I Just Canceled My Free Obamacare ...

callen

Gern Blansten said:

I love all the repeal talk....as if Obama is going to repeal his own bill.

so laughable I can't laugh

Was thinking ahead to next pres election. But yes there's already banter by right to repeal. Be interesting.

lolobugg

Good stuff, guys.

know1

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

Last-12-Exit

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

I agree. The only reason there isn't laws about being fat and forced excersie is that some lobbyist is making money from someone being fat and sitting on his ass.

Gern Blansten

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

There are many countries with universal care. Just look at how their systems work.

rgambs

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

Is it the governments responsibility to look after our safety and sovereignty? Why not health too? It only makes us stronger as a country. Would you really prefer to return to a time when there was no safety net? What kind of ideal is that, to leave a man in the gutter when you have the means to lift him out, because of some misguided masculine principle of self-reliance? I prefer an ideal of cooperation and compassion myself.

Bentleyspop

Last-12-Exit said:

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

I agree. The only reason there isn't laws about being fat and forced excersie is that some lobbyist is making money from someone being fat and sitting on his ass.

Then that lobbyist is doing quite well since 60% of Americans are fat and spend most days sitting on their ass.

rgambs

I would like to see the OP come back and chime in!

catefrances

rgambs said:

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

Is it the governments responsibility to look after our safety and sovereignty? Why not health too? It only makes us stronger as a country. Would you really prefer to return to a time when there was no safety net? What kind of ideal is that, to leave a man in the gutter when you have the means to lift him out, because of some misguided masculine principle of self-reliance? I prefer an ideal of cooperation and compassion myself.

Agreed... humans are a social animal so why wouldnt we look after the WHOLE of society?

ed243421

catefrances said:

rgambs said:

know1 said:

Prior to the great depression, the government wouldn't even help you out financially if a natural disaster destroyed everything you owned. Today there would be complete outrage if they didn't rebuild your life for you. I don't think it's the government's responsibility to look after our health. If it were, I'd expect laws against being fat and forced exercise.

Is it the governments responsibility to look after our safety and sovereignty? Why not health too? It only makes us stronger as a country. Would you really prefer to return to a time when there was no safety net? What kind of ideal is that, to leave a man in the gutter when you have the means to lift him out, because of some misguided masculine principle of self-reliance? I prefer an ideal of cooperation and compassion myself.

Agreed... humans are a social animal so why wouldnt we look after the WHOLE of society?

Because most people placed money ahead of society on their priority list many years ago

know1

Providing health insurance does not equal taking care of the health of its citizens.

The fact that so many think it does is the bulk of the problem.

oftenreading

know1 said:

Providing health insurance does not equal taking care of the health of its citizens.

The fact that so many think it does is the bulk of the problem.

You are, of course, correct, but making health insurance essentially unavailable to a large swath of the population, in a system that requires it (or a huge amount of cash) to access medical services, is a problem.

Gern Blansten

oftenreading said:

know1 said:

Providing health insurance does not equal taking care of the health of its citizens.

The fact that so many think it does is the bulk of the problem.

You are, of course, correct, but making health insurance essentially unavailable to a large swath of the population, in a system that requires it (or a huge amount of cash) to access medical services, is a problem.

unavailable how? The ACA forbids pre-existing conditions...subsidies kick in to cover low income households.

oftenreading

Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. I was arguing in favour of universal health insurance, not against it. My post referred to the fact that, absent the AC or something like it, the US seems to have a system in which purchasing health insurance is prohibitively expensive for low-income households, thus "essentially unavailable" for much of the population.

know1

oftenreading said:

know1 said:

Providing health insurance does not equal taking care of the health of its citizens.

The fact that so many think it does is the bulk of the problem.

You are, of course, correct, but making health insurance essentially unavailable to a large swath of the population, in a system that requires it (or a huge amount of cash) to access medical services, is a problem.

Health insurance is the CAUSE of high healthcare costs (or the major cause anyway).

Gern Blansten

Totally agree. While it employs probably hundreds of thousands of people you have to stand in amazement of the level of bureaucracy that exists between providers and patients.

oftenreading

know1 said:

oftenreading said:

know1 said:

Providing health insurance does not equal taking care of the health of its citizens.

The fact that so many think it does is the bulk of the problem.

You are, of course, correct, but making health insurance essentially unavailable to a large swath of the population, in a system that requires it (or a huge amount of cash) to access medical services, is a problem.

Health insurance is the CAUSE of high healthcare costs (or the major cause anyway).

Well, done badly it is, yes. The US of course doesn't have universal health insurance, it has a patchwork of private for profit and public programs that is horribly inefficient and drives up costs tremendously. A single payer system is more efficient.

hedonist

Patchwork is a great way to put it. Kind of like a band-aid.

callen

But it's a start which is a huge deal. I hope it is allowed to be refined.

lukin2006

hedonist said:

To our Canadian friends - Is there any substance to claims I've heard that some needed procedures are delayed for a long while until approved?

Yes ... elective surgery has long waiting list. Finding a Dr. for many can be difficult. Medically necessary procedure's are usually treated in a timely fashion.

However my mother broke her hip last January and she waited in the ER ,,, no food or water for about 36 hours before the surgery was performed.

Any country looking to Canada for advice and solutions to their healthcare solutions is just crazy, I'd look at a European country before us ... and they continually delist more and more procedures.