Questions about Obamacare

[radon]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

1. If it is such a bad idea, how come everyone else in the industrialized world has it?

They don't. Most countries are smart enough not to hand large corporations a blank check.

2. Without socialized medicine, why is the US number 29?

Medicare/Medicare? If Japan had as many fat people as the US they wouldn't be in the top 30.

3. If it is such a bad idea, how come Hawaii has had it for 50 years and has the longest lifespan in the US?

Which is mandated employee coverage or the failed Keiki Care program.

Let the confabulation, motivated reasoning, and "mistakes were made, but not by me" begin!

(I am not talking about whether the US can afford to do this now that it is the greatest debtor of all time. About that I have no idea. The US should have done this in the 1950s when the economy was booming.)

Note that this is actually much worse than it looks. The US spends the most, like DOUBLE what everyone else is spending, and gets the WORST outcome.

Why do you think that is? Unless we start passing laws to turn people away from fast food restaurants the outcome in this case is mandated by patient behavior. If you want to address cost Obamacare doesn't do that.

[radon]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

In fact, it felt a lot more like extortion than freedom. And what did it cost the hospital? One day's rent of a bed. Two hour's pay to a doctor. One hours pay to an anesthesiologist. A couple of hundred dollars in drugs and sutures and maybe for rent of tools. One day's board. Maybe four hours between a nurse and nurses' aides. Some incidental paperwork. Even at the expensive end of things, what should that be? $2,000? But that's about an order of magnitude less than I owed.

You forgot about malpractice insurance, bureaucratic overhead to ensure regulatory compliance, payment and maintenance on expensive diagnostic equipment, and all the other expenses you have decided to externalize.

I'll give you an example. Do you know how much a monitor costs if it is used for diagnostic work? It looks just like your hospital bill. Take an ordinary monitor, slap a sticker on it and add a 0 to the price. Keep in mind that the most important feature of these devices isn't pixel pitch or contrast ratio but things like FDA 510K clearance. You can take this example and multiply by a thousand over the course of your stay to get a picture of the problem.

Obamacare does nothing to reduce cost or ensure better care, and it isn't socialized medicine. Forcing your citizens to buy a product from a private company is an example of fascist degeneration, not some shining example to hold up to the rest of the world. As this trend accelerates growing fixed costs are causing waves of hospital consolidations and the elimination of private practices. The whole situation is shameful.

[lektrode]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

1. If it is such a bad idea, how come everyone else in the industrialized world has it?

2. Without socialized medicine, why is the US number 29?

3. If it is such a bad idea, how come Hawaii has had it for 50 years and has the longest lifespan in the US?

so moon, - howzit - getting that 'missing home for the holidaze' feeling, or what?
or just looking to get a shout out from this side of the pond?
;)
in any case, the HI pre-paid med-ins thing hasnt been around that long - got going in '74 and implemented in '75


and altho it seems to work pretty well -
or has, up til the beltway bozos dumped obamacare in our laps - it seems like it will turn into just a(nother) feeding frenzy for the legal-mob

and of course local biz got all wound up on the court issue - but the outcome of that hasnt seemed to upset the apple cart much out here
and even then, HI's thing hasnt worked out all that marvelously (for some of us, individuals/small biz, in particular):

from the 'outcome' link:

Sen. Slom writes: Hawaii enacted the Nation’s first (and only) mandatory, compulsory, Prepaid Health Care Act in 1974. At the time, it was hailed as the wave of the future with the prediction that every state would adopt a similar law. It was to amount to “universal coverage” with 100% of the population covered. In fact, at one point, the law did cover about 96% of the population but Hawaii’s residents were already at 90% before the law. Today, the coverage amount has slipped to under 90% as insurance premiums continue to soar.

(because - as usual/typical, the leg (aka the political 'science' legal-mob) continues to mess with it):

...pre-existing medical conditions were covered from the outset, although medical providers could set terms (usually 12 months of coverage before certain procedures were paid). There are medical, dental, drug and vision components but from the outset, big business and government were treated better than small businesses and individuals. At one time, a business had to have a minimum of 5 non-related employees to qualify for a drug rider. Many small businesses never qualified for “group” rates.

(and today, we - that is individuals/small biz, are getting screwed so the insurers can give big discounts to the big groups)

Over the decades, the State Legislature has continuously added additional costly mandates for every provider. Some really have nothing to do with “health” but were powered by lobbyists and special interests, such as the expensive in vitro fertilization mandate. The providers then passed along the extra costs to rate payers. Proposals to adopt a “cafeteria style” medical plan that allows the insured to choose only what they desire, has never been adopted.

There is also a Prepaid Health Care Advisory Council, initially including the existing insurance providers. They were in a position to veto the market entry of any new competitors. And they did.

-----

I recently had a colonoscopy. Five or six doctor visits, the procedure, and some drugs that would be rather expensive in the states altogether cost between 450 and 550 dollars. The hospital facilities were excellent. The doctor in his late 30's was excellent and speaks perfect English. I cannot guess how much this would have cost in the US. 20 - 30 thousand?

ditto, for me in '09 - without going into too much detail, the provider's listed charge was just under 500bux, my share was about 80 (on top of the almost 4200/year more for my 'coverage' that year - its now 6000/year for my kaiser-perm 'individual' plan, with another 4500/year in max 'supplemental' chgs, in the event anything major actually happens - incl 1500copays for things like CTscans, which they would otherwise want _before_ doing a c-scope?? but because i was over 50, i 'qualified' for the c-scope without having to first forkout 1500 for a CT.

methinks they structure things like this to get as much out of you as they can, ON TOP of the annual premiums and to discourage one from even coming in for anything, until one reaches the point of near-death and THEN they have ya, right where they want ya - but i dont blame the providers for this, its the legislated mandates, the legal-mob and the liberal's penchant for 'fixing' things that aint broke, in an effort to curry favour with some sliver of the electorate that screams the loudest - while the majority of us gets to pay for all that, too.

------

For anyone who supports government controlled health care, remember your last trip to the DMV. Rememer that highly intelligent, well-motivated individual behind the counter who "served" you? Remember your last trip to the airport, and the brilliant individuals from the TSA who provided such thoughtful and insightful care to "keep you safe"? You actually want to give those people the power to make life and death decisions over your life and the lives of your loved ones?

HELL NO, we wont go!! - or soon wont be wanting to fly anymore, that much is getting clear
(and wondren how many more times before i glow in the dark from the new supah-dupah xray gizmo that keeps 'finding' something that isnt there in my front pockets...)

....Citizens who once treasured their independence have become sheeple craving security.

When I was a kid we paid out-of-pocket for most things, and had an insurance policy for the big stuff. The policy protected our family from destitution if something big happened but it didn't cause our destitution in an of itself.....

the whole TSA 'security' thing is itself a joke - and is mostly a result of Politically Correct policies that make us all knuckle under so that those most likely to need closer inspection wont feel offended?
and so we endure being intentionally irradiated and groped, taking off our shoes, having some unionized moron sieze our toothpaste because it might be a 'security risk' - meanwhile they cant even find stuff that IS a risk?
that is when they arent 'finding' stuff in checked bags - or letting their 'bizness associates' get thru the line quicker

IMHO - if airport security is that important, then why isnt the military handling it?
THEN i'd feel like we were being made more secure, instead of being made more PC
even the europeans think we're nuts

altho sorry to digress - but this is even more irritating than the med-ins issue, esp when one lives on an island and has to deal with it several times a month - vs only once a month, when paying the med-ins premiums - but yeah, when faced with having to pay even more for med-ins than taxes (in my case this year and last and my largest single cost of survival) it really is getting to the point of why not just give up/go broke and get on the lib-dem/social-welfare bandwagon.

unfortunately the real world choice seems to be between such a bureaucrat and an insurance executive who gets a bonus if he figures out a way to deny you care.

+1
and then they have the nerve to say they arent profiting all that much?

yep - 2nd biggest .gov flimflam scam in all of history - well.... next to this one

along with all sorts of other stuff that didnt get read, so it could pass

I'm no fan of ObamaCare solely because it was hammered out by inductry lobbyists and there was really no 'sunshine' on this program. Thus my 'you are gonna get reamed' antennae come up immediately.
...
....In many countries in SA, you have a public/private system where you get decent basic care, and pay for anything above it. tha is probably the way to go. Not everyone needs maternity or diabetes services. For those that do there should be added costs involved. Asking people to subsidize the bad habits of others is just no way to run a system.
.....

thats one of my biggest objections: the phreakin legislated mandates - i'd bet 1/2 the cost of our premiums out here are due to this - it sure seems like it anyway, when about 1/2 of the things i'm 'covered' for dont even apply to me or would be unlikely to ever need/want to pay for - my 'favorites' being routine maternity, massage therapy, substance abuse therapy, gender identity therapy, birth control, viagra etc etc - the list is ridiculous overkill, that was pandering, once again, by the political class to various toenail slivers of the activist wing of the electorate.

In the end, the Democrats 'own' and will continue to 'own' this travesty. They can try to blame the Republicans for not voting for it, but it was solely their bill.

Lastly, I should add that I have always believed we would get a good HC bill when everyone in government, especially the 'more equal' pigs of CONgress had to be 100% part and parcel of the new system. Anything less, and the rest of us sheeple get the shaft. We all know how that worked out, huh?

+1 (and another .5 for the vig/bernanks cut)
yep - dont git me goin, D&G ;) - and i esp liked your comment the other day about how we "were given a republic" and IMHO we've gone and let the liberal wing of the political class take it away, STEAL IT right out from under us - one nanny-state, warm-n-fuzzy-feel-good new law at a time, decade by decade since the 60's (never mind since 1913 - again, i hope the liberals will enjoy what they've created - it aint gonna be much fun for The Rest of US - but i'm sure the beltway aristocracy will make out ok - afterall, they have the revolving door to escape thru

+1.

Obama care is a four-way combination of regulation, direct benefits, corporate tax write-offs, and personal tax write-offs piled on top of two levels of government (state and federal) in such a way that, even when it is all implemented, not a single person will be covered for anything.

Individuals then have to go, figure out how to use their tax break, figure out which corporation that uses the corporate tax break is offering them a decent deal, figure out what their state allows, figure out if they qualify for direct benefits or not, then sign up to a plan to buy private insurance.

The new regulations shape the private insurance policies somewhat. But they do not at all speak to what they can charge for services, nor do they speak to how much money they can extract from the system, even though they have semi-monopolistic pricing power.
......
....
I agree wholeheartedly with my libertarian friends here about the problem. But I may strongly disagree about the solution....

as usual dc, you have a way of making sense out of very confusing issues.

here's my solution (one i've brought up before, but so far only ms shiny! seems to have seen it, or liked it enuf to comment)

i say what We, The People need is a 'public option' - a 6th branch of the military services, since they already have the buracracy in place to make it happen - it would be called The Medical Corps

and it would be the provider of last resort for those that couldnt afford any other means - and would be staffed by those who desire to be employed in the medical fields but cant afford the costs of education or dont want to be saddled with decades of debt to pay for it all - they would enlist, get educated/trained and then owe uncle sam an equal number of years of staffing the clinics - after which they could either go back into the private sector or could stay on and enjoy the perks of .gov employment.

this would be the most cost effective way to provide medical care to those unable to afford it and would provide REAL COMPETITION to the existing out-of-control/monopoly that the insurance-legal-drug mob has foisted upon The Rest of US.

at the tone, please deposit yer .02

and dammit, since i just spent the last 3hours typing all this, i sure do hope it makes it up there.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

Haha, Hawaii? Maybe they live so long because they're in paradise, ya? You know da kine.

Everyone else in the industrialized world has it because they are socialists who have long ago surrendered to the whims of the masses, rather than take up the challenge of good governance through republicanism. We here in America used to have a republic, but lately we believe in economic fascism so we let our corporations control us by and large.

Speaking of the time period of about 50 years ago, the American system was absolutely top notch. Still is. But now we see what decades of tax-exempt health insurance compensation has wrought--when the government sides with the corporations, everyone loses (except the insurance companies). We don't have a free market and we don't really have socialized medicine. We have fascist medicine, where the "death panels" are currently filled with insurance company bureaucrats. People without the ability to think through things would prefer that we fill those "death panels" with government bureaucrats. I, however, prefer the only solution that makes sense--no "death panels," and health care is provided commensurate with demand. A legitimate free market, in other words.

But oh, no, people have heart attacks, so we can't have a free market for regular medicine... Why do people lose their ability to think critically when it comes to health care?

Another rant about life expectancy as if that statistic meant anything. The US has numerous factors that are primarily negative contributors to life expectancy that have absolutely nothing to do with health care; our culture tends towards both violence and freedom and these are expressed mostly in the forms of guns and cars, and we don't place any reasonable training requirements on the operation of either. Then there is the obesity epidemic, which is only tangentially related to health care, but that is a lifestyle choice for the New America, where nobody is expected to be held accountable for their own actions. Good news for you, I suppose, since not being held accountable for your actions is one of the tenets of socialism.

Then of course there is the matter of infant mortality, which substantially influences life expectancy yet is tabulated in vastly different ways between countries. Did your three week old die of SIDS? In some countries, that isn't tabulated for infant mortality statistics--try telling that to the family, though. Statistics are not reality. Life expectancy statistics are not even remote reflections of reality, especially as a metric of measuring the effectiveness of health care.

You are, of course absolutely correct. Life expectancy is a horrible statistic to use in judging health, in fact unless it has recently changed, life expectancy is not even on the exams needed to become a life insurance actuary! Besides the infant mortality factor, which alone makes it useless, most reports only use life expectancy at birth, rather than at higher ages. Also our demographics are vastly different than many of the countries we are compared to.

[DSpencer]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

You forgot about malpractice insurance, bureaucratic overhead to ensure regulatory compliance, payment and maintenance on expensive diagnostic equipment, and all the other expenses you have decided to externalize.

I'll give you an example. Do you know how much a monitor costs if it is used for diagnostic work? It looks just like your hospital bill. Take an ordinary monitor, slap a sticker on it and add a 0 to the price. Keep in mind that the most important feature of these devices isn't pixel pitch or contrast ratio but things like FDA 510K clearance. You can take this example and multiply by a thousand over the course of your stay to get a picture of the problem.

Obamacare does nothing to reduce cost or ensure better care, and it isn't socialized medicine. Forcing your citizens to buy a product from a private company is an example of fascist degeneration, not some shining example to hold up to the rest of the world. As this trend accelerates growing fixed costs are causing waves of hospital consolidations and the elimination of private practices. The whole situation is shameful.

Great points. Judging by these comments I'm guessing you have/do actually work in the industry.



The monitor thing is particularly ridiculous. Like you said, in the picture above the monitor probably costs 10 times what it would cost at walmart for an identical one. Identical except the custom connection that makes it incompatible.

The cost of the legal/regulatory environment is always hotly debated. I think it has many hidden costs. Everything purchased in healthcare needs to feel like it is endowed with some FDA approved, hipaa compliant, standard-of-care-defense ready mystical power. Maybe a freeware EMR or PACS system would work, but what happens if someone questions it? Better to spend a few hundred thousand or a few million just to be sure.

When you hear conversations about hospitals NOT wanting to lower their implant costs because it will hurt their reimbursement due to the payor methodology, you know we are screwed.

[aaron]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

maternity care is bad? Really? They are the future tax payers who will keep you alive while hooked up to all that expensive medical gear. Birth control? Really? Are you one of those kind Republicrats that don't want others to use birth control, but do not want to pay for abortions and certainly do not want to be taxed to raise these kids?

[Forrest]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

Aaron, you forget...the UN wants all of us to stop having children until they can keep the population rate stable at only 500,000,000.00 worldwide! Having maternity, much less care for it, is against that object. So much better to have Planned Parenthood around so that every little 'mistake' is taken care of.

[lektrode]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

maternity care is bad? Really? They are the future tax payers who will keep you alive while hooked up to all that expensive medical gear. Birth control? Really? Are you one of those kind Republicrats that don't want others to use birth control, but do not want to pay for abortions and certainly do not want to be taxed to raise these kids?

uh... no, mr aaron - i'm one of those small-r types who resents having to pay 'insurance' premiums that basically subsidize some peoples lifestyle choices.

and routine maternity is a lifestyle choice, as is birth control, abortion, along with viagra, substance abuse therapy etc etc - which should NOT be 'insurable events'

complications from maternity is a different matter however.

that said, if one wants to pay extra for the above sorts of coverage, hey! more power to em - but dont expect those of us who have chosen NOT to have families to subsidize the lifestyle choices of others.
and i'm also a proponent of 'womans right to choose' to do what she will with her own body, just dont ask me to pay for it.

i also think that those who can not or will not support themselves DO NOT have a 'right' to unlimited reproduction on The Rest of Us's dime nor the right to 'free' birth control of the sort that allows them to decide if they want to use it or not - the first welfare kid is an 'accident' - after that, if one wants to remain a ward of the state, they should be required to use depo provera to prevent any more 'accidents' or be disqualified from public assistance...

either that or get some sort of job - hey, stuff envelopes at home - even if its taking care of someone elses kids, so that person CAN work - but the very idea that The Rest of US should go to work to support the irresponsible behavior - and lifestyle choices - of the burgeoning welfare class?

it wont be long before most will decide that working for a living is for fools.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

I'll never delve into the abortion debate. There are too many rightfully strong emotions on both sides, and I don't feel such strong emotions. I'm not sure what that says about me. But I am sure that it means I should butt out.

On the topic of the ACA (Obamacare), I should have to add that I would not be so against it were it not for the individual mandate. Most of the regulatory provisions likely will improve things (like keeping kids on to 26, no insurance exclusions for preexisting conditions, and free preventative services for seniors being required parts of insurance). The new Medicare tax likely will improve things. The feds sweeping in in 2014 and covering a good chunk of Medicaid for states will likely be a well needed bandaid for states in a land of ZIRP.

But what happens after 2016 to states when the gravy train runs out? What happens to the poor bastard who makes little, can't afford health insurance, and gets hit with a tax penalty? What happens to prices?

I don't actually think prices will go up much because of it. Maybe a little more than they otherwise would have. I think it will take a chunk out of medium business' bottom line. I think it will really hurt a fair number of working-class Americans because of the mandate. I don't think it will stem healthcare price inflation.

So, trying to be a realistic left-leaner (which I always try to be), I see a lot of problems with this law. I saw the same problems when it was a neocon proposal (particularly the mandate) not so many years ago.

There is another argument to be had. It is not an argument of big government vs. small government. It is an argument of simple and enforceable government against complex and unenforceable government. The simplest programs, social security among them, tend to have staying power, be valued, and generally receive positive poll feedback.

The complicated ones do not.

I tend to operate under the assumption that Americans are not dumb. What the majority wants is usually sensible. The majority didn't like this bill. The majority liked the regulatory provisions that I liked. The majority is right.

To extend this off of topic, the majority has a feeling on taxes too.

What Wall Street Republicans and Wall Street Democrats both don't seem to fathom is the following chart from Pew this week. And the way the House is handling it, it will hurt Republicans more (even though Democrats have been far from great on the subject):



Take the majority seriously, or pay the price.

That's the most important lesson I've ever learned about American politics.

[Forrest]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

I'll never delve into the abortion debate. There are too many rightfully strong emotions on both sides, and I don't feel such strong emotions. I'm not sure what that says about me. But I am sure that it means I should butt out.

I'd be happy if the government could seperate the moral issues from practical decisions...of course non-Libertarians don't seem able to keep their fingers out of other people's business. Not that I am a Libertarian, or any other such animal, but the phrase has the advantage of not being specifically against the left or the right.

On the topic of the ACA (Obamacare), I should have to add that I would not be so against it were it not for the individual mandate. Most of the regulatory provisions likely will improve things (like keeping kids on to 26, no insurance exclusions for preexisting conditions, and free preventative services for seniors being required parts of insurance). The new Medicare tax likely will improve things. The feds sweeping in in 2014 and covering a good chunk of Medicaid for states will likely be a well needed bandaid for states in a land of ZIRP.

Government has the right to tax, but this one seems unable to be truthful about it. I would be fine with a tax that gives everyone health care, just not health insurance. The problem is, Governments by nature are not efficient at providing any service that isn't about safety, like the military, cops, or firemen. Anything else, and they can't cope. Of course, the fact that we don't NEED a government to do anything except the above, seems lost on politicians. Teachers should be paid by the student, even if the government gives them the money, or the kid will never value it.

But what happens after 2016 to states when the gravy train runs out? What happens to the poor bastard who makes little, can't afford health insurance, and gets hit with a tax penalty? What happens to prices?

We all bite down hard, and take a 15% cut across the board...everybody, everything, yup, even my Social Security Disability payment, and Medicare...I can grow vegetables, damn it, and I don't need to see the doctor routinely...I just need the scripts and the generic drugs.

But I have the courage of my convictions...the 47% living off the fat of the land will never stop whimpering, and they will be very violent at the beginning...but it's going to happen, involuntarily, by the forces of the economics involved.

I don't actually think prices will go up much because of it. Maybe a little more than they otherwise would have. I think it will take a chunk out of medium business' bottom line. I think it will really hurt a fair number of working-class Americans because of the mandate. I don't think it will stem healthcare price inflation.

Actually, no small business can afford to pay for healthcare. They will not do it...they will go to more employees, with less hours, spreading the pain, and doing their businesses an ill service as well as the employees.

No matter what happens with the economy, The current health system will fail, because there are too many people, too few doctors, and way too many lawyers/insurance salesmen out there. There must be real changes, in the economy, and in our health care laws.

So, trying to be a realistic left-leaner (which I always try to be), I see a lot of problems with this law. I saw the same problems when it was a neocon proposal (particularly the mandate) not so many years ago.

There is another argument to be had. It is not an argument of big government vs. small government. It is an argument of simple and enforceable government against complex and unenforceable government. The simplest programs, social security among them, tend to have staying power, be valued, and generally receive positive poll feedback.

The complicated ones do not.

I tend to operate under the assumption that Americans are not dumb. What the majority wants is usually sensible. The majority didn't like this bill. The majority liked the regulatory provisions that I liked. The majority is right.

To extend this off of topic, the majority has a feeling on taxes too.

What Wall Street Republicans and Wall Street Democrats both don't seem to fathom is the following chart from Pew this week. And the way the House is handling it, it will hurt Republicans more (even though Democrats have been far from great on the subject):



Take the majority seriously, or pay the price.

That's the most important lesson I've ever learned about American politics.


I agree...but this current bunch of politicos will not survive a full on crash...and the US seems to be doing everything in it's power to kill the republic with debt, and make us into a regionally based power under the UN.

Even if Ron Paul were suddenly president, with everyone in congress backing his every move, nothing else can happen, except at best, a managed crash, slowly, every so slowly dragging out the agony for us all...The Americas, Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Asia, China, the Middle East, Africa, Australia, Japan.

Twenty, thirty years of 1.3% growth can never pull us back. World War III will not pull us back. It is too far gone to be undone.

I doubt we will like being the United States of North America, particularly with us paying through the nose for the UN to tell us what we already know how to do, but we will not have a choice, when so many economies die at once to force us into a global community.

[jk]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

the veterans' hospital system has become relatively well-run and efficient, and it's run by the gov't. medicare at least has very low overhead, although it does little or nothing to control utilization. the problem we have is the insurance industry. the individual mandate exists to force relatively healthy younger people to pay premia to subsidize the less healthy. if we had universal single payer, it could all be paid for by a tax.

[Forrest]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

the veterans' hospital system has become relatively well-run and efficient, and it's run by the gov't. medicare at least has very low overhead, although it does little or nothing to control utilization. the problem we have is the insurance industry. the individual mandate exists to force relatively healthy younger people to pay premia to subsidize the less healthy. if we had universal single payer, it could all be paid for by a tax.

Well run, and efficient? More like run down, and tangled in rules and regs. Still, if someone can find a VA Hospital anywhere near where they live, perhaps it would be better than no doctor.

However, the insurance industry is a key to change, and so are the malpractice laws. Insurance should be something you buy, if you want to, for more than basic coverage. The basic coverage, while not a right, should be provided by a compassionate society.

If a country wide network of doctors and hospitals could be given a set of minimums that they must provide to everyone, within certain limits, and every Doctor were paid directly, just as we pay for schools, by the head, we could avoid the insurance companies for basic services, like promoting preventive care, with yearly physicals performed by nurses, and overseen by doctors when the nurse notices something being not quite right. The doctor doesn't need to see anyone who is not in pain or bleeding until the blood tests, urine tests, and what not are completed and back with definite information.

Not to mention, that those nurses could, with a little diagnostic training, become something like a Medical Aide. Heaven knows, we train enough medics in the army, and paramedics in civilian life, not to mention all the elderly caregivers that gain knowledge by experience.

And yes, Urgent Care should also be available at these same clinics for sick kids, or a nasty infection or virus, with well staffed emergency rooms for those damaged, broken, or bleeding.

But you have to recall that Obamacare is not about providing a service...that's just a cover story for more taxation, more control of a huge chunk of the economy, and limiting care to those that qualify for ever changing governmental ideas.

There is nothing that cannot be transitioned to a practical, opensource economy, providing all that we need, except the politicians who got into power, and want to hold on to the control over the populace they now have to remold the world nearer THEIR hearts desire. The fact that their desired utopia just isn't practical, nor suited to human nature still goes unnoticed by far too many.

[lektrode]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

....the insurance industry is a key to change, and so are the malpractice laws. Insurance should be something you buy, if you want to, for more than basic coverage. The basic coverage, while not a right, should be provided by a compassionate society.

There is nothing that cannot be transitioned to a practical, opensource economy,

providing all that we need, except the politicians who got into power, and want to hold on to the control over the populace they now have to remold the world nearer THEIR hearts desire. The fact that their desired utopia just isn't practical, nor suited to human nature still goes unnoticed to far too many.

well put sir.
+1

[lektrode]

Re: Questions about Obamacare

I'll never delve into the abortion debate. There are too many rightfully strong emotions on both sides, and I don't feel such strong emotions. I'm not sure what that says about me. But I am sure that it means I should butt out.

me too - well.. cept fer maybe the 'emotional' part - but since the lamestream media decided to - over the last 2 election cycles, in particular - focus on 'social issues' - meanwhile and while allowing the political class to get away with fighting over re-arrangement of the deck chairs -

after they let - nay - ENABLED - the economy to be set upon (by) FIre ?

and well.... i know i shouldnt get sucked into these sorts of discussions, as i'm simply not versed enuf in the vagueries of all the issues - but its now hitting home and HARD, when i'm faced with the decision of paying my tax bills or paying for med insurance - since i havent got much else left to cut and their 'recovery' program isnt 'lifting all boats' by any stretch of the beltway's imagination - and i may not be all that 'mainstream' in my views, but happen to think there's MILLIONS of people in my situation -

and so - after blowing their wad of political capital (in 2009-10) - and never mind several trillion to bailout the lower manhattan mob...

what did We, The People get for it?

zip, zilch, NADA - IMHO.

"forward"?
far as i'm concerned WE WENT BACKWARDS
and are now basically RE-ARGUING all the issues of the 60's???
since the (hard) left, refuses to let em go -
even tho we elected an african as prez, a woman as sec of state (who btw, i happen to think has more cajones than her boss) and have achieved all sorts of 'social equality' (never mind 'gender-indentity equity') that wasnt even possible to discuss a couple of generations ago?

and all this, STILL ISNT ENUF FOR THEM?

yeah, i get too emotional.... sorry.

On the topic of the ACA (Obamacare), I should have to add that I would not be so against it were it not for the individual mandate. Most of the regulatory provisions likely will improve things (like keeping kids on to 26, no insurance exclusions for preexisting conditions, and free preventative services for seniors being required parts of insurance). The new Medicare tax likely will improve things. The feds sweeping in in 2014 and covering a good chunk of Medicaid for states will likely be a well needed bandaid for states in a land of ZIRP.

again - seems like thats just another can-kick - gets em past another mid-term election cycle, and throws another couple trill into the bonfire??

But what happens after 2016 to states when the gravy train runs out? What happens to the poor bastard who makes little, can't afford health insurance, and gets hit with a tax penalty? What happens to prices?

I don't actually think prices will go up much because of it. Maybe a little more than they otherwise would have. I think it will take a chunk out of medium business' bottom line. I think it will really hurt a fair number of working-class Americans because of the mandate. I don't think it will stem healthcare price inflation.

So, trying to be a realistic left-leaner (which I always try to be), I see a lot of problems with this law. I saw the same problems when it was a neocon proposal (particularly the mandate) not so many years ago.

i certainly appreciate that dc - i try to be a good right-leaning realist - we need the social safety net lots more than we need another trillion in defense spending - too bad neither side is happy with whats happnin, since no side seems to want to let the other 'win' on any front... or rather they all let both sides win, while most of US in the middle get screwed.

There is another argument to be had. It is not an argument of big government vs. small government. It is an argument of simple and enforceable government against complex and unenforceable government. The simplest programs, social security among them, tend to have staying power, be valued, and generally receive positive poll feedback.

The complicated ones do not.

B I N G O!!
_now_ we're getting somewhere - see?
it isnt all that hard to reach the middle ground.
why cant the political class, at least the beltway aristocracy - get this??

I tend to operate under the assumption that Americans are not dumb. What the majority wants is usually sensible. The majority didn't like this bill. The majority liked the regulatory provisions that I liked. The majority is right.

too bad politix isnt about what the majority of us wants, not anymore.
its what some toenail sliver of the electorate and their lobbyists want.

To extend this off of topic, the majority has a feeling on taxes too.

i'll have more on the rest of this later, since i'm getting GLARED AT and gotta git - latahz brah.

[lektrode]

Re: Questions about Obamacare + taxes

ok.. so... where were we - oh yeah - HAPPY SUNDAY (tho i gotta be a plumbah for the rest of the day, and she isnt going to let me sit here typing for much longer, so here goes...)

.....

I tend to operate under the assumption that Americans are not dumb. What the majority wants is usually sensible. The majority didn't like this bill. The majority liked the regulatory provisions that I liked. The majority is right.


To extend this off of topic, the majority has a feeling on taxes too.

What Wall Street Republicans and Wall Street Democrats both don't seem to fathom is the following chart from Pew this week. And the way the House is handling it, it will hurt Republicans more (even though Democrats have been far from great on the subject):

i gave up thinking that the repubs are the party of: "NO, you (dems) cant give away the treasury to get re-elected" about midway thru gee dubya's reign - wasnt much that got vetoed as they, on both sides, ALL frothed up the hogtroff in one of the longest porkfest feeding frenzies in history - again, why i think term limits are the only answer

but its got very clear to me that the efficacy of 'the bush taxcuts' has evaporated completely - they DID work as intended after the meltdown of the dot-com market and they certainly were necessary in the immed aftermath of 11sep2001 - but to have continued them, long after we should've been OUT of afghanistan, never mind after going into iraq - and LONG AFTER it should've been apparent that the housing bubble was about to pop - never mind after the 'change of horses' in 2009 - but then, whos fault was that? - when reid/pelosi never could be bothered with PASSING A BUDGET, even tho they had veto-proof control of both houses and could've done almost anything they wanted to - and what did we get?

another big fat bailout of wall stand a hellth-care overhaul, that morphed into a wholesale giveaway of the treasury to the medins/legal/drug mob that NOBODY wanted?

IMHO, obamascare should be scrapped in its entirety until they FIX THE BUDGET - otherwise whats going to happen is the legal clusterf__k is going to consume any 'savings' that might've happened, as all the entrenched/monopoply interests get their lawyers into gaming every last one of the legislative flaws and gray areas this nightmare has created (read: classic liberal-dem tactics/outcome - the lawyers/politicians all love it and The Rest of US get screwed)

so NOW its time to try fix the mess that THE BELTWAY CREATED and only they can do it.

so lets take a look at the pew survey:

i'm with the majority on it all, BTW.

but here's what i'd do:

1 - since the 'entitlements' are the Big Problem, i say fix it by focusing 'revenue enhancement' where it ought to be: end the idiocy of the 'obama taxcut' and restore the FICA rates to where they were, and raise it as high as it has to be, for as long as it needs to be, to BALANCE THAT BUDGET

at a minimum, the FICA should be levied upon incomes at least as high as congressional salaries - what? their 'meager' 175-200k is too much to whack away at? - and eliminate their special deal altogether.

2 - the military industrial complex needs to be throttled back substantially - shut down completely in afghanistan - why are we there anymore anyway? - that should've been done about a year after it started, since if the russians couldnt win there, why are we even trying - theres absolutely NOTHING there to be gained or 'won' - just 'declare victory' fer petes sake and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME

3 - raise the gasoline tax to a % of the price per gallon and USE THE MONEY TO REBUILD THE CRUMBLING HIGHWAYS/bridges = immediate jobs, not somewhere out 10years from now.

4 - set a 'floor price' for fuels, open immediately and WIDE OPEN the most promising of the oil patches to drive down the price of oil - and then tax the diff to raise even more funds to bankroll the next gen of a real alternative energy source (that N word again) - and to fund the next gen of surface transport - some kind of a maglev transcontinental tubetrain, that would give the airline industry a real run for the money - we've subsidized that money-guzzlin loser of a business for too long already - and since 11sep2001, all its done is cause the most aggegious usurpation of our most basic rights, its already enuf to make me never want to fly anywhere ever again!

5 - up the cap gains rates on amounts higher than the middle class will EVER see - oh i dunno, how about a sliding scale on amounts above say 100grand/year in cap gains - and who makes that kind of money on 'capital gains' anyway ? - certainly NOT the 'middle class' and then exempt from taxation the first, say - oh i dunno - howz about 10grand/year? howz about 50grand? somewhere that has to be a part of the equation - sorry, but far as i'm concerned, if one has 50grand/year in cap gains, one is RICH.

6 - means test medicare and socsec - at least until the accounts 'balance' - dunno about anybody else, but the very idea that people who have 10grand/mo in 'retirement' income get to collect socsec to me is ABSURDITY

7 - eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for anything above appx 2x median house price - since again, if you can afford to pay 725thousand bux for a house? you dont need a subsidy to pay for it.

8 - and what about the tax exemption of cap gains from sales of a house - why should that even be possible - what? that didnt in and of itself pour gasoline on the already overheated housing market?
that one should be throttled-back immediately - at least to the point one only gets to collect on it ONCE IN A LIFETIME - but certainly not every 5years (or whatevah it is) - again = ABSURDITY.

9 - pull back to 'fortress america', close most if not all the foreign bases and give the wanna-be king troublemakers of the world a warning: if you mess with us, and we have to come back over there, there wont be 'boots on the ground' the next time.

10 - start treating our agricultural knowhow and produce as something valuable, not road fuel - and use it to create friends and trading partners (like: tell OPEC we have a 'new deal' for you - one barrel of oil, for one bushel of wheat/corn/oats or one barrel of water - take yer pick)

there, thats my plan - i gotta go, shes glarin and huffin at me again....