What if Obama won 2012 election based on health care lie? (Harry Reid, Reid)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be on board with transitioning the U.S. to the same kind of highly regressive tax system Switzerland has to insure 99% of the U.S. population. Would you?
As you know, our tax code favors low income earners and the truly wealthy. The soon to be 40 year old EITC substantially reduces/eliminates the tax burden on the working poor families.
Unlike the U.S., the Swiss vote on their tax rates. This may be why Switzerland is one of a handful of countries with a wealth tax assessed at the Canton ( state) level on world-wide assets.
There is nothing wrong with everyone having some skin in the game.
the obamacare law is more than just a major overreach though, it is basically federal control over the health care system of this country.
^ sounds good to those of us who prefer a Single Payer System. The reality is that ACA is not universal healthcare.
Medicare is the closest thing the U.S. has to universal healthcare and some semblance of government control over the healthcare system. Medicare, by law is limited to reimbursing hospitals their actual cost which includes in many cases bloated non-MD senior admin comp. Such reimbursement is based upon regional norms. The less competition in a given area, the more likely the costs will be higher than in a more competitive healthcare market.
Medicare pays MDs a fixed rate by procedure code and 6% of the average cost of any meds they prescribe. That 6% kicker sounds like a reward to Big Pharma.
By law, Medicare cannot negotiate the price of prescription medications or portable medical devices. So it pays more for the same meds than any other nation does. Another reward for the Big Pharma lobby.
A portion of the ACA tome is devoted to changes to Medicare reimbursements to reward hospitals to take better care of elderly patients instead of churning beds.
It's not my leap. It's the federal government's own leap. That's what they predicted would happen to employer-provided insurance coverage under Obamacare.
That a percentage of employer plans would not qualify was known going in. That does not mean that all of a sudden most folk with employer sponsored healthcare were going to find themselves uninsured.
Large scale employers of full time skilled workers took care of business.
As you know, our tax code favors low income earners and the truly wealthy.
The wealthy? No. Not unless they're paying negative effective federal income tax rates like low-income earners do, or even as low of an effective federal income tax rate as does the middle class. Neither of those happens.
Quote:
Unlike the U.S., the Swiss vote on their tax rates.
Also interesting is that they specifically choose to NOT soak their rich.
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with everyone having some skin in the game.
Exactly. Taxes in this country need to be far more equitably assessed, if not downright as regressive as are those in Europe's social democracy countries.
The Dims think it is perfectly okay to LIE and say anything when stumping. Scumbag Obama's lies definitely helped him in a big way win in '08 and again in '12. He should be impeached, drug out of the people's White House, tar & feathered and sent back to Kenya in a small boat with a hole in the bottom.
actually democrats only accept lying if it is their own people doing the lying. let anyone else lie however and they will call them on it. in fact they will make up facts, or ignore pertinent, facts to hammer the opposition with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
[/b]
^ sounds good to those of us who prefer a Single Payer System. The reality is that ACA is not universal healthcare.
Medicare is the closest thing the U.S. has to universal healthcare and some semblance of government control over the healthcare system. Medicare, by law is limited to reimbursing hospitals their actual cost which includes in many cases bloated non-MD senior admin comp. Such reimbursement is based upon regional norms. The less competition in a given area, the more likely the costs will be higher than in a more competitive healthcare market.
Medicare pays MDs a fixed rate by procedure code and 6% of the average cost of any meds they prescribe. That 6% kicker sounds like a reward to Big Pharma.
By law, Medicare cannot negotiate the price of prescription medications or portable medical devices. So it pays more for the same meds than any other nation does. Another reward for the Big Pharma lobby.
A portion of the ACA tome is devoted to changes to Medicare reimbursements to reward hospitals to take better care of elderly patients instead of churning beds.
the problem though is that when you give over control of your healthcare to the government, you are letting the further into your life, far more than you realize.
and when you allow competition, real competition, between insurance companies, you will find that prices really do come down, and services do improve, they have to if they are going to compete.
one more thing about single payer, and that is you lose choices. you have to take what the government deems you should have for health care whether you need it or not.
They just didn't except you with pre-existing conditions....period! And then there is this...
When it comes to recissions, I can tell you my experiences. Out of about a 1,000 clienfs, two were rescinded. One was very justified and one wasn't. In both cases the defendents settled out of court...all their bills were paid...including their attorney's bills. In the case that was justified, the client continhe treatment through the VA. On the one that wasn't, I found them other coverage...that covered all their pre-existing conditions too.
Any other claims that were not paid were because of paperwork errors and were all eventually paid.
With Promedica, I could only use one hospital (in metro Atlanta, they had another in a different part of GA) and the doctors provided for that hospital when I was in college in GA. Though I had to take suburban transit (CCT in Cobb County) I still used the horrible transit and went to the doctor in Cobb versus going to a closer facility and having to pay an arm and a leg.
When my nephew who is on Medicaid came to visit, it was similar. Due to him being on Medicaid, he had to use a clinic that I despise because of the long waits. But I knew that he was limited due to being on Medicaid. I was on Medicaid for a couple months when pregnant back in 2002 and could only use certain providers as well. I took him to the hated clinic and waited for 2 hours for him to be seen and treated and he we was fine. If it had been an emergency, I could have taken him to Grady, the "free" hospital here in Atlanta but the wait would have been longer than 2 hours unless you are basically dying on the floor there lol.
All in all, ACA is being provided for many people who cannot afford regular insurance policies. Many lower income people will do what they have to do to go to the doctor. The NY Times article you linked did say that service areas/hospitals would be narrowed, which would narrow the amount of clinics/doctors, but it did not say that they would be eliminated for people out of state, so what I spoke of earlier stands. Subscribers can still call their insurance company and get a list of the in-network providers and go to those places exclusively.
Your article even mention in NH that a network was being cut from 26 to 16. IMO I don't think that 16 hospitals are that limited. My hospitals with Promedica was only 2 in the state of GA and this was in 2002 WAY before Obamacare. My nephew on Medicaid only had one network that he could use in GA. So have more than 2 or 3 choices IMO is a good deal.
And FWIW, my dad is a veteran and uses the VA now primarily for insurance. If he needs a specialist he has to travel from Toledo OH to Ann Arbor MI, which is an hour's drive. Though he sees it as a pain in the butt at times, he goes to Ann Arbor when he needs to and is happy that he doesn't have to pay anything at the VA but minimal cost and no premiums.
ETA: No disrespect to you Informed Consent but it seems like whining and entitlement to me in that people think they can have something for nothing. I have never had insurance where I can go anywhere I want and have a plethora of choices for care and I have had very good networks before especially with BCBS of GA and they had limited places I could go (WAY less than 16) in Ohio even though BCBS is in Ohio. So I think that many people are just looking to nit pick this program. It is not all that different from what we already have now or prior to 2010 when it went into affect. If someone is only paying $50 a month for a plan, they should not expect to be able to go to any and every hospital and think that that hospital will be in their network. That is ridiculous.
^^This.
The simple fact is that the media is reporting on these cancellations, limitations, etc. as if a) they NEVER existed before and b) they will impact EVERYONE which is, of course, completely false.
I want to know how many of the posters decrying these limits actually have policies where every doctor everywhere in the country is "in-network."
Many of the early reports about people losing coverage, possibly having to pay ridiculous increases and the like have, on further investigation been found to be totally exaggerated, but notice how those who post these "sky is falling" links and/or start those threads never post the follow-ups.
They want to believe the worst.
As for the OP, if you honestly believe that the last presidential election was won solely on the idea that someone would be able to keep their doctor, well, there really isn't much point in debating with someone who thinks that incredibly narrowly.
The simple fact is that the media is reporting on these cancellations, limitations, etc. as if a) they NEVER existed before and b) they will impact EVERYONE which is, of course, completely false.
I want to know how many of the posters decrying these limits actually have policies where every doctor everywhere in the country is "in-network."
Many of the early reports about people losing coverage, possibly having to pay ridiculous increases and the like have, on further investigation been found to be totally exaggerated, but notice how those who post these "sky is falling" links and/or start those threads never post the follow-ups.
They want to believe the worst.
As for the OP, if you honestly believe that the last presidential election was won solely on the idea that someone would be able to keep their doctor, well, there really isn't much point in debating with someone who thinks that incredibly narrowly.
no. they are reporting on them because obama is a mendacious dolt. also, the last presidential election, no, the last two, was won on obama being half black. it's simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama still would have gotten elected.
And then there is this...
