Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

['SkersRule]

Tort reform, which neither side wanted would be a start in the right direction. I am not for the govt controlling any type of service. Utility costs are high, why not let the govt own utility companies? Own the phone companies etc...... Businesses need to own the businesses. The govt does need to regulate prices, but that is hard to do when the education system costs so much to obtain the title of MD, let alone a specialist in a certain field. It is also hard to do in a free market economy where the bottom line for a company is to turn a profit. What has the govt run that has been done so with fiscal responsibility or even better than the private sector? Can you sight an example? Not trying to be argumentative, but can't think of an example where the govt runs anything well.

 

Here is a great article on the promises made that gave us this monstrosity. A rather long article, but explains how the medical industry, Pharm companies and AARP sold their souls to get this passed in return for "protection". Sad

 

http://spectator.org...doing-obamacare

 

The bottom line, I would like to think that all AMERICANS want health care reform. Both sides might have a different view of what reform looks like, but I do not think this is it.

 

I for one do not look forward to my family deductible increasing to approximately 3k. I do not look forward to diminished services and increased costs. I do not look forward to not being allowed to see a specialist as "it is not economically prudent" mammograms and prostate exams being "recommended" later or not at all.

 

The issue isn't that government does or doesn't run whatever we're talking about well because obviously there are numerous examples of governmental incompetence. The issue is affordable, low cost, quality healthcare for everyone. And putting a sector of corporate America, whose only goal is maximization of bottom line and return to shareholders, is absolutely the last type of entity I want controlling our healthcare system. Insurance companies will gladly take your money month after month for years, even decades, but as soon as you file a claim they always find a way to deny it. Then it becomes a seemingly never ending battle or fight to get them to pay for even routine care.

 

To your point about cell phones and other industries run by corporations, sure there are many different providers but have you ever wondered why, despite the numerous different carriers, they all pretty much offer the same things at roughly the same price points? It's called collusion. These guys get together at country clubs and resorts and figure out what they want to charge. Sure they're in competition with each other but there's always been kind of a we'll charge this if you charge that type of unwritten agreement.

 

Healthcare needs reforming there's absolutely no doubt about it. But I do not trust a profit seeking corporation or the government to run healthcare. I'm the first to admit I do not have any idea how to run healthcare except to say that we need to find a way to really lower the costs. If we could start there that would be a step in the right direction I think.

[krill]

I am not for the govt controlling any type of service. Utility costs are high, why not let the govt own utility companies?

 

Hmmm, last I checked Nebraska has public power and we have some of the lowest rates in the nation. Might want to reconsider that position next time you use running water or a road too.

 

This whole thread is littered with factual inaccuracies and statements made with no apparent ability to observe the world, or god forbid, spend five minute researching something before forming an opinion that is chiseled in stone.

[lo country]

I am not for the govt controlling any type of service. Utility costs are high, why not let the govt own utility companies?

 

Hmmm, last I checked Nebraska has public power and we have some of the lowest rates in the nation. Might want to reconsider that position next time you use running water or a road too.

 

This whole thread is littered with factual inaccuracies and statements made with no apparent ability to observe the world, or god forbid, spend five minute researching something before forming an opinion that is chiseled in stone.

 

Krill,

Nebraska is the only state with publicly owned utilities. It is not govt owned. My ref to rates was simply in answer to another poster. ie insurance rates are high let the govt take over. Your example proves my point about commerce. Publicly and or private owned will do programs much better. The govt run programs are not the way to go. Let the economy work. Allow states to figure out what works for them. I am a big fan of the 10th amendment and states rights..

 

If you would also read my posts, they are filled with sarcasm. I have included links to those things that I said or presented as factual.

[krill]

Nebraska is the only state with publicly owned utilities. It is not govt owned.

 

Yes, it is owned by the state of Nebraska.

 

This is pointless...haven't accomplished anything. Health care, post offices, electric utilities. When does the football season start?

[lo country]

Nebraska is the only state with publicly owned utilities. It is not govt owned.

 

Yes, it is owned by the state of Nebraska.

 

This is pointless...haven't accomplished anything. Health care, post offices, electric utilities. When does the football season start?

 

I agree. I have no idea why I get worked up about crap I can't change. How many more days?

[Lil' Red]

I applaud you effort. Many throw out statements and accept their opinion as fact.

 

I will be honest with you though (and now I get into my opinion), this article is bunk. There first two paragraphs paint the picture for the entire article.

 

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

The fundamental flaw in both your argument and the article is that no health care killed these people. I think this argument parallels gun control control. I don't want my whole argument to hinge on that technicality. I personally know of two adequately insured people that weren't feeling well, didn't go to the doctor and within months had heart attacks. Who do we blame for those instances? People with insurance still don't go to the doctor. It still costs a lot of money.

 

I also have issue with the state 'according to their family'. According to their family, every gang banger on KETV-7 was getting ready to turn their life around prior to getting gun down for selling drug.

 

Right or wrong, the American Public Health Association, who is providing the 45K number, clearly has skin in this game. It happens all the time, but a simple search of the APHA will give you a their stance on this issue.

 

I agree with your point that it is difficult to place a reliable figure on the number of lives theoretically saved from health care and that it would be to the APHA's own benefit to exaggerate and skew the statistics. However, whatever the true number is I trust that it is considerably larger than 17 making it more advantageous to greater invest in health care rather than counter-terrorism methods as the potential lives saved is substantially bigger.

[carlfense]

Tort reform?

 

I'm a little embarrassed for the people who seem to actually believe that this is a way to significantly lower health care costs.

 

Seriously. Everyone should do a little research on the subject before blithely repeating that talking point.

[carlfense]

You allow insurance companies to run it.

 

Oh god freaking HELL no! Giving the insurance companies, whose only goal is to maximze their bottom line, control over our healthcare system would be the absolute worst decision ever. I'm not a fan of anything ran by the government but I'd rather have the government run our healthcare than insurance companies!

 

The best way to run our healthcare system is to go forward and reduce costs, from the cost of attending med school to what is charged for services. For example, there's no reason why an MRI should cost 1,000 to 5,000 thousand dollars.

 

http://health.costhelper.com/mri.html

How would you go about encouraging people to charge less for MRIs? I assume that you don't want the government to step in and tell private enterprise what to price their services at.

 

Your statements in this post don't seem to line up well with your political ideology. Not trusting private business. Complaints about free enterprise pricing. Etc.

 

What gives?

[carlfense]

To the last bolded part, I agree with some parts of the health care, but I think it needs to be repealed and redone.

I keep seeing this meme popping up. "Repeal and replace." Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't have any idea what they would replace the ACA with. Their big ideas are already in place in the ACA . . . which makes things a bit awkward. It's hard to be 100% against everything in the supremely evil ACA . . . when they have said that they want to do the things that are in the ACA.

 

I'm not against a "replace and repeal" conversation. As in . . . let's have a conversation about what the new law will be BEFORE scrapping the ACA.

 

My fear (which seems reasonable) is that if repeal were successful it would be decades before anything is done. Kudos to Mitt Romney for providing the model for Obamacare. Perfect, it's not. Better than the status quo? Yeah. Absolutely.

[AR Husker Fan]

***SNIP***

Kudos to Mitt Romney for providing the model for Obamacare. Perfect, it's not. Better than the status quo? Yeah. Absolutely.

 

 

[Omaha-Husker]

I wont name my employer by name as I assume nearly all retail is dealing with this.

 

The place I work has quite a few "part time" employees that work 40 hours a week to make ends meet or pay for school. Obviously the goal of the act was to get these people health care. Well the company doesn't wish to dole out health insurance for all of these people so they are cutting all of them to 30 hours a week. Naturally there is some outrage throughout the ranks, I am not exactly happy as well. I don't need it to survive, but I have worked 40 hours per week every summer since I was 15 at this job, usually 30 during the school year. Haven't had to take out a student loan because of it and now I either need to go find a second crappy job or find some loans for books and classes. I can't even imagine the guy without a high school degree trying to feed his kid that works here.

 

I think health reform is long over due, but a whole lot of people just scraping by are being put in tough situations. Wether you want to point the finger at the company not wanting to pay out of pocket for that many benefits or point your finger at ACA itself it is a rough time for I assume millions in similar positions.

[knapplc]

Less than two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the president's health care reform law, the House of Representatives is set to vote to repeal the legislation again in what Democrats have decried as a political show vote while also embracing it as another opportunity to explain the perks of the law to voters.

 

Lawmakers will begin debating the GOP's proposal to repeal the law Tuesday, with a final vote expected Wednesday afternoon.

 

To date, the House has voted 30 times to defund, dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act. In one of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives 18 months ago, the House first voted to repeal the health care law, January 19, 2011, passing the measure 245-189. At the time, just three House Democrats - Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, and Mike Ross of Arkansas - joined the House GOP in supporting repeal. A month later, repeal failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 47-51.

LINK

 

 

Good to know this is the single greatest threat to this country's health right now - so much so that congress has done nothing to help job growth, to kick-start the economy, or in general get this country out of the recession.

[Yossarian]

Less than two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld the president's health care reform law, the House of Representatives is set to vote to repeal the legislation again in what Democrats have decried as a political show vote while also embracing it as another opportunity to explain the perks of the law to voters.

 

Lawmakers will begin debating the GOP's proposal to repeal the law Tuesday, with a final vote expected Wednesday afternoon.

 

To date, the House has voted 30 times to defund, dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act. In one of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives 18 months ago, the House first voted to repeal the health care law, January 19, 2011, passing the measure 245-189. At the time, just three House Democrats - Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, and Mike Ross of Arkansas - joined the House GOP in supporting repeal. A month later, repeal failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 47-51.

LINK

 

 

Good to know this is the single greatest threat to this country's health right now - so much so that congress has done nothing to help job growth, to kick-start the economy, or in general get this country out of the recession.

 

I'm beginning to think the Republicans and the Democrats are both willing to "destroy the village in order to save it."

[knapplc]

I'm beginning to think the Republicans and the Democrats are both willing to "destroy the village in order to save it."

 

Exactly. Their only contest right now is to out-fiddle each other. Nero would be proud.

[bhamHusker]

The 2 party system exists to maintain the status quo, not to facilitate actual change. That's by design, and we accept it because we think that in almost 240 years, no better idea has been had than what a bunch of wealthy, slave holding misogynists could come up with.