Obamacare is a mess

dignin

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions.  Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary.  Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad?  No, you don't.  You use insurance if you get in a wreck.  

Same goes for healthcare.  If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it.  Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer?  What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?  

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate.  Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy. 

And that is the main disagreement.  Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending? 

Americans spend more on health care than people from countries with single payer systems so I think you are way off the mark.

Shawshank

This whole thing was fucked to begin with, and Obamacare as it was established was doomed to failure, but people were just too stupid to see it.  While I agree that we waste enough money on bullshit in this country to provide healthcare and college for everyone, the fact remains that Obamacare and the marketplace was a colossal cluster fuck of epic proportions and over the last couple of years we have been seeing what the final result will be, and something has to be done.  What is in place now does NOT work at all...and it never will.  End of story.

I don't necessarily agree with the Republican plan, and just seeing those pricks on TV talking about it makes me feel like I need to shower.  All of this bitching about what's going to be covered, what's not going to be covered, people losing coverage, etc. etc. completely overlooks the fact that there is less and less coverage available.

It doesn't matter if they came up with a plan that said, we will give you your health insurance for free, if no insurance companies are providing plans to you.  In my area we've gone from 7 or 8 choices, down to just 1.  All the big companies have dropped out and there hasn't been a rush of new companies to fill the void.  Every year there were half the available insurance companies as the year prior.  Now I have a shitty insurance plan from the only company left in the market.  Now my closest Dr. is 40 miles away (not 2 miles away at the local medical center).  I pay almost $800 per month and have a $13,600 deductible.  This company I have now is already bitching in the news about how they are losing money and they aren't sure if they can continue to provide coverage next year.  Then what? 

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions.  Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary.  Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad?  No, you don't.  You use insurance if you get in a wreck.  

Same goes for healthcare.  If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it.  Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer?  What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?  

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate.  Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy. 

And that is the main disagreement.  Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending? 

have you ever actually answered a question with a direct answer?

yes, I would, given the alternative. I would prefer it to be run by an organization that has a vested interest in making sure you are healthy, not a repeat customer. 

rgambs

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

I am saying that by definition insurance can't cover pre-existing conditions.  Insurance is supposed to be used if necessary.  Do you use insurance on your car if the battery goes bad?  No, you don't.  You use insurance if you get in a wreck.  

Same goes for healthcare.  If I am going in for a checkup I should have to pay directly for it.  Insurance should be there for if you have an emergency or have a life threatening illness.

Should I have to subsidize a thirty year smoker because they got lung cancer?  What about someone who has severe diabetes because they weigh 400lbs?  

So saying that those with pre-existing problems should be covered by insurance is technically inaccurate.  Call it what it really is, a gift.

If you're going to compare to car insurance, then you know you're subsidizing others poor driving, right?

Car insurance isn't used for every single issue a car has, as I have already explained.

I was responding to your point about people subsidizing others for their lifestyle choices. Taxes go toward the collective. I pay for someones 20 mile commute because they want to live outside of town with acres. Taxes should go to a single-payer health insurance system. Health care is something we all access and benefit from, therefore part of a collective domocracy. 

And that is the main disagreement.  Government should not be in the healthcare business.

so you'd prefer it be run by corporations whose only goal is to turn a profit?

So you'd prefer it to be run by government who has never actually run anything without a bloated budget and reckless spending? 

have you ever actually answered a question with a direct answer?

yes, I would, given the alternative. I would prefer it to be run by an organization that has a vested interest in making sure you are healthy, not a repeat customer. 

I don't know what you're worried about, the magical powers of the Free Market (hallowed be thy name) will ensure that those who would profit from letting people die will not ever do so.  They will give selflessly of their profits for the good of the people so that the Free Market (hallowed be thy name) doesn't smite them.

what dreams

No insurance company is losing money. Insurance companies have made record profits since the ACA went into effect. They are pulling out of the state exchanges because their profits aren't big enough, the greedy bastards.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html

It just pisses me off that there are people earning gross amounts of money off of sick people. It's completely immoral.

josevolution

So how do you cover people with mental diseases , my mother suffers from Alzheimer's under the new plan her ailment will be considered pre existing , so Unsung did my mother develop this because she lead an unhealthy life style and should not have any coverage..

unsung

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

rgambs

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

You don't seem to understand how healthcare and insurance work.  This isn't a libertarian thought exercise, this is real life with real consequences.

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

What do you "want" to pay for?

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

Yeah and if you get cancer I don't want to pay for it.  How ignorant is that?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

Yeah and if you get cancer I don't want to pay for it.  How ignorant is that?

Those are two different things.

Don't get me wrong... I'm okay with our medical system paying for a women's abortion, but terminal illness and emergency medical treatment is different than an abortion (lest an abortion is necessary due to risk to the mother).

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Wrong again.  If I have had anxiety issues in the past 5 years it is a pre-existing condition even if I don't currently have the same symptoms.  I can be denied coverage for that condition.  That isn't a gift....that's a penalty.

Now substitute cancer, high blood pressure, etc. for anxiety and think a little bit for a change.

Gern Blansten

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

Yeah and if you get cancer I don't want to pay for it.  How ignorant is that?

Those are two different things.

Don't get me wrong... I'm okay with our medical system paying for a women's abortion, but terminal illness and emergency medical treatment is different than an abortion (lest an abortion is necessary due to risk to the mother).

yahtzee

Gern Blansten

How anyone can be ok with for profit insurance companies controlling the healthcare of a US citizen is beyond me.  

rgambs

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Ummm... I think someone has to pay for insurance too...

ponytd

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

The GOP does not set the premiums. The insurance companies do. The GOP healthcare bill would leave it up to the states to opt out of the "pre-existing clause", which would not deny anyone coverage, but basically mean the insurance companies could charge more for those with pre-existing conditions.

I get what your saying though, and especially with their list of new pre-existing conditions which seems absurd. The good thing is though that the Senate seems to not want to even look at that bill and come up with something (hopefully) better.

HughFreakingDillon

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

that's like telling a homeless person that there are plenty of houses available for purchase, so let's close all homeless shelters, as they are a "gift". 

Gern Blansten

ponytd said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

The GOP does not set the premiums. The insurance companies do. The GOP healthcare bill would leave it up to the states to opt out of the "pre-existing clause", which would not deny anyone coverage, but basically mean the insurance companies could charge more for those with pre-existing conditions.

I get what your saying though, and especially with their list of new pre-existing conditions which seems absurd. The good thing is though that the Senate seems to not want to even look at that bill and come up with something (hopefully) better.

GOP = GOP plan....I was referring to the plan that they put forward which allows pools for those with pre-existing conditions

ponytd

Gern Blansten said:

ponytd said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

The GOP does not set the premiums. The insurance companies do. The GOP healthcare bill would leave it up to the states to opt out of the "pre-existing clause", which would not deny anyone coverage, but basically mean the insurance companies could charge more for those with pre-existing conditions.

I get what your saying though, and especially with their list of new pre-existing conditions which seems absurd. The good thing is though that the Senate seems to not want to even look at that bill and come up with something (hopefully) better.

GOP = GOP plan....I was referring to the plan that they put forward which allows pools for those with pre-existing conditions

gotcha

what dreams

rgambs said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Ummm... I think someone has to pay for insurance too...

I don't get it either. I also don't get this "I'm not paying for your . . . (fill in the blank)". Bottom line is that my medical decisions are private. It's nobody's damn business which procedures I ask for, accept, or reject, and I don't have to justify my health care choices to any damn body. That's the problem with this whole damn debate -- too many people thinking they know what's best for everybody else and not enough people trusting the health consumer to make their own decisions. If we could all just drop the judgments about what's right for everybody else's bodies, we might make progress in finding a solution. And I direct this comment to ALL sides of the debate. 

what dreams

My previous comment was directed to a completely different thread. . . . Geez, this new format is awful. When are the quotes getting fixed? Much more important problem than ACA . .  . Hahaha 

CM189191

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Progressives are afraid those who need help aren't getting it.
Conservatives are afraid those who are getting help don't deserve it.
Faux-bertarians are just afraid anyone is getting help at all.

If everyone is covered from day 1, there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.  The whole concept goes away.  Simply being alive is a preexisting condition that will eventually require healthcare, to everyone, to some degree. 

mace1229

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Progressives are afraid those who need help aren't getting it.
Conservatives are afraid those who are getting help don't deserve it.
Faux-bertarians are just afraid anyone is getting help at all.

If everyone is covered from day 1, there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.  The whole concept goes away.  Simply being alive is a preexisting condition that will eventually require healthcare, to everyone, to some degree. 

I would correct your statement to:
Conservatives are afraid those who are getting help will begin to rely on it, and eventually abuse it. Like going to the ER for the common cold because they know it is free that way. It isn't a matter of deserving, its reliance and abusing.

I agree on the preexisting part. That is an old way of looking at health care. Back when most could afford regular care out of pocket, and health "insurance" was just that. Coverage for catastrophic events and big bills due to accidents, but the regular doctor visit wasn't a ridiculous $300 for a 5 minute visit. The first companies were hospitals themselves, not a third party making a profit off of your health. A preexisting condition shouldn't be that big of a deal if you could afford your own visits and care. The average cost per family is about $20,000 a year in just premiums now. Add on co-pays and deductibles on top of that too. We've gone a long way from covering accidents or even essentially pre-paying for medical expenses based on average use which is the format of the first healthcare really was, to now a third party profiting from it. So many more middle-men need to get paid, and CEOs making millions who don't supply anything of real benefit, and that is where this money is going.
I don't like Obamacare, not because of Obamacare itself and people getting covered, but because of the greedy healthcare agencies that rip off people in need, and Obamacare forces us to buy into that. Many hospitals are actually forced to charge their patients more due to their contracts with the healthcare providers, and then pay a co-pay and deductible of that bill, which results in payments that are even higher than someone uninsured would pay. Its ridiculous, greedy and doesn't work.

benjs

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

Nobody is denying coverage.  Nobody wants people to be denied coverage.  How it is funded is the disagreement. 

I don't care if a woman wants an abortion, her choice.  I don't want to pay for it.  That is not a war on women or denying them healthcare.

The GOP denies coverage by making premiums unreachable to those with pre-existing conditions.  You are falling victim to the ignorance of assuming "coverage is available" is the same as "all will be covered."

Insuring pre existing conditions is not insurance.  It is a gift.  Someone has to pay for it.

Progressives are afraid those who need help aren't getting it.
Conservatives are afraid those who are getting help don't deserve it.
Faux-bertarians are just afraid anyone is getting help at all.

If everyone is covered from day 1, there is no such thing as a preexisting condition.  The whole concept goes away.  Simply being alive is a preexisting condition that will eventually require healthcare, to everyone, to some degree. 

I would correct your statement to:
Conservatives are afraid those who are getting help will begin to rely on it, and eventually abuse it. Like going to the ER for the common cold because they know it is free that way. It isn't a matter of deserving, its reliance and abusing.

I agree on the preexisting part. That is an old way of looking at health care. Back when most could afford regular care out of pocket, and health "insurance" was just that. Coverage for catastrophic events and big bills due to accidents, but the regular doctor visit wasn't a ridiculous $300 for a 5 minute visit. The first companies were hospitals themselves, not a third party making a profit off of your health. A preexisting condition shouldn't be that big of a deal if you could afford your own visits and care. The average cost per family is about $20,000 a year in just premiums now. Add on co-pays and deductibles on top of that too. We've gone a long way from covering accidents or even essentially pre-paying for medical expenses based on average use which is the format of the first healthcare really was, to now a third party profiting from it. So many more middle-men need to get paid, and CEOs making millions who don't supply anything of real benefit, and that is where this money is going.
I don't like Obamacare, not because of Obamacare itself and people getting covered, but because of the greedy healthcare agencies that rip off people in need, and Obamacare forces us to buy into that. Many hospitals are actually forced to charge their patients more due to their contracts with the healthcare providers, and then pay a co-pay and deductible of that bill, which results in payments that are even higher than someone uninsured would pay. Its ridiculous, greedy and doesn't work.

If your first paragraph is seriously a concern, maybe you ought to drive a few hours to Canada and see how THAT DOESN'T EVER HAPPEN. This is the most asinine comment I've ever seen. Two ways you get into ER - either an ambulance qualifies you as needing the service en route or at your doorstep, or a front-desk doctor on call does. Do people just walk into emergency rooms, no questions asked, in America?

HughFreakingDillon

correct. you simply will not get triaged with anything less than an emergency. 

CM189191

HughFreakingDillon said:

correct. you simply will not get triaged with anything less than an emergency. 

Thank you. How do they do things there? 

Here there are urgent care clinics that can address the common cold and other non emergencies.  

HughFreakingDillon

CM189191 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

correct. you simply will not get triaged with anything less than an emergency. 

Thank you. How do they do things there? 

Here there are urgent care clinics that can address the common cold and other non emergencies.  

in winnipeg we had quick care clinics. some of them have closed, and they are actually closing some er's and opening urgent care clinics in the hopes that people will learn the difference between what constitutes an er visit and what is just urgent care. people weren't going to the er for a common cold, but they would have no choice for a broken bone if walk in clinics were closed. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

correct. you simply will not get triaged with anything less than an emergency. 

To be fair... I can cite several cases of ERs sending people home only to have them die there in BC.

Our system needs a bit of help. It's good, but it's not great.

My daughter has had to undergo extensive help with a hip ailment. She's young and this is an athletic injury. The wait times for specialists, MRIs (2 of them) and follow ups have been painful.