Skip to main content

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Jank

The ACA also destoryed the good health care plans provided companies who did the right thing like mine.  To avoid the caddiliac tax those plans were reduced and out of pocket expenses were raised.  They knowingly lied to the public to get it passed and then laughed about it, how good could it be?

__________________

 

Scrape it then. Now what? The system we had before wasn't working and was a lot worse than it is now. If you had cancer you ended up running out of coverage way before your treatment was complete and IF you survived you more than likely would be in so much medical debt you would be forced into bankruptcy. If you had diabetes and you changed jobs then you probably wouldn't be able to get any insurance with your new company. No preexisting illnesses. Remember? Those that could afford to pay for insurance but just opted to not would have car wrecks, heart attacks, storkes and run up huge bills at the hospital then just walk away. Which caused all the rest of us to pay higher and higher healthcare cost to offset the loss. Should those people continue to screw the rest of us? The ACA is not perfect, far from it. It didn't go far enough and we have to get over this idea that universal healthcare is some kind of scary thing. It is WAY better than what we have or ever had in this country. 

 

I'm willing and open to new ideas. Please, tell me yours.

Flat Tax and a tax for every body to pay that comes out of any return for healthcare and no subsidy that makes it a free ride for anybody. 

__________________

 

So single payer healthcare? 

_________________________________

The three models for single payer are the VA, the Soviet Union and the previous Canadian system, where awaiting specialists was akin to the internation definition of torture (per their SCOTUS). 

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

 

Healthcare is a human right. Not a privilege. 

I don't think anyone minds helping those who need it, but let's get something straight when we say "healthcare is a right".  What else is a right? Is food a right? Is it a "right" to be able to go where I want any time I want? When you say something is a "right", what you are saying is that someone somewhere has to take care of you when you want it without any cost to you for their service. Seems to me the ancients tried that with salves for a while, and no civilization has ever made that last for too long. See people get tired of washing other peoples feet and tails, cleaning them up, nursing them, especially when it is not one of their own.  They expect to be paid to do it. Of course there are a few with a Florence Nightinggale philosophy, but they lose that after a few months of changing dirty bed sheets and minding catheters. And then these people expect to be compensated for doing that work. In reality, the only people who are required to take care of you is your own. You can think that you can create a utopian society where people will give great compassionate care to to people with essentially no compensation for doing so, but if you think that you are living in a dream world, cause it is not going to happen.  Perhaps your daughter can bring us home some grand ideas of the utopia she is finding so rewarding there in France, since I find it ironic that the spoon fed elite are always the ones who have the grandest ideals of what our society should be.  Perhaps she could get a better idea by volunteering at local nursing home or geriatric facility and helping to take personal care of the elderly and infirm for a few months at no or minimal compensation and see if that is what she would like to do for the rest of her life.

Most medical students will leave medical school with over 6 figures of debt, which will gain interest over the next four to five years as they complete their residency. By the time they get to the "real World, they have seen and done enough to know that the world is a different place that the one upon which they entered, and then the bills come due. As much as they would like to see patients for free or at minimal costs, they have overhead and bills to pay, and those nurses and techs that help them don't want to do it for free either.

I agree that there were points in the ACA that helped, but those things could have been done without the rest of the monstrosity, nor the increased tax costs to the remainder of the populace. Instead this president and his minions have devised a wealth redistribution scheme that will affect us for decades. As for "universal healthcare", if and when we do see it in this country, you can rest assured that there are going to be many like yourself who will welcome that "free healthcare" you think you deserve, however there isn't going to be anyone around to give it to you.

_____________________________________________________

And, let us not forget the August heatwave of 2003 in France,   About 15,000 died, most in nursing home, old folks homes and elderly on home care.  A majority of French take a major portion of their vacations in August and couldn't be bothered to return to their duties,  In Alabama, we'd call their heatwave Monday to Sunday in August.,

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

LOL, her head is up her tail by choice.  It would take a mighty strong winch to break that grip and there would be claw marks all the way out.

______________________________________________

That is the leftist default position -- the same ideas circulate in a circular manner -- not allowing for anything new to enter the system.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Jank

The ACA also destoryed the good health care plans provided companies who did the right thing like mine.  To avoid the caddiliac tax those plans were reduced and out of pocket expenses were raised.  They knowingly lied to the public to get it passed and then laughed about it, how good could it be?

__________________

 

Scrape it then. Now what? The system we had before wasn't working and was a lot worse than it is now. If you had cancer you ended up running out of coverage way before your treatment was complete and IF you survived you more than likely would be in so much medical debt you would be forced into bankruptcy. If you had diabetes and you changed jobs then you probably wouldn't be able to get any insurance with your new company. No preexisting illnesses. Remember? Those that could afford to pay for insurance but just opted to not would have car wrecks, heart attacks, storkes and run up huge bills at the hospital then just walk away. Which caused all the rest of us to pay higher and higher healthcare cost to offset the loss. Should those people continue to screw the rest of us? The ACA is not perfect, far from it. It didn't go far enough and we have to get over this idea that universal healthcare is some kind of scary thing. It is WAY better than what we have or ever had in this country. 

 

I'm willing and open to new ideas. Please, tell me yours.

Flat Tax and a tax for every body to pay that comes out of any return for healthcare and no subsidy that makes it a free ride for anybody. 

__________________

 

So single payer healthcare? 

Nope you asked how to fix ACA and I gave you a answer, one that required the same payment from everyone and no freerides for anybody.

Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:

Jank

The ACA also destoryed the good health care plans provided companies who did the right thing like mine.  To avoid the caddiliac tax those plans were reduced and out of pocket expenses were raised.  They knowingly lied to the public to get it passed and then laughed about it, how good could it be?

__________________

 

Scrape it then. Now what? The system we had before wasn't working and was a lot worse than it is now. If you had cancer you ended up running out of coverage way before your treatment was complete and IF you survived you more than likely would be in so much medical debt you would be forced into bankruptcy. If you had diabetes and you changed jobs then you probably wouldn't be able to get any insurance with your new company. No preexisting illnesses. Remember? Those that could afford to pay for insurance but just opted to not would have car wrecks, heart attacks, storkes and run up huge bills at the hospital then just walk away. Which caused all the rest of us to pay higher and higher healthcare cost to offset the loss. Should those people continue to screw the rest of us? The ACA is not perfect, far from it. It didn't go far enough and we have to get over this idea that universal healthcare is some kind of scary thing. It is WAY better than what we have or ever had in this country. 

 

I'm willing and open to new ideas. Please, tell me yours.

Flat Tax and a tax for every body to pay that comes out of any return for healthcare and no subsidy that makes it a free ride for anybody. 

__________________

 

So single payer healthcare? 

Nope you asked how to fix ACA and I gave you a answer, one that required the same payment from everyone and no freerides for anybody.

__________________________

 

No, since you seem to really dislike the ACA (and I don't particularly love it myself) I ask what your idea for a better healthcare system would be. Maybe I was not clear enough. However you are going to have to explain a bit further about your idea of a flat tax and an additional tax. Would that be similar to the VAT's in EU and their taxes for healthcare? 

Originally Posted by teyates:

Sorry Jank, I wouldn't want to get your blood pressure up, you would expect someone to take care of you if you stroked out....haha.

Yes, your liberal ideal of a "right" is exactly like what I referred to.  You insinuate that it is your right to receive medical care, and that if it is such a "right", regardless of whether it is fairly compensated for or not, you expect to receive it.  There were acts in place to take care of the uninsured in emergency situation prior to the ACA. What we are seeing now the ACA is exactly what some of us predicted to begin with. Those who chose not to insure themselves, but could afford it, continue to balk at the idea of buying insurance.  Now however when they do get sick, or develop a cancer, they can go out an buy the best coverage they can afford and the insurance company has to take care of it. Ironically, now that extra costs is passed on to us with the ACA tax and increased rates.  Each month my BCBS bill shows that on top of my already high rate, I pay about $78 for the Healthcare Tax.  That equals out to about $860 per year, then I am tagged again on my return with higher rates and other assorted goodies. Bitter? Yep, I guess you could say that. I am sick and tired of trying to provide for my family's coverage and then being penalized by higher rates to provide for someone else. Now the Dems in Congress are proposing a new brick to stack on the camel's back.  They want to do away with the penalty for THOSE WHO DO NOT BUY COVERAGE....What?  I thought that was what this whole ACA was about?  Now this idiots want to do away with the penalty on the very ones who they are giving money to to supplement their coverage.  These same ones now show up at the ER with no insurance and no plans to pay for their care. The ACA did not nothing but create more of a headache for providers and then turned around and gave the offenders a "get out of jail" free card.

Exactly what kind of work do you do Jank? Do you expect to be compensated for enough to cover your expenses for the job you do? Do you wait 60-80 days from the time you do your work until you are paid for it? Do you get all that you bill? Do you hand those you serve a bill, or are you forced to submit a ream of paperwork electronically, and pay someone 10% of whatever you bill to take care of that for you?

I don't really care if you dislike my moronic statements or not.  Feel free to ignore them.  Most of them typically inflame the Liberal peabrain anyways, and we all know that you are not satisfied with the healthcare you get in this country. I would hate for you to show up to get your head out of your tail.

________________________

 

Once again you have created the argument in your own head. Show me where I said I want free healthcare. You keep going back to the ACA as if I am championing it. I am not. It is better than what we had, yes, but not much. It fixed very few problems. It was gutted so deeply from its original form that it didn't go far enough. What we need and what liberals want is universal healthcare. We don't think its free either. Maybe if I just keep it real simple for you and not go into any detail at all you can focus on what I am actually saying instead of dream up what you "think" I say or mean.

 

I don't expect free healthcare.

I believe universal healthcare is a better system.

I think our current and past healthcare system is a failure. 

I don't think the ACA went far enough.

 

I've been upset with the high cost of healthcare for a very long time. I can sympathize with your bitterness over the cost. I too feel that the cost of healthcare is not justifiable. It's hard when you are trying to provide for your family and a huge portion of what you earn has to go to protect yourself from the high cost of getting sick. Health insurance premiums practically stood still (on average) this last year. I for one am relieved to see it slowing down. It was too high to start with though, so I would like to see us find a better way. To me that is universal healthcare. 

 

http://www.ncsl.org/research/h...urance-premiums.aspx

Updated January 2015

The increased cost of health insurance is a central fact in any discussion of health policy and health delivery.  As annual premiums edged beyond $16,800 for an average family, costs are blamed for rising uninsured and "under-insurance."  For those Americans who are fully-covered, these cost realities affect employers, both large and small, not to mention the "pocket-book impact" on ordinary families.

Analysis of 2015 Health Premiums Finds Average Nationwide is Flat
A new analysis of the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplace costs finds that, nationwide, marketplace premiums did not increase at all from 2014 to 2015, though there were substantial average premium increases in some states and declines in others. The average premiums for the second lowest-cost silver plan—or benchmark plan for calculating the federal subsidy in a given state—were also unchanged. And the average deductible for a marketplace plan increased by just 1 percent year to year.

      The 0 percent change in average premiums is unprecedented when compared with historic trends in both the individual insurance market and employer-based health insurance. Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, from 2008 to 2010, premiums grew an average 10 percent or more per year in state individual insurance markets. Many factors underlie this year’s stability in marketplace premiums, but three important contributors were: an increase in the number of participating insurance carriers; the design of the marketplaces; and the risk stabilization programs for participating insurers. The premiums presented are for a 40-year-old nonsmoker.  See Table 1 below.  Results are weighted to reflect the population distribution across rating regions. The data for single and family premiums are available in an interactive map

Originally Posted by mad American:
If that's what you want, move to France, instead of screwing up the U.S.  Again, a solution that is paid for by someone other than the recipient.

===============

What you are referring to is the system of healthcare we had BEFORE ACA. No insurance, no problem, go to the ER and get treated FREE ! . Of course that "FREE" really isn't free, as those cost were added to the insurance cost of the ones of us who actually had insurance, and some of those cost were added to all of us in the form of taxes, 
Even tho that Bestworking Jennifer called me a liar for repeating what the admissions nurse told me in one ofo the hospitals in the area, that 85% of the admissions to ER had no insurance and came to the ER because "they wouldn't have to pay" . Maybe free to them but surely not "FREE".

And, Jennifer notwithstanding, I didn't lie about what I was told, she is the liar.

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Premiums are not increasing at previous rates because deductibles are much higher. 

Seeweed just made a comment that most (85 percent) of ER admissions are still for uninsured persons.  Obamacare is rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. 

 ==================

I wonder if any of them ever check before they post erroneous statements? He says I called him a liar, but he claims I'm the liar. What did I lie about?

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Premiums are not increasing at previous rates because deductibles are much higher. 

Seeweed just made a comment that most (85 percent) of ER admissions are still for uninsured persons.  Obamacare is rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. 

 

---------

I think you misread my post, 3 years ago, when I was staying with my Mom during the last year of her life, on occasion she would need some medical care in the evening, or on a weekend. 
The ER was the only game in town for her, and on a couple of occasions when I would take her, she would have to wait, in a wheelchair in pain, while young people walking around caughing and chatting or texting on their cell phoes were being treated, When I ask the admissions nurse why so many should have gone to their doctor, that when she told me they had no doctor and that 85% (her words not mine) of their admissions were for people who came there because they didn't have any insurance and they could get treated there and not have to pay. 
That is one of the things that convinced me that everybody should have to have insurance, so that the ER was for EMERGENCYs and should not be used as a free walk in clinic.There are other solutions to that problem, like "Free Walk in Clinics" but there were none, maybe still none, so the ER it was. 
My hope is that the ACA has gone a ways in fixing that problem, I don't know how it fairs now. Fortunately for me and my family, we are relitavely healthy and haven't need  to go to the ER for a while.

 

 

See Weed sez "I think you misread my post, 3 years ago, when I was staying with my Mom during the last year of her life, on occasion she would need some medical care in the evening, or on a weekend. 
The ER was the only game in town for her, and on a couple of occasions when I would take her, she would have to wait, in a wheelchair in pain, while young people walking around caughing and chatting or texting on their cell phoes were being treated, When I ask the admissions nurse why so many should have gone to their doctor, that when she told me they had no doctor and that 85% (her words not mine) of their admissions were for people who came there because they didn't have any insurance and they could get treated there and not have to pay. 
That is one of the things that convinced me that everybody should have to have insurance, so that the ER was for EMERGENCYs and should not be used as a free walk in clinic.There are other solutions to that problem, like "Free Walk in Clinics" but there were none, maybe still none, so the ER it was. 
My hope is that the ACA has gone a ways in fixing that problem, I don't know how it fairs now. Fortunately for me and my family, we are relitavely healthy"

 

And SW, you were right to use the ER in this manner, that is an appropriate use of the service for which it was designed.  The problems with the ER you spoke about, however, have not been resolved.  It still functions the same way, with the same amount of misuse and frivolity that was displayed prior to the ACA. The ones without insurance do not plan to get any insurance.  It is easier to just neglect to pay than to pay a premium each month.  Of course there are those who want insurance and still cannot afford it, but they tend to use the Health Dept or the clinic at UNA. The free clinics you speak of are a good idea with one exception, it does not alleviate the provider of any liability relief. Good Samaritan laws do not traverse medical care.  Make a mistake, or miss a diagnosis, and you can end up without a license, sued, or worse in jail. If you read the literature there were studies which were done years ago by the medical industry in regards to lawsuits. A large percentage of suits came from those either without insurance or Medicaid. According to who you ask you would get a different reason. The liberalist would believe that it is due to withholding of care, or substandard service. The conservative would believe that this is a group who is just hard to please and despite the fact that they are paying nothing demand perfection. I tend to believe it is a little of both. Most of them will not go to the doctor until the illness has progressed, they also tend to forego medications or preventative care. Either because they do not want to budget for it or they cannot afford to do so.

What separates one group from another? I think it is priorities.  One hates to see a person come into the ER on a late Friday night after being in a motorcycle wreck, while drinking, without insurance.  Yet, they are liable to have insurance on their $10K Harley or Goldwing. There are just as manner blue collars out there without insurance as there are no collars as well.

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by teyates:

 

See Weed sez "I think you misread my post, 3 years ago, when I was staying with my Mom during the last year of her life, on occasion she would need some medical care in the evening, or on a weekend. 
The ER was the only game in town for her, and on a couple of occasions when I would take her, she would have to wait, in a wheelchair in pain, while young people walking around caughing and chatting or texting on their cell phoes were being treated, When I ask the admissions nurse why so many should have gone to their doctor, that when she told me they had no doctor and that 85% (her words not mine) of their admissions were for people who came there because they didn't have any insurance and they could get treated there and not have to pay. 
That is one of the things that convinced me that everybody should have to have insurance, so that the ER was for EMERGENCYs and should not be used as a free walk in clinic.There are other solutions to that problem, like "Free Walk in Clinics" but there were none, maybe still none, so the ER it was. 
My hope is that the ACA has gone a ways in fixing that problem, I don't know how it fairs now. Fortunately for me and my family, we are relitavely healthy"

 

And SW, you were right to use the ER in this manner, that is an appropriate use of the service for which it was designed.  The problems with the ER you spoke about, however, have not been resolved.  It still functions the same way, with the same amount of misuse and frivolity that was displayed prior to the ACA. The ones without insurance do not plan to get any insurance.  It is easier to just neglect to pay than to pay a premium each month.  Of course there are those who want insurance and still cannot afford it, but they tend to use the Health Dept or the clinic at UNA. The free clinics you speak of are a good idea with one exception, it does not alleviate the provider of any liability relief. Good Samaritan laws do not traverse medical care.  Make a mistake, or miss a diagnosis, and you can end up without a license, sued, or worse in jail. If you read the literature there were studies which were done years ago by the medical industry in regards to lawsuits. A large percentage of suits came from those either without insurance or Medicaid. According to who you ask you would get a different reason. The liberalist would believe that it is due to withholding of care, or substandard service. The conservative would believe that this is a group who is just hard to please and despite the fact that they are paying nothing demand perfection. I tend to believe it is a little of both. Most of them will not go to the doctor until the illness has progressed, they also tend to forego medications or preventative care. Either because they do not want to budget for it or they cannot afford to do so.

What separates one group from another? I think it is priorities.  One hates to see a person come into the ER on a late Friday night after being in a motorcycle wreck, while drinking, without insurance.  Yet, they are liable to have insurance on their $10K Harley or Goldwing. There are just as manner blue collars out there without insurance as there are no collars as well.

=====

WEll, thanks for the reply. I am saddened to know that misuse of the ER has not changed. 
I don't know where , or in what law the "Good Samatarin " laws , or for that matter, the tort laws should be addressed, but I do agree they need to be addressed. I do remember back before  the 1980s when it was illegal for lawyers, doctors, hospitals, and providers of medical services to advertise, at least we were not submitted to a constant barrage of adds for lawsuits for mesothelioma ( a word I have learned to hate to hear) , or a seemingly endless  litney of other lawsuits , some even saying "If you used this and it resulted in your death, you should call ..."  .At least "they" got rid of the guy pushing the electric scooters that you could get "with no cost to you" Hopefully, as the penalty for .NOT having health insurance continues to rise, that more people will actually go get insurance, and this dumbas governor we have will expand Medicaid for the very poor. 
I don't know what the answer is, but one thing I know for sure, the Reps and Senators we have do not listen to me, and do not represent me, which is what they are supposed to do. My bet is they don't give much of a damm about your opinion either.

 

The good Samaritan laws deny lawsuits against someone, including doctors, who stop to administer help in emergency situations, such as accidents.  As the penalty for no having insurance must come out of income tax refunds or other funds the government owes someone, if those without insurance have no refund coming, no penalty will be paid.  As Medicaid state costs rise, states that didn't follow the herd will be the one with their financial heads above water.

SW,

I hate to even use the word mesothelioma. It is a terrible disease for sue, but the lawyers misued the disease for their own benefit and after they dried up the well, they went back and had the government fill up the well again so they could continue to use it. During the heyday of mesothelioma suits I worked for a company that had a relationship with a law firm.  That firm basically bought a fleet of RVs and staffed them with a doctor, a cheap xray machine and respiratory testing equipment.  They would go to large employers and set up a a "screening" office in the parking lot where employees would go have a chest xray, blow in a spirometer and have doctor take a history.  Almost everyone one of the people would be found to have some sort of debilitated function.  They would then get a letter saying that if they would sign on to the class action suit they would like get some sort of reimbursement from the asbestos fund. Later they would get a letter saying that in order to collect, they would need an autopsy statement to verify the findings in order to get their money. I had a little old man about 68 years old come in to the office with his paper and wanted to schedule his autopsy since he wanted his money as soon as possible.  He had no clue what an autopsy was. After we told him he left a few shades paler than when he came in.  By the time the people finally got around to collecting anything, the law firm would take their 30%, plus expenses, off the top of this. Their expenses included that "expensive screening" and RV setup they sent around. There were many millionaires made in the law firms during those days, and very few people every really saw much in the way of compensation for a disease that kills in a cruel and painful way.

And you are right, the legislators and senators don't give a frog's fat behind what you or I think.  be they dem or republican, because why?  The majority of them are either lawyers or are in the lawyer's pockets.  As long as they can continue to make money off of people's misfortunes and illnesses, they will continue to let the corruption continue.

 

Dire,

there are many documented cases where the Good Samaritan laws did not protect a physician who assisted at an accident.  If they supposedly step outside their field of expertise or knowledge, they can and will be held liable. For this reason I have seen many physicians who will not even respond to a flight attendant's call for assistance on an aircraft.

There are always people who will do things they shouldn't, but in my opinion if they are doing what is best for the patient (intentions)  in a setting where no one else is able to do it, or available to do it, then they should be free of liability. 

Originally Posted by teyates:

Dire,

there are many documented cases where the Good Samaritan laws did not protect a physician who assisted at an accident.  If they supposedly step outside their field of expertise or knowledge, they can and will be held liable. For this reason I have seen many physicians who will not even respond to a flight attendant's call for assistance on an aircraft.

There are always people who will do things they shouldn't, but in my opinion if they are doing what is best for the patient (intentions)  in a setting where no one else is able to do it, or available to do it, then they should be free of liability. 

======

But , again, where are these laws. (yea, maybe i'm too lazy to research) ?  I don't believe they are part of the ACA, as it is mostly a control over insurance companies. 
Even if I were to address that issue to some uncaring "public servant" , I would not know even how to address the issue. I doubt saying something like "you gotta change the good Samaritan law, or you need to look into tort reform, or something like that would even get his attention. I would prove myself to be as ignorant as the Senator or Rep . I don't even know where to get started, and I bet I am not alone.

 

 

Please don't misunderstand, I never said it had anything to do with the ACA.  The problem with "free clinics" goes way back and like I said you are never gonna fix that wobbly wheel. I know many people who dedicate their time and go to medical missions in 3rd world countries and see patients, and when I have asked them why it cannot be done here this is always the answer I get. I know that there are many places that have programs which will make huge discounts to the patients if they do not have insurance so that they make be able to get care.  Even the HD expects to capture some funds in an effort to maintain solvency.

the lawyers did a tireless and thorough job representing victims of mesothelioma. i know dozens who received hundreds of thousands in compensation from the lawyer's extensive archive of data. my father died from the disease. t is misrepresenting the actual facts. for what reason i haven't a clue. I was tested at the fitters local union the same day as my father. my test results were negative for asbestos in the lungs. i have worked in asbestos until i was white like a ghost many days. i wore a respirator.  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×