Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 46,971,140 times
Reputation: 20675

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
Me, My Parents, my 3 children, my two grandchildren.

How much did we spend on healthcare before Obamacare?

How much do we all spend in healthcare after Obamacare?

The difference is astonishing, enough to even break us.

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?
No clue what you spend on healthcare. Depends on if you were insured, your plan and your geography.

Most healthcare premiums increased about 100% between 2000-2010, before the ACA was enacted in 2010.

Most legislators agree the US healthcare model is broken.

It's been 5.5 years since the ACA became law. Since then, not a single proposed bill to replace the ACA has gained any traction in Congress.

The rest of the developed world has Universal Healthcare with similar or better outcomes at less cost. No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same. Very few countries have a Single Payer System. Most are a blend of public and private options. Other governments are substantially more engaged in price controls than the US.

Congress does not bite the wallets that feed them. Big pharm, the American Hospitall Association, medical devise manufacturers and insurers have powerful lobbies at the federal and state levels to ensure their interests are put before those of the general population.

US healthcare workers, including MDs in some specialties, make more than their counterparts in the rest of the developed world, despite living in higher cost and taxed areas than the US.

Most US hospitals are private, not for profit corporations. Despite this, many make $ hundreds of millions in profit each year. They use those profits to build their brands, acquire or destroy the competition and acquire medical practices. Most US hospitals are top heavy with senior non MD management administrators.

The US people are the fattest people on earth and are substantially more vulnerable to Diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and some Cancers. If the US population managed to keep their weight/ waist sizes within healthy ranges, the demand for healthcare and thus cost of healthcare and insurance premiums would dramatically decline.

Instead, it seems we want our cake and to eat it, too and then blame government because the cost to treat us is unaffordable for many. If healthcare premiums and subsidies were based on waist sizes, would it serve as adequate incentive for 70% of adults to take responsibility for their own health and be rewarded with more affordable premiums?

Last edited by middle-aged mom; 10-15-2015 at 10:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:13 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,338,803 times
Reputation: 13909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
Very few people are impacted by any of the ones in your chain e-mail link.
Incorrect. The segment of our population who is actually productive are impacted. Democrat voters? Not so much. It's all just 'gimme, gimme more' to them. /puke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Red River Texas
23,384 posts, read 10,662,095 times
Reputation: 2366
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post

Congress does not bite the wallets that feed them. Big pharm, the American Hospitall Association, medical devise manufacturers and insurers have powerful lobbies at the federal and state levels to ensure their interests are put before those of the general population.

You sound way more educated about this thing than me but you said a mouthful there. I have been one of those climate skeptics and while I might be coming around, all this talk and regulation against fossil fuel seems useless when looking at the desire to eat meat in the world. If there is a problem, it's not fossil fuels, it's agriculture but who can stand against the beef industry and congress backing them? It's probably the same like you say, congress don't care how bad it gets as long as they got their own little pockets filled with they friends in the health industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:21 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,677 posts, read 45,338,803 times
Reputation: 13909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
You sound way more educated about this thing than me but you said a mouthful there. I have been one of those climate skeptics and while I might be coming around, all this talk and regulation against fossil fuel seems useless when looking at the desire to eat meat in the world. If there is a problem, it's not fossil fuels, it agriculture but who can stand against the beef industry?
Or even the crop industry... No?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:39 AM
 
41,109 posts, read 25,857,872 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Incorrect. The segment of our population who is actually productive are impacted. Democrat voters? Not so much. It's all just 'gimme, gimme more' to them. /puke
And the dead beats who it benefits at the expense of the producers will always want more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,826 posts, read 3,402,829 times
Reputation: 3694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
As I recall, Obamacare requires any Medicaid recipient to pay the money back out of their estate. So millenials won't be inheriting the homes of their parents should one of them end up in a nursing home for any length of time.

Too bad, so sad.

I can go along with that. Why should one get taxpayer paid healthcare and still keep their home? Medicaid recipients should be renters. All assets should be forfeited to go 100% on the dole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
16,785 posts, read 8,283,545 times
Reputation: 8596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
When your Mama dies, they want how much?

Why do people keep voting for more taxes?


I don't understand, I really don't.

You vote for a man who promises to tax you to death, then when you see how much more is coming out of your check, you whine?

If your parents die tomorrow, God forbid, does the government really deserve over half of what your mom or dad wanted to leave you? If you inherit your Mom's house, does the government deserve to own over half that house?

This is what DEMOCRATS{no republicans} voted for, tax.

I don't understand.
It only happens if your Mama has over 5 million. this is a sign that a lot of people do not understand the inheritance taxes, educate yourself before you vote in the GOP again.

The flat tax that the GOP wants to install will finish off the middle incomes (50K-250K) do not fall for this nonsense again get educated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 12:18 PM
 
11,086 posts, read 8,579,594 times
Reputation: 6392
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock View Post
I can go along with that. Why should one get taxpayer paid healthcare and still keep their home? Medicaid recipients should be renters. All assets should be forfeited to go 100% on the dole.
That's not the way it works. The estate pays the money back after they die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
3,826 posts, read 3,402,829 times
Reputation: 3694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011 View Post
That's not the way it works. The estate pays the money back after they die.

That is fair to me. Why should the kids get a windfall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2015, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,917 posts, read 46,971,140 times
Reputation: 20675
99.8% of US estates pay no federal tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top