Obamacare: Unions sick of it + Youth may destroy it

PST-thank you for setting a few things straight. i didnt have the energy. Regards, Oak

Obamacare was never designed to "succeed" in the way most folks would define it. It's yet another of this administration's efforts to "radically transform" this country (of course, the media never bothered to ask him what he meant by that). In order to ensure that the incumbent party NEVER loses power, it is essential that the maximum number of people are dependent upon the government to some extent. Then all that is necessary is to scare those people into believing that a change to the other party would result in the loss of everything they depend on. If you doubt me, look back to the tactics in the last election . . . no argument was ever made for retaining the incumbent; only endless stories about how bad things would be under the other guy. When you have nothing to run on, make sure everyone is scared to run TOWARD the other guy. Highly effective strategy.

Look, I don't really like inserting my political views in a forum such as this, but the topic was raised and I can't resist commenting. Socialism (and don't think for a minute that's not where we're heading) has never worked, and it will not work in America. First of all, the government eventually runs out of other people's money. More importantly, it's a system that creates "equality" by making everyone equally miserable. What the hell kind of utopia is that? A government that has the power to do everything for you has the power to take everything away from you! We're already almost at the point where there are more people in the cart than there are pulling the cart.

The problem is that too many people are single-issue voters. As long as they get something that's important to them, it's irrelevant what the impact is on everyone else. Back before we became a welfare state (don't get me wrong, we need a safety net), neighbors took care of neighbors. If a patient couldn't afford to pay, the local doctor didn't charge. But once the government stepped in, the problems started. It's no longer the patient-doctor relationship that we once had; it's now more like the patient-government-insurance industry-more government and, oh yeah, maybe the doctor. Tell me one thing (other than the military) that the government has done better and more cost-effectively than the private sector? It used to be that people went to work for the government and accepted lower pay in exchange for good benefits and security. Now the average federal government employee has a salary of more than $100,000, and their benefits have continued to be the best. And even as the public sector has seen extraordinary job losses over the last 7-8 years, the number of federal workers has increased dramatically.

But I digress . . . back to Obamacare. Bookmark this page and return to it mid-2014. I hope I'm wrong but I predict a disaster unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Here is something about Obamacare that should make many people livid.

My wife has an individual health insurance policy. Her carrier has set up a web tool so that she can see if she will be eligible for a subsidy next year. I ran her numbers through the tool. It seems to rely on the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) for 2012 and the premium cost for 2013.

Even though we easily fall in the category "wealthy" by several web calculators, the output said she will be eligible for tax credits that will reduce her insurance costs by more than 50% next year. Directions say to check back on October 1 to see the exact amount of the premiums and the tax credits.

Now our MAGI is fairly low for 2012 because we defer the majority of our income and only take what we need to live. Also the tax credits do not consider your net worth, which in our case is high.

I don't believe the intent of Obamacare was to subsidize someone in our position, but this is what you get with poorly written, huge regulation.

(We certainly plan to take advantage of the tax credits. )

I hesitate to get into this, but ObamaCare is modeled after the system that's been working in Massachusetts for some time. Paul Krugman (bless his level head) has an excellent editorial about the current situation that I read this morning. From what I read on these threads, here in River City *smile*, I doubt that there's much respect for Krugman, but I happen to agree with a lot that he writes. The essence of what he's saying is that it looks like ObamaCare might work despite all the efforts on the right to sabotage it. In fact, it's pretty obvious to me that a big reason that certain parts of it had to be delayed was that a lot of powerful people thought that they could repeal it (the main thing that the House has been working on since it was passed, other than trying to de-fund anything that doesn't give more tax dollars to the wealthy), so they didn't bother to prepare for it actually being implemented. I'm sure that there's a lot of politics involved in that as well, as there is in all that comes out of Washington.

Regarding being a single issue voter, I will be honest and admit that I have been critical of people for doing this in the past. But it really isn't as clear cut as you think it is.

Can you really blame people for doing that, particularly if they think Obamacare rightly or wrongly is going to rescue them from a devastating bankruptcy due to medical bills? On a few other issues that I have dealt with, it would be hard for me to resist voting for someone who reflected my views even if we didn't agree on anything else. Hopefully, I would resist doing that but it would be darned hard not to.

According to this site, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fed ... ary-rises/, the average salary of the federal government employee is nearly $75,000. But what you are forgetting is that includes salaries of people like doctors and lawyers who could earn lot more money in private industry.

And the "evil" salaries also include one person I know who earns around $50,000 for close to 30 years of work at a lower level position. If she hadn't gotten that job, she would have relied on public assistance due to her disability which would have cost taxpayers alot more money. Of course, some people would have rather she live in the streets but that is another post.

Not to sound like I am whining but as one who doesn't have health insurance, I can honestly say that the chances of people who are uninsured finding doctors who don't take payment is as good as my being able to paint as well as Monet. By the way, I tried one ENT who sounded like he might be a good possibility. Because I was uninsured, the office wanted a down payment and was also to going to charge heavily if I cancelled the appointment, even with the standard 24 hours notice. Needless to say I passed.

It is the insurance companies that have interfered with the doctor/patient relationship. On what basis are you claiming that this is the government's fault? Or are just making that claim because you hate the government so much?

By the way, I have never read about a doctor expressing frustration that the government interfered with his/her right to do what is best for his/her patient. But they always complain about the insurance companies. One ER doctor who had been practicing for years said he had never experienced Medicare interfering with his clinical judgement while he did with many insurance companies.

Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism, I am going to scream. It is just like RomneyCare and was based on an original plan I believe by the Heritage Foundation.

Again, I think people just like to shout the "S" word like they do the "G" word without looking at the true facts. Personally, I would love to see a plan that takes insurance companies out of the equation whether it be single payer or something like what France has. But I can also dream of being able to paint like Monet

49er

rd1978 wrote:Obamacare was never designed to "succeed" in the way most folks would define it. It's yet another of this administration's efforts to "radically transform" this country (of course, the media never bothered to ask him what he meant by that). In order to ensure that the incumbent party NEVER loses power, it is essential that the maximum number of people are dependent upon the government to some extent. Then all that is necessary is to scare those people into believing that a change to the other party would result in the loss of everything they depend on. If you doubt me, look back to the tactics in the last election . . . no argument was ever made for retaining the incumbent; only endless stories about how bad things would be under the other guy. When you have nothing to run on, make sure everyone is scared to run TOWARD the other guy. Highly effective strategy.

Look, I don't really like inserting my political views in a forum such as this, but the topic was raised and I can't resist commenting. Socialism (and don't think for a minute that's not where we're heading) has never worked, and it will not work in America. First of all, the government eventually runs out of other people's money. More importantly, it's a system that creates "equality" by making everyone equally miserable. What the hell kind of utopia is that? A government that has the power to do everything for you has the power to take everything away from you! We're already almost at the point where there are more people in the cart than there are pulling the cart.

The problem is that too many people are single-issue voters. As long as they get something that's important to them, it's irrelevant what the impact is on everyone else. Back before we became a welfare state (don't get me wrong, we need a safety net), neighbors took care of neighbors. If a patient couldn't afford to pay, the local doctor didn't charge. But once the government stepped in, the problems started. It's no longer the patient-doctor relationship that we once had; it's now more like the patient-government-insurance industry-more government and, oh yeah, maybe the doctor. Tell me one thing (other than the military) that the government has done better and more cost-effectively than the private sector? It used to be that people went to work for the government and accepted lower pay in exchange for good benefits and security. Now the average federal government employee has a salary of more than $100,000, and their benefits have continued to be the best. And even as the public sector has seen extraordinary job losses over the last 7-8 years, the number of federal workers has increased dramatically.

But I digress . . . back to Obamacare. Bookmark this page and return to it mid-2014. I hope I'm wrong but I predict a disaster unlike anything we've ever seen before.

Not Fade wrote: Even though we easily fall in the category "wealthy" by several web calculators, the output said she will be eligible for tax credits that will reduce her insurance costs by more than 50% next year. Directions say to check back on October 1 to see the exact amount of the premiums and the tax credits.

Now our MAGI is fairly low for 2012 because we defer the majority of our income and only take what we need to live. Also the tax credits do not consider your net worth, which in our case is high.

I don't believe the intent of Obamacare was to subsidize someone in our position, but this is what you get with poorly written, huge regulation.

(We certainly plan to take advantage of the tax credits. )

Before you feel too guilty about receiving a subsidy, consider this: The backbone of the current system is the employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) subsidy, which costs the government well over $100 billion a year. We like to think of this as "business cost" but businesses think of it as part of the compensation package that employees don't pay taxes on. Since the largest beneficiaries are those in a high tax bracket, this actually represents a "regressive" tax policy. The senior management who have a "Cadillac" plan and are in a top tax bracket may be getting a $6000 or more subsidy on their insurance.

There has been a lot of confusion about the exchanges. Living in MA means we've had one for several years and its been great! I retired early and the only plans we could get were very expensive. Under the exchange we could buy any plan from any company at the same rate they were offered as group employee plans. The exchange steered us to a company that provides small business insurance so the entire "government involvement" was to require that we were eligible for the same rates as ESI plans. Our costs went down about 20%!

49er, you make some interesting points, although not necessary valid.

When I mentioned that doctors would routinely provide services at no charge (or reduced rates) to persons who could not afford needed care, I specifically said that this was common practice before the government got involved (i.e., Medicare). That is a fact.

I don't hate government; I hate big government! And so did the framers of our Constitution, by the way.

RomneyCare is socialistic. But I have no problem with it since it was always understood (again, as a critical design feature of our Republic) that states were the appropriate places for "experimentation." The beauty of our system of democracy, and the brilliance of the Framers, are the inherent checks and balances.. If one doesn't like the laws or practices of one state, they are always free to move to another. (Did you know that in our nation's early years many of the states had official religions?) But when something is implemented at the federal level, it leaves the citizens with limited options. Again, the Framers understood this, which is why they made it so difficult for such things to happen.

People complain about gridlock in Capitol Hill. If you study the Constitution, you'll understand how that was by design. It's why any one Senator, for example, can virtually stop any legislation in its tracks. (Obamacare was forced down the American People's collective throat. It *passed* only because the Dems came up with a clever way to bypass reconciliation -- it could not otherwise have gotten through the Senate. Recall that Scott Brown's election killed the Dems' super majority.)

Finally, with regards to the insurance industry, one of the biggest problems is that no one with insurance has any *real* sense of the true cost of medical care. Think about it. . . if you have coverage, the only thing you care about is your out-of-pocket cost. Sure, you see the enormous bills, but it's like Monopoly money because you don't have to pay it. The insurance company pays it. If we were to move (God forbid) to a single-payer system (i.e., totally government-run healthcare), the cost of healthcare will necessarily go up. Layers of bureaucracy always do that. The only way the government will be able to control those costs (it's not going to even try to lower overhead) is to ration care. Don't believe me? Go to Canada, England, France, etc., and see how long you have to wait for elective surgery. Want something that the government (not your doctor but your government) doesn't think you really need or that is has determined through statistical analysis doesn't represent a good return on its investment . . . well, you're free to get it -- at your own expense!

I stand by what I said. If Obamacare continues on its current path, by mid-2014 we will all be witnesses to the biggest legislative disaster ever.

If you want to get a second opinion, I encourage you to watch this speech by a true expert, pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiyAW5ZMdcM

Hi Rd1978,

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond in depth but perhaps that is a good thing:) If I remember correctly about Ben Carson, he is not the most objective person on this earth. Not that anyone really is 100% but he seems to be worse.

You missed my point about having health insurance because I am unfortunately very aware of the costs.

Actually, people aren't always free to move to other states for various reasons.

49er

rd1978 wrote:49er, you make some interesting points, although not necessary valid.

When I mentioned that doctors would routinely provide services at no charge (or reduced rates) to persons who could not afford needed care, I specifically said that this was common practice before the government got involved (i.e., Medicare). That is a fact.

I don't hate government; I hate big government! And so did the framers of our Constitution, by the way.

RomneyCare is socialistic. But I have no problem with it since it was always understood (again, as a critical design feature of our Republic) that states were the appropriate places for "experimentation." The beauty of our system of democracy, and the brilliance of the Framers, are the inherent checks and balances.. If one doesn't like the laws or practices of one state, they are always free to move to another. (Did you know that in our nation's early years many of the states had official religions?) But when something is implemented at the federal level, it leaves the citizens with limited options. Again, the Framers understood this, which is why they made it so difficult for such things to happen.

People complain about gridlock in Capitol Hill. If you study the Constitution, you'll understand how that was by design. It's why any one Senator, for example, can virtually stop any legislation in its tracks. (Obamacare was forced down the American People's collective throat. It *passed* only because the Dems came up with a clever way to bypass reconciliation -- it could not otherwise have gotten through the Senate. Recall that Scott Brown's election killed the Dems' super majority.)

Finally, with regards to the insurance industry, one of the biggest problems is that no one with insurance has any *real* sense of the true cost of medical care. Think about it. . . if you have coverage, the only thing you care about is your out-of-pocket cost. Sure, you see the enormous bills, but it's like Monopoly money because you don't have to pay it. The insurance company pays it. If we were to move (God forbid) to a single-payer system (i.e., totally government-run healthcare), the cost of healthcare will necessarily go up. Layers of bureaucracy always do that. The only way the government will be able to control those costs (it's not going to even try to lower overhead) is to ration care. Don't believe me? Go to Canada, England, France, etc., and see how long you have to wait for elective surgery. Want something that the government (not your doctor but your government) doesn't think you really need or that is has determined through statistical analysis doesn't represent a good return on its investment . . . well, you're free to get it -- at your own expense!

I stand by what I said. If Obamacare continues on its current path, by mid-2014 we will all be witnesses to the biggest legislative disaster ever.

If you want to get a second opinion, I encourage you to watch this speech by a true expert, pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiyAW5ZMdcM

"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism, I'll scream"

It is. Scream away.

zorki1c wrote:"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism,"

It is. Scream away.

Can anyone tell me how to paste a screaming image?

49er

I remember when insurance was affordable. It was hospital insurance. Emergency room visits were only covered if you were put in the hospital. You didn't run to the ER unless it was a true emergency. The insurance was cheap. You paid for your own doctor visits and tests unless you were admitted to the hospital.

Doctor weren't bothered with frivolous lawsuits. I do believe is suing a doctor when they are incompetent, but it is way out of hand. People now love to sue for stupid reasons. A woman came to the shop where I worked a few years ago and got her eyebrows waxed. The next day she went to the lake and got her eyebrows sun burned. She then went to see a lawyer to see if she could sue the shop for her sunburn. I carry a one million dollar insurance on my little shop. I can't imagine what it is like for doctors now.

The price of an office visit now is rediculous when paid out of pocket. I wish we could go back to the old way. I had 5 children and never charged an office visit but I knew I could if I had to do so. Now you wouldn't dream of even asking to charge a visit.

zorki1c wrote:"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism,"

It is. Scream away.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. Screaming doesn't make it so.
I suggest you take a Politics 101 course before you display more ignorance to the rest of the world.

BlackSpinner wrote:And you have the highest infant mortality rate. Great job guys!

USA: 23-week preemie gets put on full-blown life support, and as expected, dies. Counted as "infant mortality" because we tried to save it.

Nearly everywhere else in the world: 23-week preemie is declared stillborn. Isn't counted as "infant mortality" because it was never considered a viable birth.

Result: "USA has the highest infant mortality rate!!! You guys suck!"

Me: 7-month preemie, saved 50 years ago (when I would've been considered nonviable in most countries) without any longterm problems despite horrendous American healthcare system.

BlackSpinner wrote:

zorki1c wrote:"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism, I'll scream."

It is. Scream away.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. Screaming doesn't make it so.
I suggest you take a Politics 101 course before you display more ignorance to the rest of the world.

Not sure if you are addressing me or the person I was quoting.

Hairy wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:And you have the highest infant mortality rate. Great job guys!

USA: 23-week preemie gets put on full-blown life support, and as expected, dies. Counted as "infant mortality" because we tried to save it.

Nearly everywhere else in the world: 23-week preemie is declared stillborn. Isn't counted as "infant mortality" because it was never considered a viable birth.

Result: "USA has the highest infant mortality rate!!! You guys suck!"

Me: 7-month preemie, saved 50 years ago (when I would've been considered nonviable in most countries) without any longterm problems despite horrendous American healthcare system.

But you also have the highest preemie rate so that even it out. Highest preemie rate due to lack of pre natal care. Highest infant mortality rate due to lack of pre natal care and post natal care. When only a small elite percent get that kind of care it still sucks. The American public gets the worst health care for the highest cost even at the top echelons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Earth.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/201 ... irths.html

Over half a million U.S. babies are born premature, before completion of the 37th week of pregnancy. That's 11.7 per cent of the babies born in 2011, the lowest rate of preterm birth in a decade and down from a peak of 12.8 per cent in 2006, the March of Dimes reported earlier this week.

Contrast that with Japan and Sweden, where fewer than 6 per cent of births are premature, or Canada and Britain where fewer than 8 per cent are.

Yes you guys suck.