[Shaved Monkey]

Me too and when/if I need to go to the doctor/hospital I will be be happy I did and everyone still is.

Its nice knowing we didnt have to sell the family home or go bankrupt when Mum or Dad got cancer too

[Quinny]

Universal systems are cheaper because they are universal.

Some things are just better provided on a communal basis!

Who (apart from the intellectually challenged) wants to pay more than twice as much for an inferior product?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works. Most people use less than the average, some far more than the average. People buy it in case they need it to cover a potentially catastrophic economic event, since the details of the future (including timing) are unknown.

Do you wish your house burned down annually so you can get your "fair share" of fire insurance? I seriously doubt it. (I, who clearly am subsizing others on all my insurance policies thus far, don't want to be without any of them).

Democratic societies choose certain rules that people live under via their elected leaders. Generally, health insurance is considered both a right to have, and a responsibility to pay for, by the competent adults in that society. Just like paying taxes is considered a responsibility.

So what do you suggest as an alternative? That we abandon health insurance? If so, how does anyone who isn't very wealthy pay for significant medical treatment? If we just say those who don't have it die and it's their responsibility, I'm OK with that -- but apparently the vast majority of people across developed cultures strongly disagrees with that -- to the extent that the current system exists.

[Plantagenet]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works.

Thats not how health insurance works here in the USA. Obamacare is set up so those conventional old-fashioned insurance rules no longer apply.

With Obamacare the premiums and deductibles are high enough that some people think theres not much reason to sign up and pay premiums until they actually get sick. If the sad day finally comes that you need medical care you can just enroll in Obamacare then. The program has to accept everyone who applies and there are many exemptions that allow people to sign up outside of the "enrollment periods."

Once you are sick then sign up and pay one month's premium and you are immediately covered and you can immediately go to a doctor or a hospital and get treated.

Then, after the surgery or whatever, you have the option to drop the coverage again and stop paying premiums. Your insurance will continue for another 3 months anyway even if you're not paying premiums.

Its an amazing innovation----Obamacare is a health insurance plan that you don't have to pay into until you are actually sick, and then you are cured you can stop paying into it until the next time you need it. Then just sign up again.

Win-Win!

[Outcast_Searcher]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works.

Thats not how health insurance works here in the USA. Obamacare is set up so those conventional old-fashioned insurance rules no longer apply.

With Obamacare the premiums and deductibles are high enough that some people think theres not much reason to sign up and pay premiums until they actually get sick. If the sad day finally comes that you need medical care you can just enroll in Obamacare then. The program has to accept everyone who applies and there are many exemptions that allow people to sign up outside of the "enrollment periods."

Once you are sick then sign up and pay one month's premium and you are immediately covered and you can immediately go to a doctor or a hospital and get treated.

Then, after the surgery or whatever, you have the option to drop the coverage again and stop paying premiums. Your insurance will continue for another 3 months anyway even if you're not paying premiums.

Its an amazing innovation----Obamacare is a health insurance plan that you don't have to pay into until you are actually sick, and then you are cured you can stop paying into it until the next time you need it. Then just sign up again.

Win-Win!

Clearly Obamacare is a mess and aspects of it need to be cleaned up. And over time, I'm sure they will be. In fact, over time it may well prove to be SUCH a mess that the Democrats get what they wanted all along, a fully socialized system.

For one thing, the penalties for not having coverage are now being enforced (starting with the 2015 tax season) and will rapidly escalate. Over time it won't make sense to try to game the system like this, since it will get expensive and hard to get away with.

Also, given all the problems with the former system (a disastrous complex kluge which arbitrarily didn't pay legitimate claims, kept people out of the system, rescinded policies on people who got sick, and drove prices to the point that the voters DEMANDED something else -- Obamacare just has a different set of problems, and overall might even be a move in the right direction.

For me, as a responsible person all my adult life, my greatest fear was that once I retired early and bought my own BC/BS private quality policy, that if I became seriously ill they'd find a way not to pay, hide behind their phalanx of lawyers, and I'd simply be screwed. As far as I know, Obamacare has ended that, and that behavior at least is certainly illegal.

Yeah, the mess needs to be cleaned up. It's not like Medicare is perfect, but it works pretty damn well for seniors. Don't make the imperfect the enemy of the good just because you love to bash Obama.

[Plantagenet]

Obamacare is a mess and …. over time it may well prove to be SUCH a mess that the Democrats get what they wanted all along, a fully socialized system.

The claim that Ds want a fully socialized system doesn't match reality.

If the Ds want single payer now, Why do Hillary and Obama and other powerful elected Ds say they oppose single payer because it would mean dismantling Obamacare? If rank and file Ds want single payer, why are they voting for Hillary instead of Bernie, who is the leading advocate for single payer in the US today?

Sure---a minority of Ds want single payer---but Obama and Hillary and almost all elected Ds oppose single payer, just like a majority of D voters oppose single payer---- what the Ds want is what we got: Obamacare.

Don't make the imperfect the enemy of the good

????? Why should we choose the imperfect over the good?

Personally I'm with Bernie----Its time to stop subsidizing big insurance companies and get rid of Obamacare and the rest of the healthcare mess and switch to single payer.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Obamacare is a mess and …. over time it may well prove to be SUCH a mess that the Democrats get what they wanted all along, a fully socialized system.

The claim that Ds want a fully socialized system doesn't match reality.

First, thanks Plant for a productive discussion where we can disagree and even razz each other a bit, but the content is about data.

I should have more accurately said "most democrats want fully socialized medicine".

I did some looking at the polls, and it depends on the poll and how the questions are asked (which shouldn't be surprising). An example of why I have this opinion is this:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/22 ... poll-finds

More than five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from ObamaCare policy debates, just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll.

The single-payer option – also known as Medicare for all – would create a new, government-run insurance program to replace private coverage. The system, once backed by President Obama, became one of the biggest casualties of the divisive healthcare debates of 2009.

The idea remains extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in support, according to the poll, which was shared first with The Hill by the Progressive Change Institute.

OTOH, if you frame the question by asking about broad options, more people say they'd like to fix the current law. For example:

http://kff.org/global-health-policy/pol ... uary-2016/

Seems to me we both have a legit basis for disagreeing somewhat on this point.

I personally agree with you that, ideally, I'd prefer a single payer system (if the way we'd implement and pay for it were sane). However, I am NOT willing to support Sanders to get it (since to me his economic ideas and reality are WAY too far apart, even though I do like aspects of his platform).

[SeaGypsy]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works. Most people use less than the average, some far more than the average. People buy it in case they need it to cover a potentially catastrophic economic event, since the details of the future (including timing) are unknown.

Do you wish your house burned down annually so you can get your "fair share" of fire insurance? I seriously doubt it. (I, who clearly am subsizing others on all my insurance policies thus far, don't want to be without any of them).

Democratic societies choose certain rules that people live under via their elected leaders. Generally, health insurance is considered both a right to have, and a responsibility to pay for, by the competent adults in that society. Just like paying taxes is considered a responsibility.

So what do you suggest as an alternative? That we abandon health insurance? If so, how does anyone who isn't very wealthy pay for significant medical treatment? If we just say those who don't have it die and it's their responsibility, I'm OK with that -- but apparently the vast majority of people across developed cultures strongly disagrees with that -- to the extent that the current system exists.

Weird. I state fact, you take it as complaint. Really strange biscuit you are sometimes.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works. Most people use less than the average, some far more than the average. People buy it in case they need it to cover a potentially catastrophic economic event, since the details of the future (including timing) are unknown.

Do you wish your house burned down annually so you can get your "fair share" of fire insurance? I seriously doubt it. (I, who clearly am subsizing others on all my insurance policies thus far, don't want to be without any of them).

Democratic societies choose certain rules that people live under via their elected leaders. Generally, health insurance is considered both a right to have, and a responsibility to pay for, by the competent adults in that society. Just like paying taxes is considered a responsibility.

So what do you suggest as an alternative? That we abandon health insurance? If so, how does anyone who isn't very wealthy pay for significant medical treatment? If we just say those who don't have it die and it's their responsibility, I'm OK with that -- but apparently the vast majority of people across developed cultures strongly disagrees with that -- to the extent that the current system exists.

Weird. I state fact, you take it as complaint. Really strange biscuit you are sometimes.

So let's see... You complain about subsidizing "unwell peeps and hypocondriacs" (YOUR WORDS). And then I am "weird" for asking you what your idea for a reasonable alternative is. No name calling. No strawmen. Just a rational question.

Perhaps if you use less emotional and more objective language, us "weirdos" who actually try to guage reality, instead of constantly preaching to our personal opinion, would understand that you aren't complaining.

Hint: In my experience, overly emotional labelling often equates to complaining.

So sorry for being a "strange biscuit" for reacting to the actual language and context you (IMO) were complaining in. And actually, I'd FAR rather be strange, weird, and a nonconformist than the empty-headed sheeple that the masses seem to be composed of, so I'll actually consider your description of me a compliment, regardless of the intent.

[Plantagenet]

Most people don't realize that Obamacare is also "gaming" the US economy. Far from bringing costs down, Obamacare caused US healthcare spending to rise dramatically in 2015. Its now the second biggest expense in most family budgets

thanks-obamacare-what-americans-spent-most-money-2015

As Obamacare costs rise, the Fed counts the increasing spending on Obamacare as GDP growth. This means a significant part of the GDP growth seen in the USA in the last few years was actually due to higher costs for Obamacare. As the monthly premiums and the rapidly rising deductibles go up it shows up as GDP growth. Most folks think the GDP numbers are being moved by job growth or to productivity increases or wage increases in the real economy but a significant part of its increased Obamacare spending. Even subsidized spending on Obamacare, where the government pays for part of all of the insurance, actually counts as GDP growth.

Cheers!

[SeaGypsy]

I pay my 1.5% medicare & .5% disability insurance in Oz since I was 15. I am 50 next year & have never needed surgery & have been to the GP Doctor about 10 times in 30 years- I am subsidizing a lot of unwell peeps & hypochondriacs.

And that's the way insurance works. Most people use less than the average, some far more than the average. People buy it in case they need it to cover a potentially catastrophic economic event, since the details of the future (including timing) are unknown.

Do you wish your house burned down annually so you can get your "fair share" of fire insurance? I seriously doubt it. (I, who clearly am subsizing others on all my insurance policies thus far, don't want to be without any of them).

Democratic societies choose certain rules that people live under via their elected leaders. Generally, health insurance is considered both a right to have, and a responsibility to pay for, by the competent adults in that society. Just like paying taxes is considered a responsibility.

So what do you suggest as an alternative? That we abandon health insurance? If so, how does anyone who isn't very wealthy pay for significant medical treatment? If we just say those who don't have it die and it's their responsibility, I'm OK with that -- but apparently the vast majority of people across developed cultures strongly disagrees with that -- to the extent that the current system exists.

Weird. I state fact, you take it as complaint. Really strange biscuit you are sometimes.

So let's see... You complain about subsidizing "unwell peeps and hypocondriacs" (YOUR WORDS). And then I am "weird" for asking you what your idea for a reasonable alternative is. No name calling. No strawmen. Just a rational question.

Perhaps if you use less emotional and more objective language, us "weirdos" who actually try to guage reality, instead of constantly preaching to our personal opinion, would understand that you aren't complaining.

Hint: In my experience, overly emotional labelling often equates to complaining.

So sorry for being a "strange biscuit" for reacting to the actual language and context you (IMO) were complaining in. And actually, I'd FAR rather be strange, weird, and a nonconformist than the empty-headed sheeple that the masses seem to be composed of, so I'll actually consider your description of me a compliment, regardless of the intent.

You must speak a different dialect of English to me, your interpretation of a 'complaint' in my statement is not there in my version of English. Perhaps you can narrow down where it is, other than your presumption.

[SeaGypsy]

Most people don't realize that Obamacare is also "gaming" the US economy. Far from bringing costs down, Obamacare caused US healthcare spending to rise dramatically in 2015. Its now the second biggest expense in most family budgets

thanks-obamacare-what-americans-spent-most-money-2015

As Obamacare costs rise, the Fed counts the increasing spending on Obamacare as GDP growth. This means a significant part of the GDP growth seen in the USA in the last few years was actually due to higher costs for Obamacare. As the monthly premiums and the rapidly rising deductibles go up it shows up as GDP growth. Most folks think the GDP numbers are being moved by job growth or to productivity increases or wage increases in the real economy but a significant part of its increased Obamacare spending. Even subsidized spending on Obamacare, where the government pays for part of all of the insurance, actually counts as GDP growth.

Cheers!

Considering health reform was a primary platform for Obama, this failure along with bungling the ME would have to rate his Presidency as one of the worst ever. What's left? His Nobel Peace Prize (what a joke!), exponential debt? What a knob this brown dork turned out to be.

[Plantagenet]

Considering health reform was a primary platform for Obama, this failure along with bungling the ME would have to rate his Presidency as one of the worst ever. What's left?

The tango?







Cha Cha Cha!

[Lore]

Actually, according to Brookings, Obama rates about 18 out of 43.

[SeaGypsy]

Without looking it up, is that for deaths caused by, economic mismanagement or broken promises? & 18th best or 18th worst?

[Outcast_Searcher]

You must speak a different dialect of English to me, your interpretation of a 'complaint' in my statement is not there in my version of English. Perhaps you can narrow down where it is, other than your presumption.

Sea, I was pretty thorough and clear in my explanation. If you refuse to accept that, it's your choice. I'm not playing semantics games with you - that would clearly be a waste of time.

Again, if you're simply stating facts vs. complaining, less emotional language / name calling would make that a lot more clear, IMO.

[SeaGypsy]

Like I said, the statement is simple fact, the complaint factor is your projection. The context was about how Australia affords it's health system, which actually is not single payer, but incorporates private insurance, copayments etc. There are a few major differences such as that employers here never have to pay general health cover, only cover for workplace injuries.

[Cog]

I could support single payer in the US, if I were convinced that our health care would not devolve into something like the VA health care system. The scandals involved in veterans health care are appalling. Has it been fixed? Not to my knowledge.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I could support single payer in the US, if I were convinced that our health care would not devolve into something like the VA health care system. The scandals involved in veterans health care are appalling. Has it been fixed? Not to my knowledge.

Good point Cog. What baffles me is how little we seem to study and LEARN from others. So around the world we have a slew of models to examine which work different ways and with different costs and trade-offs.

Surely we could (if the folks on Capitol Hill actually had Americans' best interests at heart, instead of their own pockets/agendas) study some of these, and emulate one, or a hybrid of a couple/few that seem to be effective AND efficient.

Does political reality completely preclude that?

[Outcast_Searcher]

I could support single payer in the US, if I were convinced that our health care would not devolve into something like the VA health care system. The scandals involved in veterans health care are appalling. Has it been fixed? Not to my knowledge.

Curious, I did a bit of searching as I hadn't heard much on this recently.

I found a bunch of stuff like this for Spring 2014. This stuff (serious V.A. problems, resignations, etc) has been going on for GENERATIONS. Not exactly impressive.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/23/politics/ ... -timeline/

And, it would seem things aren't changing, but at least the press continues to report on that. Of course fixing it would cost real money, and probably wouldn't buy all that many votes.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/ ... hospitals/

Annnnnnnnnnnd of course it's nice to hear that unsurprisingly, this little performance blip isn't costing VA employees and executives their precious bonuses.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /75537586/