Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:If you don't get healthcare you get fined, so it fines the very people it claims to help. It also would pay for things of questionable moral standing(abortions, embryonic stem cell reaserch...)

For the record I don't like the way Health Coverage is carried out now by insurance companies, but I strongly believe this is something the government has no business doing. Stick with the Devil you know.

Mainly for fear of government Death Panels. They will appear after awhile.

You'll have to elaborate on Death Panels for me...

Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering. If they determine you are likely to have a debilitating condition that will be very expensive(more money then you bring in) they will terminate your coverage. So once a person reaches a certain age they would become more likely to get dropped. The game would basically be the government ensuring that only healthy people are covered(people who arn't going to have expensive conditions, accidents like broken limbs or injuries are cheap compared to things like cancer or heart defects)

Private companies still cover you, they just charge more and more money.

Dewey defeats Truman





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering.

"Death panel" is a political term that originated during a 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was first used in August 2009 by former Republican Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel" myth; nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care. Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

"Death Panel" is political rebranding to sell a sound bite, like calling the Estate Tax the Death Tax.

Edit: disregard, it looks as though my question was answered in an edit while I was typing.

streamdragon wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:
Death Panels are names for an as yet non-existant group of people who go over your medical files and decide if you are worth covering. If they determine you are likely to have a debilitating condition that will be very expensive(more money then you bring in) they will terminate your coverage. So once a person reaches a certain age they would become more likely to get dropped. The game would basically be the government ensuring that only healthy people are covered(people who arn't going to have expensive conditions, accidents like broken limbs or injuries are cheap compared to things like cancer or heart defects)

Private companies still cover you, they just charge more and more money.

I was under the impression that part of the new law was that companies were no longer able to just drop people based on existing conditions? And that doctor patient privilege would prevent someone from looking through my medical file regardless? How are these "panels" supposed to function according to the new law? (again, I haven't had the time or desire to actually read through the law word for word).

As i said, it refers to "Government" death panels.

Companies can't drop you because of existing conditions. They just charge more money.

PhantomViper wrote:
This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...

This law is designed to prevent that situation, yes. And in truth, it likely will. Low-cost high-deductible plans like I was on will probably not survive, however, as I don't believe they meet the requirements of the mandate, and even if they do, the insurance companies won't be generating enough money off of the premiums to cover the millions of people who need "day to day" health insurance (for preexisting conditions and things of that sort) that are suddenly going to be forcibly added to the rolls. What this does, basically, is force a lot of young, healthy individuals to pick up more insurance than they need to cover the health care costs of older and/or more sickly individuals.

Aside from that, it's just plain unconstitutional for the government to require me to purchase a private product simply because I exist. I am fully in favor of everyone in the country having healthcare coverage, but if you want to require everyone to have health insurance, you need to provide it. This law does not do that. It is essentially like the government saying, "If you're an American, you must own a car."

Yup, it forces people in their 20s who otherwise would not buy/need to buy health coverage to buy it, interestingly this is also the age group that finds it difficult to compete for jobs because they lack experience. Thereby increasing the cost of living for everyone.

Grey Templar wrote:Yup, it forces people in their 20s who otherwise would not buy/need to buy health coverage to buy it, interestingly this is also the age group that finds it difficult to compete for jobs because they lack experience. Thereby increasing the cost of living for everyone.

Interestingly it's also an age group more prone to physical and debilitating injury than the median. Did you know that people go to hospitals for more than colds? Sometimes it's bullets or car accidents. I myself don't have insurance due to the incredibly non competitive and expensive market in Maine and the lack of employers here that offer it and I've had a lung infection for a month! Sure am glad my invisible shield of "mid 20's" is protecting me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
This law is designed to prevent that type of situation, right?

So how can someone be against that?

Feel free to educate me in case I got it all wrong and the law won't actually prevent this, admittedly most of my knowledge of this particular law was gained through the Daily Show so it can be a tinsy bit biased...

This law is designed to prevent that situation, yes. And in truth, it likely will. Low-cost high-deductible plans like I was on will probably not survive, however, as I don't believe they meet the requirements of the mandate, and even if they do, the insurance companies won't be generating enough money off of the premiums to cover the millions of people who need "day to day" health insurance (for preexisting conditions and things of that sort) that are suddenly going to be forcibly added to the rolls. What this does, basically, is force a lot of young, healthy individuals to pick up more insurance than they need to cover the health care costs of older and/or more sickly individuals.

Aside from that, it's just plain unconstitutional for the government to require me to purchase a private product simply because I exist. I am fully in favor of everyone in the country having healthcare coverage, but if you want to require everyone to have health insurance, you need to provide it. This law does not do that. It is essentially like the government saying, "If you're an American, you must own a car."

Technically since it was upheld it's not unconstitutional.

Thank you all for the clarification.

Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Easy...stop gap to buy time and voters. Supreme Court was quite correct...pass three admin did crap on it.

Grey Templar wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Well...its a tax hike one side will say. The other is its legal and to the individual benefit. So it comes down to the wallet...your wallet. Will this influence your vote for or against?

Not me. I'm voting Cthulu this year. I'm sick of the lesser evil.

Whats his stance on Illegal Immigration?

Respiration is illegal. Cthulu will fix that...

Respiration is illegal. Cthulu will fix that...

Signed that DNR didn't you

And once again, twitter brings the laughs...

Language warning !

That's awesome.

"Hey guys, I love my country SOOOO much and hate the socialized healthcare bill, I'm moving to a different country that already has socialized healthcare!"

It's thoughts like this that put us in this situation to begin with.

I'm starting a new Washingtonian Independent movement. Washington hated political parties and thought they would undermine the Republic, and time has proven him right.

But better socialized healthcare. I'd take the Canadian system over Obamacare in a heartbeat.

I'm still confused how being forced into a ludicrously corrupt and worthless private industry of paymasters is socialization of healthcare. If anything it's a capitalist subsidy. What the wacky neocons call things these days has nothing to do with reality anymore though, so whatever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:But better socialized healthcare. I'd take the Canadian system over Obamacare in a heartbeat.

Except for when you were fighting against similar systems when they were trying to get votes on them before. It's nice to jump around isn't it? We're stuck with a crappy half solution because you didn't want a real one. Now we have to amend this one into functioning. My guess is that the public option gets reintroduced in the next 15 years. The system needs it to survive, even with this patch.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

streamdragon wrote:And once again, twitter brings the laughs...

Spoiler:

That's awesome.

"Hey guys, I love my country SOOOO much and hate the socialized healthcare bill, I'm moving to a different country that already has socialized healthcare!"

It's thoughts like this that put us in this situation to begin with.

I'm still confused how being forced into a ludicrously corrupt and worthless private industry of paymasters is socialization of healthcare. If anything it's a capitalist subsidy. What the wacky neocons call things these days has nothing to do with reality anymore though, so whatever.

Not saying it's true, just that that's pretty much the gist of what everyone of those quotes says.

Now I know, as a Texan, I am singly important in bringing us this crappy system by fighting against it because a Texan is just more equal than others, but despite your flattery, I had nothing to do with it.

As I noted many times I wanted a commission to look at the top 5 or top 10 systems, take the best and leave the rest. This one takes the rest and leaves the best.

Other than the mandate, what's so bad about this one?

streamdragon wrote:Other than the mandate, what's so bad about this one?

Just a few:
It steals money from Medicare to the tune of $500bn.
It exempts lots of entities and sets up a nice slush fund for wahtever administraiton is in power. Give me campaign contributions and we'll exempt your business.
Some states, where they needed votes, are exempted.
Does nothing to reduce costs WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We don't know what half of it actually does.


Again, there is a serious problem, that all developing countries are facing. the best option is to look at the best systems, pick and choose and develop a good system. The Canadian one is not bad but not perfect. Take the best from it, the Swiss, German, etc. Take your time and do it right. Instead that created a bureaucratic monster worthy of Greek myth.

Like...I am not sure what to say about the mandate.

I 100% understand any Republican on why this is bad. You are forcing individuals to the whim of the government.

But I also understand Democrates. There are citizens failing to receive care in this country (also millions who go without food, many homeless or without a job).

So a nice compromise is needed but that seems to be a "bad" word now days. I am not sure what to think anymore. I mean, we DID vote Obama into office, right? The majority did understand that he was going to change health care? There are supporters of the ACA.

But, I think the issue is that the US is becoming too divided and fragmented in it's way of thinking. We have a business that wants laws that helps it's business. We want a group that asks for laws that allows there freedoms like everyone else. There are entities that asks for other things. So why can we not compromise some of our own ground for the good of the country?

I think this right here is why our political system is in a state of dysfunction. This is why our voter turnout is low. Why do we want to vote for any canidate that will not fulfill any promises they make? This goes for any federally elected and appointed official.

But, we have to try and change. What we are doing now doesn't work. Either way...

What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

Seaward wrote:Several right-wing blog sites are filled with comments advocating violent revolution or, at the very least, mass civil disobedience at the moment, though.

What's new about that. They have been saying it for years. Can they just get on with it already?

"•Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans."

They may have 'less' ability but United Healthcare that I have which costs over $750 a month for me and my family went up $100 a month and are projected to go up again in January by another undisclosed amount.

Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Archaeo wrote:
Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Of course the 60% discount for uninsured patients is really a 60% penalty to the insured patient that get billed extra to make up the difference.

But that is what is wrong about the American system in the first place.

d-usa wrote:

Archaeo wrote:
Right now I am thinking that the 'tax' for not having insurance is better than actually having the insurance plan I have especially since an ER visit here knocks off 60% of the bill if you do not insured. I guess that will change to though.

Of course the 60% discount for uninsured patients is really a 60% penalty to the insured patient that get billed extra to make up the difference.

But that is what is wrong about the American system in the first place.

On the one hand it says care for the insured is inflated, on the other you could argue that the insured pick up the bill for the cash only rate. Both are true.

Changing INSURANCE doesn't reduce medical costs, in fact as I cannot currently afford insurance at all now I must be penalized for being poor. Thanks Obama, you sure are a swell guy. If we really think that health care needs to be under government control it's time to nut up and start the process of socializing medicine. The AHCA was never that.

Zyllos wrote:But, we have to try and change. What we are doing now doesn't work. Either way...

it will never change until Citizens United is repealed.

Obama promised us a public option. The ACA was his and the Dems' efforts at a bipartisan compromise, adopting a Republican-originated plan and trying to make some desperately-needed progress in this country without having to have a knock-down drag-out with people who use socialism as a dirty word despite all the socialized benefits they partake of on a daily basis.

Obviously it didn't work, as the Congressional Republicans would tell you that ice cream tastes like horse manure if Obama made the ice cream.