HEALTH CARE LAW UPHELD
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
It's law, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is valied under the taxing authority.
Yes, I know healthcare is one word....
However, states can opt out with the Medicaid portion. Now what?
I am 100% AGAINST the government requiring the people to purchase healthcare or face a penalty. I am also against the federal government forcing the states to provide healthcare for those that aren't covered by private insurance.
America became the great nation we were because of the free enterprise system. We are now on a course of becoming a socialist country. The working class will be taxed more and more to cover those that do not want to work, and provide for themselves. The government run healthcare system will be like every other government program, overpriced and impossible to access.
We are already paying billions of dollars in California in medical expenses for released convicts (because we can't afford to keep them in prison and 40,000 were released), sexual predators, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Why should the working taxpayers be required to pay more to cover those that choose not to work?
It's not even the direct penalties, etc. for the working class should they opt out of insurance. The entire system needs reformed. The liberals have expanded disability, healthcare, etc. to such extremes, that soon there will be no business left in California to create the tax base necessary to suport it. You can only tax people and business so much, and when there's more taking than giving, the country collapses, and we become Greece!
I'll stand for a free country, with personal choice, and a free enterprise system, and forego Big Brother thank you.
One of my best friends is a physician, I guess he's in that 35%. I'm familiar with the VA which is an entirely different matter, this would be more along the lines of an active duty member's family getting treatment on the "economy" rather than at a military hospital, which is very good. They simply go to their doctor privately and the "insurance" takes care of it after the fact, with very little out of pocket expenses. While I was on active duty my family used private providers, so I have first hand experience from that end.
So, government has provided very good care, the VA has other issues concerning funding that are much different than this avenue.
The law doesn't prevent anyone from seeing their doctor or obtaining any policy they would like and can afford, it does provide options. Just the fact that insurance companies can not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions is a very big deal. Kids staying on longer and the elimination of life time caps are also a very bid deal.
I'd think that the real, underlying issue has to do with profits by healthcare providers and insurance companies, I just can't see these large corporations like Humana being more concerned with access to services for more people. The misinformation and negative claims probably have roots in the pockets of some very powerful entities.
This adminstration has done a horrible job of selling the Act, IMO and those who wish to destroy him and this issue have done very well spinning the facts and that this all really began by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group in the 90s.
My family is on Tri-Care (we qualify as my wife is an Army Reservist), which is government health insurance. It is very affordable and I have been able to see any doctor any of my co-workers use but paying about $350 less per month. I even used to cover some of the fees for my LASIK surgery.
Dennis Tierney, this is the second time you've touted that you are a physician. While I will admit, you should have some more insight into the situation than the general public, you aren't unbiased. I'm a civil engineer and I understand what it is like to be very attached to doing a complex business in a way I am accustomed. That is why change is VERY slow in the civil engineering world - just as I understand it is in the standard practice medical field.. We don't like change. It means more things to learn, more work...But in the end, everybody is usually better off.
Also, I agree that most people on this thread don't know what this is going to like 10 years down the road - including you and me. But then, nobody knew what the 10 year projection was before OC either.
Bill GulleyYou just don't get it. There will be very little private care in 10yrs. The gov't will run the insurance co. out of business. Moreover, there will be a severe shortage of Drs. There already is a shortage of primary care Drs. and no one will go into medicine, rack up $200,000+ in debt to get through school and then get a gov't job. The good Drs. have an independent mind and the best and brightest will no longer go into medicine. To think otherwise you don't understand human nature.
The doctors and nurses will be my main concern. We have no control over the insurance. We do have control when it comes to choosing a doctor. We have to pick doctors and nurses that care more about healing people than earning money. Not all doctors and nurses in the medical profession care about people being heal. They got in the medical profession for the money.
I got into real estate because I have a passion for it. I would do it for free. Well, I feel like I am doing it for free sometimes being a wholesaler...lol. I want my doctor to feel the same way about his or her profession as well.
I don't want to hear a doctor tell me I can heal you, but your insurance won't pay for it. Doctors that care will eat the cost and do the procedure to heal you....just because they care about people.
Also, I agree that most people on this thread don't know what this is going to like 10 years down the road - including you and me. But then, nobody knew what the 10 year projection was before OC either.
Obama/Romneycare was implemented in Mass. 7 years ago. It's working much better than our current system in the rest of the US. They like it.
While it would be great to "run the insurance companies out of business" and get the profit motive out of health care by letting the gov't do it, it just won't happen. The insurance lobby is too powerful and Obamacare has made insurance companies and their lobby more powerful and MORE PROFITABLE by virtue of the mandate. Do you realize that insurance companies actually lobbied for the mandate and other key provisions of Obamacare? To say the insurance companies are going out of business is ridiculous. Check out their profits and stock prices since Obamacare was signed.
Other countries with single payer health care systems have people going into medicine. There will always be doctors. As a doctor, you certainly know that most do not choose medicine to get rich. You can do that easier ways in the US. The "doctor shortage" is one of those constantly touted things that I have never expereinced first hand. There is always a need for highly educated people in all positions. There is also a shortage of astrophysicists, top IT people, etc.
MANY of the brightest minds already work for the government or universities where pay is not what they might get elsewhere in private industry. Med Schools will be the ones who are eventually forced to reduce costs to attract medical students if in fact, DR pay goes down.
I am no expert on Obamacare and I am sure it is far from perfect. Our gov't system makes it impossible to pass laws that are the best solution.
However, the question is...are we on a better path with Obamacare than we were under the previous system? My guess is it is somewhat better.
Everyone agrees that under the previous system costs were going higher, care was less universal, doctors were under pressure by costs and compliance, etc, etc, etc. We were already on a path to disaster.
Will Obamacare lessen those problems or exacerbate them ...over the longer term? We don't know but I am willing to give it a try and pay some of the short term costs for longer term benefits.
Perhaps, but the largest organization of doctors in the US (the AMA) seems to applaud the ruling:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247288.php
It shouldn't surprise me when doctors put money ahead of the Hippocratic Oath, but it certainly saddens me. I couldn't ever imagine going into medicine with an attitude that certain people deserve better/worse/different care than others based on their circumstances or means -- though again, I guess it shouldn't surprise me.
Dr. Dennis, I do get that really. Dr.s need to be compensated fairly and have the perpensity to earn a nice income.....agreed.
I doubt Dr.s will be pushed into the public health service as a govt. employee, that seems rather paranoid, that may well be ture for an average or a poor partitioner, but I'm sure that in our country the best and brightest, the better educated and skilled will continue to command more than a decent living.
I've done mortgages for many Dr.s in varied fields, buisness arrangements of employment and on the private side as well as government. A dentist at our federal medical center (prison) makes more than most others in the area.
I'm not so sure that someone who can go to work for less than 8 hours, doesn't have hospital rounds and can go home and actually relax or have real off time is worth 800K a year in a low cost of living environment as our area. I certainly don't see a perfusionist who is not a medical doctor making 750K (the nurse that runs an artificial heart machine in the operating room). My impression is that mediacl school must hand out a large dose of entitlement attitudes with degrees. Fifty years ago my parents has several close friends that were Dr.s and their compensation, while very good compared to the average, was no where near what is demanded today even with adjustments for time. There is a real greed factor now and I'd have to ask, did they go into healthcare to help others or just to get rich?
Our largest hospital is a religiously based non-profit, the Catholic Church owns it, or did as the just changed and while it's technically a non-profit, just a few years ago, they put in several hundred thousand dollars in a single family home converting it to an ambulance station and the next year tore it down for a parkeing lot. They spend money to manipulate the books keeping within the non-profit requirements....a total waste of money that they billed some shmuck for that was basically over charged.
While I don't know if there is anything in the Act, I'd bet that there are issues addressing fraud, waste and abuse that is not well received by medical providers, if standards are changed, proceedures are necessary or any more papaer work is involved, I'd say it's not welcome, but probably necessary to reduce costs. So be it!
Dr. Dennis, I wonder if Dr. Mehmet Oz a famed Cardiologist would agree with you on National TV! Also, even though I have never been in the military I have immediate family members who have and the VA Hospital @ Walter Reed is one of the best hospitals in the Nation with top doctors.
Timothy RogersWhen I go into the hospital at 2 am to do an emergency angioplasty to save someone's life when they're haing a heart attack I never have and never will ask if they can pay. Drs. give a tremendous amount of charity care, always have and always will. The media distorts people's perception of doctors to suit their own means.
@jscott The AMA has only a small and dwindling # of Drs. as members and is dismissed by most practicing Drs. as it doesn't represent their views.
There really is not need to speculate on what the outcomes will be if it is not overturned, as we have plenty of examples around the world: rationing, bribes, limited care for old people, and massive red tape (worse than the insurance companies, and that is quite an "accomplishment").
It is clear that most who voted for the incumbent in the last election did so after ignoring his very radical history, or after not even bothering to educate themselves. Many simply saw that he is white (same as saying he is black - half true) and voted accordingly for whatever reason motivated them to care about race.
I say it's communism...soon we will all be equal...equally broke.
--Mitch--
You mentioned in previous post that you know a person...Except for this one person ioverseas (who you happen to know) what evidence do you have that this is norm? My understanding is that the majority of Europeans and Canadians think their system of healthcare is far superior to ours and that ours. Yes, you can say that the richest and most well off fly to the US for certain surgeries. But that VERY small portion of what we have to offer the overseas elite has very LITTLE to do with providing more than nothing for millions of our own citizens. I know a lot of poeple who travel to Mexico to get dental work and surgeries because it is often less than half the cost of what we charge here. The only difference is that they are using the 2008 year model machine instead of the 50 billion dollar 2012.5 year model.
This entire statement is pretty presumptious. Here is a good example of how a person brings up something else besides the topic at hand to frustrate and derail the actual discussion that is occuring.
Not familiar with European health care in general, but familiar with NHS - UK Heath system.
Can we guarantee this system wont have the rationing that is seen in NHS?
NHS rationing by BBC - past/future
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17140650
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18143085
hip/knee surgery rationing
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18495981
Obese/smoker/IVF rationing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9127486/Obese-and-smokers-denied-treatment-to-save-money.html
Breast Cancer Rationing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9079213/Breast-cancer-sufferers-denied-two-drugs-on-NHS.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5058952.stm
NHS is state owned, and cant afford health care costs; how do we expect insurance companies to?
I feel like rationing would have to take place to keep costs down to prevent superfluous procedures down. Makes sense to me. Regardless, I'm not happy with health care legislation until they take meaningful steps towards lowering health care costs and encouraging individuals to take care if themselves.
Brandy Y.,
Good info in your post. I can't say that I sympathise with smokers at all, and also not much with the obese (some yes, but most no).The analysis from the third article you posted appears to sum it up pretty good. I copied and pasted it below so others can read it without sifting through all the information you posted. I don't think we can garauntee that our system wont have draw backs like this, but I also don't think we are garuanteed to emulate it either. We have done a lot of things similar yet better than England over the years..
Rationing is nothing new in the NHS, it has always happened. There is a finite pot of money and so resources have to be managed.
There are national thresholds for how ill you have to be to get help. Restrictions are also routinely put in place to stop those that are overweight or are smokers having treatment if their lifestyles would then undo or limit the effectiveness of that care.
There is also a drive to get the NHS to stop doing procedures for which there is little clinical benefit. Some tonsollectomies fall into this category.
So not all the restrictions highlighted by GP magazine and Labour are necessarily bad.
But what appears to be happening increasingly as well is rationing to save money. A cataract operation on one eye costs the NHS about £900. A hip replacement sets the service back more than £5,000.
With money getting increasingly tight, some areas are delaying referring patients for these type of treatments.
Critics argue it is a short-term measure - patients just end up sicker and often need the treatment in the end - but that, unfortunately, is how some trusts seem to be managing budgetary constraints.
What would have happened if you had gotten a serious illness or had been in an accident while you were in college?
Assuming you weren't *lucky* enough to have had parents who could provide you insurance, do you think that you should have been turned down for medical care? Or had you somehow saved enough money before college to cover any major medical expenses that might have come up while you were earning those degrees that would allow you to get insurance?
I believe a civilized society has a responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves... the young, the disabled, etc. If you told me people were covered to age 22 to get them through college, I'm all for it. At some point, people need to take accountability for themselves.
http://www.historyextra.com/feature/painful-truth-about-rationing-nhs
I dont know about others... but when /if my hips/knees/eyes need replacement/surgery, I dont want it to be dependent on bureaucrats who answer to other bureaucrats/politicians. And I dont think these surgeries/clinical needs are superfluous.
And no Iam not fat nor smoke. :)
We all need to take responsibility for our own healthcare and this law is the start. Having knowledge of Medicare, Med Supp and Part D, I think that we may see some plans such as the following, but again this is my opinion:
Insurers will have a Plan, A, B,C,D etc. Each plan will have the same coverages, however, the insurers "underwriting rules" may vary. Therefore, Plan A under Insurer A may cost $, whereas Plan A under another Insurer costs would be different. Plan B will have difference coverages etc. I can see these plans and coverages being from "bare bones or catastrophic coverages" to very comprehensive and you will get what you pay for. I can also see health insurers vying for the business and thus cost containment, thus the competition will bring prices down.
At present time, having spoken with Blue Rx on Part D, the costs there are determined by contracts between the insurer, Medicare and the Retailer. If I go to CVS for my prescription drugs, I may pay my copay and/or deductible for the drug at say $. If I decided to switch to Walgreens as a retailer, the costs for that same drug will be different because of the contract between the mfr, insurer and retailer.
I can see people comparing costs and this in itself will create competition. These are just my opinions on what I have expereienced with Medicare/Med Supp and Part D.
First, let me start by saying that I think this particular health care law is horrible and should never have been passed. The Republicans had much, much better suggestions for health-care reform back in the early 90s -- those bills were even more liberal than this one, and I wish those would have been passed 20 years ago.
That said, while I disapprove of this bill specifically, I believe that ethically, everyone is entitled to health care.
Ummm...that's not what you said above. What you said above was that if people can't pay for medical care, they don't deserve to get it.
Now, if you really believe that "a civilized society has a responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves," does that mean you believe that people with low IQs (who presumably can't do well in college and get high paying jobs) and people who come from disadvantaged families and need to work to support their family instead of going to college (and therefore, who presumably can't get high paying jobs) should get subsidized medical care? I'd say that statistically these two groups account for at least 50% of Americans out there.
Let's not stop there -- there is plenty of evidence to indicate that sexism and racism are still rampant by employers: if you're a woman and/or a minority, statistically you will make less money than your white, male counterparts (and this has been proven just based on information provided in resumes without the potential worker ever being present for an interview or work). So, if you are hindered by your genes and societal bigotry, does that mean you should get subsidized by society?
As a healthy, white male with a high IQ who grew up in a middle-class family in this country, I have absolutely no excuse for not being in a situation where I have a lot of money and can afford health-care independent of subsidy (I'm the first to admit that my life has been *simple* based on my societal and genetic "luck of the draw"). In my opinion (again, just my opinion), anyone who believes that we all have the same opportunities in this country -- regardless of circumstance and genetics -- is fooling themselves.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's ignore everything I said above...
Imagine a utopia where hard work and motivation was all it takes to get into college and get several degrees. And let's assume everyone worked their butts off, everyone went to college, everyone got PhDs and everyone competed for the same high-paying jobs necessary to pay for their own medical care.
Would everyone be able to afford health care in that situation?
Nope...this would cause two issues:
1. Not enough high-paying jobs out there, such that well-educated people like you (and me) still may not be able to make much money, despite our hard work and advanced degrees; and
2. You're going to have PhDs flipping burgers and selling you shoes in the mall, thus driving up wages and causing inflation (further driving up the cost of health care).
In short, there's just no such thing as a society where -- no matter how hard everyone works and studies -- everyone that works hard will be able to afford expensive health care. Our infrastructure just isn't designed that way.
It's convenient that you support subsidized healthcare for the exact period of time when you needed it, but not after that... :)
Btw, Nathan, I do respect your views. I think you're a good bit younger than I am, and I'm guessing that I probably held similar views to you when I was your age.
About 10 years ago, I was lucky enough to have a couple conversations with a guy who has spent more money in his lifetime (and will spend tens of billions more upon his death) to help the disadvantaged in this country and across the world live better lives. It was inspiring to hear someone who earned every penny of his fortune talk about how money is meaningless if we don't use to make this world a better place; it would be easy for someone with that kind of money to preach capitalism, greed and earning what you get, but at some point you need to recognize that life isn't about winning and losing, it's about maximizing happiness. And for some people, it's hard to maximize happiness while knowing that there are other out there needlessly suffering, regardless of their potential to not be in the situation.
Okay, I'll hop off my soapbox now... :)
Okay, you can say that...but it doesn't make it true. By definition, a single payer health care system is NOT communism.
But again, if making factually incorrect statements makes you feel better, you can say it to your heart's content... (in fact, if this were really communism, you likely wouldn't have been allowed to say that, so you've actually proven yourself wrong :).
J Scott Wow JSS. I was wondering how long you could hang out on an RE message board and withhold your real smarts and opinions. :)
P.S. Tell C. the letter is in the mail.
J Scott,
I can't think of any better way to state my thoughts/beliefs about this issue than you have throughout this thread. Thanks for your contributions.
I too am disappointed in the outcome of this legislation as it currently stands.
For me, and I do not know how you feel about it, I was disappointed that the single payer provision was taken out. It's like a gun without bullets. But my hope is that this law will evolve into something better. It will certainly be a step toward getting beyond the status quot if nothing else.
Brian - you really ought to go visit places with the fully socialized medicine you say you want. Go to that cancer ward with the people screaming in pain because they do not have cash for painkillers (I can give you the address). Go see the old people dying for lack of care unless bribes are paid. Go see all people waiting and waiting, unless bribes are paid. Do you really want that? If you have some utopian dreams that it would somehow work out differently here, why? Such schemes, everywhere they have been tried, always have degenerated into rationing, bribery, and neglect of old people.