to a country that doesn't tax its citizens.
You're the one presenting the arguments as being correct - should I not think that you agree with them?
Having the legal right to tax at 100% doesn't give legislators the ethical right, and it is that ethics that concerns me. I do not find that taxation designed solely to benefit individuals is ethical and am unlikely to change that view. I find that unlimited taxation will eventually destroy a nation, whether the "stolen" money goes to the elite leadership or to those that can't or won't support themselves. I find that such taxation will inevitably destroy any motivation to produce and any patriotism or love of country by either the taxed or the recipient of those taxes. That the attitude towards the countries needs deteriorates into nothing more than "give me". And finally, just as we see in our country, I find that unlimited charity produces not a good life, but one in which the recipient is forever chained to the purse strings of government rather than becoming self-sufficient in their own right.
But there is a third option, too - to fight for reasonable taxation. To fight for taxation that supports the nation rather than a select handful. To fight for the freedom to maintain ownership of what the citizen has earned or purchased. To continue to ask the hard questions, starting with what gives you the right to play Robin Hood, and why is that right any more important that the right of ownership. It is not, then, a matter of revoking the Constitution, but of enforcing the intent of it rather than simply taking as much as possible in order to create a nation of slaves.
- "You're the one presenting the arguments as being correct - should I not think that you agree with them?" - Of course, your point?
- "Having the legal right to tax at 100% doesn't give legislators the ethical right, and it is that ethics that concerns me" - Of course it wouldn't be ethical nor practical, that is why it hasn't been done. Since it won't happen, why bring it up?
- " I find that unlimited taxation will eventually destroy a nation, whether the "stolen" money goes to the elite leadership or to those that can't or won't support themselves." - Again you are positing something that simply hasn't happened in our history even though there have been many opportunities to do it. Why concoct unreasonable problems?
- "I find that such taxation will inevitably destroy any motivation to produce and any patriotism or love of country by either the taxed or the recipient of those taxes. " - History proves you wrong. We have had huge marginal tax rates without "destroy any motivation ,,,:" having ever occurred, the nation just kept getting richer.
- "That the attitude towards the countries needs deteriorates into nothing more than "give me". " - That is simply not true, the logic is full of holes. You are extrapolating a couple of anecdotes to represent the total population.
- "I find that unlimited charity produces not a good life, but one in which the recipient is forever chained to the purse strings of government rather than becoming self-sufficient in their own right." - How can you possibly know this to be true, you have zero data points to support your claim.
- Nobody is "playing Robin Hood". Instead, people on my side are trying to do the moral and ethical thing. The very wealthy get unearned breaks and advantages simply because, and for no other reason other than they are wealthy. This should not be free to them and the way they pay for it is through taxes.
That you argue that because you don't make the actual decision doesn't mean that you don't find such things correct.
What IS all right, then? If not 100%, is 95% OK? Or should it never cross, say, 50% (bearing in mind that history has seen the 90% rate).
Except that there seems to be no limits that liberals would apply to tax receipts. Other countries and times have seen it go to the elite, while the excess beyond actual national needs goes to the poor here. So yes, it happens and is currently happening. And the modern result in the US is a class of poor that will make little effort to better themselves; the charity is carefully structured to make any such effort almost sure to fail.
Really? That's why, when jobs were difficult to find and only low quality work was available, that so many people simply refused to work and instead simply took charity for years. It's called "destroying motivation". That's why single moms are living for multiple generations off of welfare, because there is no motivation to do better.
Millions of people gathering charity every month for years is not a "couple of anecdotes".
Look carefully at what happens when someone on welfare earns more money. You will find that what I said is exactly what happens.
Untrue. They get breaks because ignorant politicians give them breaks in stupid efforts to improve the plight of the poor. If you want to tax the rich, whether more or less than anyone else, the correct way to do it is set a rate and use it. Not to set the rate so high as to be confiscatory and then whine when the rich create loopholes for themselves to keep greedy hands off their belongings. At best those loopholes will be exploited, at worst the money will leave the country in spite of all the claims that it will never happen. It is typical liberal "logic" to do things like this (setting confiscatory tax rates) while pretending that they will actually be paid.
The high cost of healthcare is not just an issue of social justice and preventing avoidable deaths. Healthcare in the US is a burden on employers and the entire economy.
The US spends almost 3 times as much on healthcare per capita as the UK and over twice as much as France which is widely seen as the best in the world.
When the WHO ranked healthcare systems it placed the US in 37th position for outcomes, even though the US outspent every other country by a massive margin.
The simply fact is that healthcare in the US is grossly inefficient and does not deliver on the main goal of a healthy nation.
Obamacare improved coverage but did not help with costs.
If you are interested in the data: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf?ua=1
I think healthcare in the US needs some major overhaul, yes. But I also think you are grossly oversimplifying the matter.
Other countries have healthier lifestyles than the US does, resulting in higher US health care costs. Should we mandate less obesity, no smoking or drinking (although I doubt we're high there compared to much of Europe)? This is a big contributor.
The US is doing the lions share of medical research, and that increases costs as well. Should we cut it back, leaving other countries to raise their own costs?
Other countries pay doctors less - should the US cut physicians pay until they cannot pay their school loans or open offices? Or should the US pay for that schooling and those clinics, hiding the costs under some other expenditure? Will it increase the status of US health care to do so?
There are quite a few areas where the US is doing more than other nations; should we stop replacing knees, etc. to lower costs?
Response times are considerably better in the US; should we increase the time necessary to find a specialist in the hopes the patient will die before the time is up?
Litigation is a major problem, requiring more tests, more insurance and lots more paperwork. Should we ban medical litigation for such things as malpractice? Limit awards to some arbitrary, but far lower, figure?
The US develops the majority of the worlds drugs, and the US citizen pays for that development. Will the rest of the world support US patents, allowing research and development costs to be spread worldwide?
It really isn't as simple as you would make it out to be, but it could stand a big overhaul. Particularly in the paperwork end - actual care is not bad at all.
Just to answer some of those points:
Only four of the top ten pharmaceutical companies are US based. They all make a profit, fortunately, and do not add to health care costs.
If you look at medical research papers per head of the population, the US falls behind many countries.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherp … b5fa01115d
Most medical research is university-based and does not count to health care costs.
Many national health systems outperform the US private system on waiting times, patient choice, and health outcomes. This is a mine of info:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media … 013_v2.pdf
Some of the problems in the US are these:
Commercial interests drive procedures in private systems. You will get the ECG, mammogram, blood test, MRI scan, visit to a specialist, whether you need it or not.
Vast bureaucracy needed to sell overly complex policies.
Vast bureaucracy needed to vet claims.
Small private health providers have no leverage in dealing with multinational drug companies and equipment suppliers, which is why Canadian pharmacies are so popular in the US.
Overall, the extra expense in the US is good for investors in hospitals, insurance companies, drug companies etc etc, but the overall health stats for the US are not great compared to advanced countries.
As I said, Will, it isn't that simple. The US is producing more new drugs than anyone else, and the American people are paying for the research with high prices. Prices that cannot be passed to other countries because the patents aren't honored there.
Can't speak to research papers, but took the concept of advancements from your link. It was pretty plain. (Your graph seems to point to the opposite; that the US produces far more papers, but the axis are not labeled and there is no description so it's hard to tell).
Who do you think pays for medical research in colleges? The farmer down the road? No, it is government grants, and is (or should be) counted against health care.
Nice thought, that the US over tests and has too many dr. visits. It might even be true...but it might not either. And if it is, how much of it is due to litigation (which makes it necessary)?
"but the overall health stats for the US are not great compared to advanced countries."
Why not? Because we do more testing? Because we see more specialists? Because we have more hospital beds per capita? Because we do more knee replacements and appendectomies? Or because those stats are highly dependent on life style...a lifestyle that is not conducive to health and not copied elsewhere? Not so simple all of a sudden, is it?
My time spent in an NHS hospital in London having keyhole surgery on my heart (a stent): three hours from the time I walked in to the time I walked out.
My time spent in a private hospital in Malaysia being treated for a giant centipede bite: three days. They would not let go! Everyday I was in that hospital was profit from my travel insurance.
A bit of copy and paste:
On average, all U.S. hospitals charged patients (or their insurers) 3.4 times what the federal government thinks these procedures cost. “In other words, when the hospital incurs $100 of Medicare-allowable costs, the hospital charges $340,” explain the authors, Ge Bai of Washington and Lee University and Gerard F. Anderson of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
That 3.4 times overcharge, is enough to explain the high cost of US healthcare on its own.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi … ld/395099/
An anecdote: My wife recently had a colonoscopy. She has had abdominal pain for some time so the test was welcomed even though it has a nasty preparation necessary. The physician, however, could not get the camera inserted; the colon has an almost total blockage. He told my wife to get dressed.
That physician also made a call to a local hospital, an in less than an hour we had driven to that hospital, checked in, had a fancy Colonography (sp?) (CT scan of the colon) done and were walking out. No emergency, just quick and caring action by the physician and the hospital (the insurance company railed for a while because our Primary Care Physician had not sent them a referral for their approval of that colonography, but oh well). Something I hear just cannot happen in Europe OR Canada - it's not all bad.
I fear you are grossly mistaken about what politicians think about procedure costs. At best they have a very vague idea and use that to set unreasonable payment figures that are almost always less than actual costs. Politicians are not noted for rational decisions, just irrational spending, and in the case of medicare spending it just leaves care providers making up the actual costs from somewhere else. Some (for profit) refuse to take them, in fact.
(Just a thought - but do you think those politicians have considered the cost of having that fancy CT colonography machine sitting there, unused, and factored it into the cost of having a treadmill test? I don't, but it certainly does add to hospital costs.)
You're a true believer, lol.
A few facts:
US healthcare costs around $10,000 per person per year at present.
Medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy in the United States
Three-fourths of people that go bankrupt because of unpaid bills actually have insurance
The top executives at the five largest for-profit health insurance companies in the United States receive around $200 million a year
U.S. health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent during 2009 alone.
I wonder why US business leaders tolerate this kind of burden on their enterprises, let alone individual Americans.
By the way, I cribbed that off Business Insider, that cribbed it off researchers so it is probably untrue, lol.
Won't argue with a single thing there, although I do think the average health care cost is under $10,000. Much of what is spent goes to paperwork and insurance companies, neither of which provides any care at all.
But I'm not sure what the point of all that is. If insurance companies (with notoriously uneven profit margins year to year) see a 50% increase in one year over the prior year, so what? It's a meaningless figure until put into context, maybe with some sales figures to look at as well. After all, if the industry made $10 last year and $15 (50% increase) this year they are still on the losing side and will soon disappear.
Do you consider yourself such an expert in market values and costs for CEO's in the US that you can determine that 200M is excessive? If not (and we both know you are not), then why mention it at all? Just to raise an emotional reaction to another meaningless figure?
If the CEO's salary exceeds about 20 to 30 times the average salary of an employee (baseline is 1960 - 1988, then, when compared to history, it is excessive. Keep in mind, economic growth was robust during a good portion of that period. Also, it was in 1988 when the last part of the Reagan tax cut on the rich was effective.
Today, the ratio is 295.9 to 1 in 2013. Either CEOs, and other exectutives, were extremely under paid 50 years ago, or they are very over paid today.
"If the CEO's salary exceeds about 20 to 30 times the average salary of an employee (baseline is 1960 - 1988, then, when compared to history, it is excessive."
No, it means that it is greater than in the past. The term "excessive" carries a negative connotation that has not been shown to exist whether it is 20X, 296X or 10,000X. It takes more than jealousy and greed on the part of the lower paid people to show "excessive".
I wish Congress was always given the power intended. We seem to have a bit of a run away government at times. Its disconcerting.
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
H.Con.Res.107 - Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-con … n/107/text
My apology for all the cut and paste.
ObamaCare wants to trigger a Medicare cost-cutting board. House Republicans and some Democrats voted a couple years ago to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. They publicly denounced it as a “death panel” that could ration care. So, beware of what you ask for, I do care and hope that you and your wife will always have the health-care you need for quality of life as long as you need it. Socialist health care programs do not have a good history.
Colorful One, I appreciate your comment about us getting health care. Unfortunately, killing the law will also kill the 3:1 age band ratio that limits how much insurance companies can charge older adults versus younger.
If that ratio goes, we will have to cancel our insurance altogether because we won't be able to afford it anymore.
I am NOT proposing that Trump and the Republicans keep the entire ACA. Just fix the parts that need fixing and keep insurance affordable for as many Americans as possible.
In your post is what I was talking about; the insistance that medical insurance not be insurance at all, but merely a method of forcing statistically healthy people to pay for others health care.
I'll try again. To the young male, without obvious health problems, health insurance should only cost what the average yearly cost for similar people is plus a small profit for the insurance company. The problem is that the ACA has grossly increased that figure so that it includes the average health care costs for older people that statistically require more, and more costly, care. It also includes the cost for females, which is also statistically higher than for the young male.
This, then, needs fixed...but not according to you. You require that the young male pay for the average care needed for older people rather than the unusual costs that young males might incur. You didn't say, but I assume you feel the same way about females - the male should pay for average care costs for females.
This becomes something else than normal insurance then; it becomes a method of sharing average costs for all people at once, and will inevitably cost those groups that are statistically cheaper to provide care for.
And THAT takes us to the only solution acceptable to both you (in a more costly group) and the young (in a cheaper group): a single payer system without insurance at all. Uncle Sam just hides the cost in the general fund and pays for everything. The young and old alike, males and females alike, all pay the same (except, of course, that the rich will be charged far more).
OK, I get your points. In one way, I believe we are saying the same thing. You say the healthy young shouldn't have to pay for unhealthy others. I'm saying the healthy old shouldn't have to pay for unhealthy others, specifically those people who neglect their health.
We differ on group responsibility versus individual responsibility. You seem to believe that I should pay more because my group costs more. I am saying that I should not be held responsible for the people in my group who lead unhealthy lifestyles.
Doctors report medical information to health insurance companies. They can use an individual factor in determining premiums and not force healthy people to pay the same rates as unhealthy people in an older age group.
Right on all counts. The only real difference is that you think an additional group, your age but healthy lifestyle, could be used and I think it is nearly impossible.
For instance, your doctor reports your health to your insurance company - but to all the companies in your state? Would you want that? In addition, insurance works on statistics; while you claim a healthy lifestyle your health could just as easily be an anomaly. An unhealthy lifestyle that just hasn't caught up with you but could catch up tomorrow. You would have to prove that lifestyle; this isn't a car accident we're talking about but the working of the human body. You would also have to prove your health, which means a thorough physical with any insurance company that's going to quote a price.
So while I applaud the notion of healthy people paying less, I have a problem with converting that into real life experience and doubt that it can reasonably be done. I'll add that if it were, there would be an awful lot of people (not just those with a poor history that gets insurance under the ACA) that would be without any insurance they could afford at all. Bad enough that you have a deductible high enough to be life changing (so do I); under what you're proposing a lot of people wouldn't get any insurance at all because they couldn't pay the $5,000 or $10,000 per month for it.
Colorfulone, are you talking about the same "death panels" all insurance companies had in the past, and to a lesser degree because of Obamacare, still has today.
Your response prompts the questions of what were your deductibles and annual premiums before the ACA?
My recollection, (also as a small business owner), is that my deductibles were $1500 for an individual and $2500 for a family. My premiums were in the neighborhood of about $6000 p/yr.
Hello, GA. My 2008 business deductible was $2,600 for a family of four. After that, I paid my premiums out of pocket because I switched to an S corporation, which would simply pass it through as income. I have used an HSA every year to the maximum amount.
I don't have those later bills anymore, but I clearly remember strong double digit increases every year until ACA arrived. I also remember telling my wife that our premiums would exceed more than $10,000 a year in that final year before ACA.
An insurance company rep told me the increases were the result of me going into an older age group, plus the average costs of people in my zip code and other factors. FYI, my current premiums are $843.23 a month.
Are you still in business? Do you have employees or are you a solo entrepreneur?
I am no longer an employer. Maybe this Spring when I open my marijuana farm/restaurant.
Honestly, blaming chain smokers and obese people for our current insurance woes is unfair. When employed by others I paid $240 per month for a family plan with a$3000 deductible and a$25 co pay. My employer matched my payment. When I became self employed we paid $240 a month for the two of us with the same deductible and co pay. We stopped insurance coverage due to hard times. I decided to get coverage so we wouldn't be fined. At that time they wanted $700 per person which I couldn't afford. We ended up with a policy with a ten thousand deductible per person and no co pay for doctor visits.
The smokers and the obese are not what happened. Corporate greed and government disinterest in the plight of the average citizen are your problem.
Can't even use corporate greed as an excuse - too many are finding out that there is no profit in offering Obamacare and backing out of the program. If profits were there you can be assured that the company would, too.
So that happened is just as you say - government disinterest in the plight of the average citizen. All that matters is that the poor have useless health insurance (as opposed to health care) in order that politicians can exclaim that everyone in the country is covered for health care.
Yes, corporate greed was far reaching, but they had a seat at the table and signed off so they must have expected to gain.
But, it isn't our neighbor we should be chastising. I haven't used a doctor but twice, maybe, in 20 years. I had insurance through most of that time. I watched a show where they were lamenting the fact that it is our, the consumer's fault for spiraling medical costs. That we go to the doctor too much. But, they push for people to go for things as simple as the common cold. They advertise prescription medicine on tv. They've helped condition generations of Americans into believing the body must have drugs, tests and procedures. And their fees have skyrocketed, but it's our fault.
The American Cancer Society seems to think that smoking is a major part of our health care costs.
http://www.cancer.org/research/infograp … care-costs
That being said, experts seem to agree that many factors go into our high health insurance premiums.
If I don't have insurance, I AM FINED. That alone should alarm all Americans: Each And Every One!!!!
This FINE is punitive! It s is unconstitutional! and it is illegal! and yet we put up with it!!!!! I think its abominable!
For instance, to avoid the fine of $400.00 or more a year (for what????) I pay for catastrophic only.
My office visits are sky high. Luckily, I keep myself safe and healthy. I pay $89.00 a month. My policy is worth more than a thousand dollars!!!!! Now who pays for the rest of my insurance??? OTHERS! Is that fair? THEY are being charged way too much because the policy covers almost NOTHING! I feel it is a SIN to expect OTHERS to pay my way. But I refuse to be FINED by the GOVERNMENT!
So thank Feds, for making my life/(conscience) miserable!
I was observing the nature of driving on the freeway the other day and I realized very clearly that I was not driving safely for the sake of other drivers. No, when I drive going 65 mph on the freeway, I am driving safe for myself first and others second. If I don't consider my safety FIRST AND FOREMOST, I will not be able to even drive. I will not be able to concentrate on where I am going and what I am doing because I will be considering the actions of all OTHER drivers. I would cause a terrible traffic jam or WORSE! Consider the priority of your SELF-IMPORTANCE the next time you are driving along to your destination on the freeway.
No one is colliding into anyone because everyone is very focused on THEIR OWN SAFTEY FIRST!!!!!!
What I have NEVER been able to understand is how the USA can't seem to grasp the idea of socialized medicine. Throughout Europe it works; in Canada it works. The costs of administering dozens of independent healthcare plans/insurance companies/etc. are absurd. Our entire system of selecting those who represent us is fatally flawed. I'm afraid that the only way we will succeed, as a nation of individuals, is to rebel and deal with those costs. The men who founded this country were NOT politicians; they all had a day job. They risked being hung if they were caught attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. I wonder if this country has any representatives who are willing to risk their lives to fix this mess.
Works really well in Canada...as Canadians cross the border to get the care they can't get in their own country.
But perhaps the biggest difference is one of culture. Americans consider themselves a free country. The consider themselves adult enough to solve their own problems and make their own decisions. They resent government interference in private affairs. Europeans don't; they welcome the nanny state that provides for their needs without them having to.
(I'll add that Americans are proceeding down the same road, though, with the incessant growth of the entitlement concept in the country).
You keep using that Urban myth, Wilderness, about Canadians crossing the border to get service they can't get there. While yes, a few Canadians do cross the border for some esoteric procedures, as this will tell you, that is not even close to the norm.
Having read this, I prefer the Canadian system to ours. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/ … _canad.php and
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-my … are-system
And of course, your second assertion is ridiculous.
Now, now - be careful there. I neither stated nor insinuated that it is normal (over 50% of the time) for Canadians to come to the US for health care. Only that it happens, with the insinuation that it is not particularly rare. And it isn't.
Of course the very idea that Americans have a different culture than the socialistic countries of the world is ridiculous...to those that prefer the nanny state. And I DID add that American is following the same road, with more and more Americans choosing a life of charity rather than freedom.
Wilderness, the words you actually used were "Works really well in Canada...as Canadians cross the border to get the care they can't get in their own country." There is no need to for you to put numbers in here because the meaning is clear "It is obvious the Canadian health care system sucks because 'Canadians cross the border to get care' they can't get ..."
Words and context have real meaning. The context here, of course, was this was responding to Ediacare saying the Canadian (and European) systems work. Having read about each, I would say that with a few minor fixes, both the Canadian and French systems are much better for the people who it is supposed to help.
The rest of your statement is patently false, hyperbolic, and a view into the Right's alternate reality.
It would be interesting to know how many people have died unnecessarily in the US because they have been denied health care. Millions? Tens of millions?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by qwark 11 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
by OLYHOOCH 11 years ago
Gingrich’s Big Flip-Flop: Was For Insurance Mandate Before He Was Against ItNewt Gingrich was for the individual mandate for health insurance before he was against it -– that was the impression given Monday in a John Kerry-esque video that the former House Speaker’s campaign staff hurriedly...
by Holle Abee 9 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by sandra rinck 11 years ago
I just wanted to clear up the garbage that is being put out about people being forced to buy a government health care plan. I know this seems to be the center of controversy over health care. For the record, no one is being forced to buy health care. What you aren't looking for is the...
by Mentalist acer 11 years ago
Will the new healthcare policy personally help you,and just exactly are the drawbacks of the healthcare bill?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|