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.

Relapse, that's a load of bollocks. If you went digging around the american system you could find plenty of horror stories. I lived in the UK for 2 years and while the NHS isn't perfect, it is a great system for healthcare, far better than Ireland's half way house.

If you want private insurance in the UK you can still have it, too.

Germany's system is okay but because it's based around insurance I feel it's more expensive than it needs to be, but the quality of care is very good.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I hear in America you have to pay for healthcare.

Yes, but we actually have good healthcare.

IE: you get what you pay for

No, we DO have good healthcare. My dad wouldn't be alive now if it weren't for the great treatment he received when he had prostate cancer.

Really gets my blood up when you yanks talk gak about the NHS.

 Da Boss wrote:

Germany's system is okay but because it's based around insurance I feel it's more expensive than it needs to be, but the quality of care is very good.

Having been stationed in Germany, and my first child born in their medical system, I think that it works a gak ton more efficiently than the US system does.

The problem that I still have with "Obamacare" is that it seems to be forgetting the first two letters of it's actual acronym: Affordable and Care. It'd have been one thing to mandate health insurance, but strip away an insurance company's ability to deny you coverage (and they'd also have to limit how much the insurers could charge premiums, or else all them "high risk" patients would pay their whole paycheck just to follow the law), while simultaneously doing the Mass. thing, where if you cannot afford a standard insurance plan, the government would help people find appropriate care, or insure them themselves.

I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.

The German system (I've only been here a year) seems to me to offer a very comprehensive level of care, and they're very thorough in making sure you get all the treatments you might need. As a self employed person I can't get onto the general insurance so I have private, and it's a bit pricey compared to at home where the system isn't as insurance based. Seems to me the insurance companies will always do well out of a system like that.

The British system is great at ensuring that everyone gets treated, and looking after the very old, the very sick or those with chronic illnesses. It's a minor pain to work with if you, for example, need a same day appointment for something, but the fact that it is so comprehensive, easy to understand and most of all cheap makes up for it.

The Irish system is a sort of half way house between the two (the german and british systems), our public system was partially dismantled by ideologically driven economic liberals following a neoconservative ideology in the late nineties and early turn of the century. It is pretty dysfunctional because it is a half way house, our doctors tend to emigrate, and the administrative side of it is our most poorly run and toxic branch of the civil service.

So my experience would tend to make me lean towards a fairly "one speed" system for health, which is easy to understand. Either something like Germany or something like the NHS.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.

That's mostly due to being poorly informed, which is pretty much inevitable given the amount of misinformation out there. I don't know a single person who's read the bill in it's entirely. Frankly, I do not believe I have the reading comprehension skills to understand the legalsleeze of the bill, even if I did try to read it.

To your points though:

A. Those of us not taken in by the "death panel" horror stories actually find that to be a problem, and would prefer it to be more like other nation's healhcare.
B. This part really confuses me, other than hallow political points, I'm not sure what any of the big players get out of rallying against the bill.
C. Well, that's just good old fashioned cognitive dissonance. If you can get an idea past the "fact" stage and to the "faith" stage, you can't possibly shake them of it, and they'll hate you for trying. Look at the people wanting Snowden brutally and publicly killed or the long line of people defending the wealthy during the OWS stuff

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Because people who are bitching about stuff and are screaming about how prices are going to rise are an accurate source of information and are an accurate example of how things are going to be screwed up.

People also need to learn how the the media and news reporting works. Any system will have problems and screw ups, and it will be those things that are reported on. As Matthew Yglesias wrote yesterday "You never read a newspaper article headlined "A Bunch of People Got Free Dental Care Today Because They Live In A State That Offers Dental Benefits Under Medicaid""

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/07/17/obamacare_s_going_to_be_great.html

But actual states that have published the rates under the new implementation of exchanges and other areas that show that prices have fallen should be ignored.

See the price drop in New York? The average is a 50% reduction. But I didn't see that posted here for some reason...

sigh... that's New York you're talking about... one of these most heavily regulated, most convoluted healthcare market in the states, with some of the highest individual market premiums. Forbes already called that out a while back:

The other approach is to do what Obamacare does: to impose an individual mandate that dragoons the healthy into subsidizing the sick, and to subsidize the cost of the inflated health premiums for some low-income individuals, so at least they can afford coverage. …

As a result, Obamacare does have the effect of lowering premiums in New York, to a weighted average of $301 a month: a 39 percent decrease from 2013 rates, and a 16 percent decrease from 2010 rates. …

It’s always better to see rates go down rather than up, but you have to remember the context. New York’s rates will still be three times higher than those found in California before Obamacare. And the Times inflated the impact of the ACA, implying that average premiums in New York City exceed $1,000 today vs. $308 under Obamacare; by our analysis, using a fairer comparison, the five-borough average for affordable coverage was $695, with a much lower average upstate.

So... we can certainly see some go down in the most heavily regulated markets (read, traditionally blue states). But, by and large, everyone else's will go up.

At this point, I think defending ACA in it's current iteration is a lost cause now politically.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

Meh. The people are similarly in favour of banning the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
That they might be too stupid to realise you can't ban denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate says a lot about the quality of debate the public was presented with over healthcare, but it doesn't say much about the viability of the ACA reforms as a whole.

Wut? Where do you see that? Please direct me to the information supporting this assertation.... if anything, that's one of the popular aspect of this bill, along with keeping your college kids on parent's plan, abolition of lifetime insurance, etc...

Also, Gingrich productions?!

Yeah... seriously... ego trip much?

So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm not all that up on what Obamacare does, the American healthcare system is very complex compared to what I'm used to. So I don't often comment on that, specifically. What gets my goat is when there's all this hysteria about other nations healthcare systems, when-
A. Obamacare is not like any of those systems from what I can tell.
B. The hysteria is founded in nonsense and cherry picked disaster stories you could find in any system.
C. When confronted with people who actually use those systems saying they are okay, people just ignore them and keep on with the same lunacy.

The German system (I've only been here a year) seems to me to offer a very comprehensive level of care, and they're very thorough in making sure you get all the treatments you might need. As a self employed person I can't get onto the general insurance so I have private, and it's a bit pricey compared to at home where the system isn't as insurance based. Seems to me the insurance companies will always do well out of a system like that.

The British system is great at ensuring that everyone gets treated, and looking after the very old, the very sick or those with chronic illnesses. It's a minor pain to work with if you, for example, need a same day appointment for something, but the fact that it is so comprehensive, easy to understand and most of all cheap makes up for it.

The Irish system is a sort of half way house between the two (the german and british systems), our public system was partially dismantled by ideologically driven economic liberals following a neoconservative ideology in the late nineties and early turn of the century. It is pretty dysfunctional because it is a half way house, our doctors tend to emigrate, and the administrative side of it is our most poorly run and toxic branch of the civil service.

So my experience would tend to make me lean towards a fairly "one speed" system for health, which is easy to understand. Either something like Germany or something like the NHS.

When you figure it out, tell us too ok?

 d-usa wrote:
So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?

Every state's go down?

Where do you see that?

EDIT: Also, I think many folks are discounting something important... What your premium costs depends on what you get in it. I think they mean if you (an individual purchaser) do not renew the policy that you have now, you can satisfy the requirement to have insurance by purchasing your policy thru the health care exchange marketplace, and you can pick one that costs half of what the one you have now costs.

It will not be the same policy as far as I can figure, it will suit the standards set out by HHS... like having the no copay contraceptives and whateverthehellelse Madame Secretary wants you to have…but those other things you want that she thinks you don’t need or she might tax you for, I am not sure that is going to be in the cheaper policy, especially a difference in your copays for things, I think they want you to have a high deductible, when you might not have had that with your expensive policy. I don’t think it is apples to apples in this comparison, just that this new policy counts with the feds, so they are concluding you don’t “have” to pay more. I think they want everyone to pay the first $500. at the hospital if you are not on Medicaid.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?

Every state's go down?

Where do you see that?

The states that I have seen publish their prices after implementing exchanges have had some rate reductions. It's almost like that "capitalism" and "competition in the market place" that the Republicans are always taking about but are fighting here actually works.

I am fairly certain that we would have read about rate increases as a result of the exchanges because somebody would have been sure to post them here.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So the fact that every state has gone down (actual evidence, despite people saying previously that even these states will go up) is still ignored, and people saying that prices will go up (after they were wrong before) still know what they are talking about?

Every state's go down?

Where do you see that?

The states that I have seen publish their prices after implementing exchanges have had some rate reductions. It's almost like that "capitalism" and "competition in the market place" that the Republicans are always taking about but are fighting here actually works.

I am fairly certain that we would have read about rate increases as a result of the exchanges because somebody would have been sure to post them here.

Okay... but, I haven't seen it elsewhere.... and that's only for STATES that are participating in the Exchanges. In Missouri, we'd likely default to the Federal Exchange, if they're ready.

Again, temper your cheer when you see that insurance going down... m'kay. The plans may offer much lower "coverage" than the original pre-ACA plans. I do know that the current employer provided insurances are still going UP.

EDIT: Here's a newerForbes... excerpt:

Massachusetts is another state that, prior to Romneycare, had a dysfunctional individual insurance market. I wrote a month ago that “there are a handful of states that have Massachusetts-like problems in their individual markets: Maine, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Those states are unlikely to see much impact from Obamacare on insurance premiums; indeed premiums there might even go down. But nearly every other state will endure significant disruptions as Obamacare goes into full effect.” So if you live in those states (other than Washington), you may do okay in the individual insurance market. If not, you likely won’t.
...
As a guy who lives in Manhattan, I’m glad to see Obamacare move the city’s individual insurance market in the right direction. But New York’s rates will remain far higher than they are in other states. And in those other states—states like California and Ohio—premiums are set to go up dramatically.
...

The states that have published had their rates to down for comparative plans that offer the same coverage and copays as cheaper plans.

If these plans had less coverage or were more expensive we would have already had Relapse post about this latest SNAFU of ObamaCare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if the states don't participate and default to the federal exchange, and if that exchange is worse than states than run their own, then I guess we know which party to thank for that.

 d-usa wrote:
The states that have published had their rates to down for comparative plans that offer the same coverage and copays as cheaper plans.

If these plans had less coverage or were more expensive we would have already had Relapse post about this latest SNAFU of ObamaCare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if the states don't participate and default to the federal exchange, and if that exchange is worse than states than run their own, then I guess we know which party to thank for that.

Only 26 states are currently participating in creating their own exchange (minus the ones that do already, ie Romenycare/Washington state).

>

Via: The Advisory Board Company

Interestingly, that map marks MO as participating... the map is wrong there, nothing of that sort coming. (unfortunately)

The point is that this isn't sunshine and skittles man. I mean, it remains to be seen that premiums would drop 3000%:

With all this talk of premiums going down and the insurance some one getting with it quite possibly not as good, I think this is the time to put that chart up from the other thread showing how much more Obamacare is going to cost this country than we were told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

Its just to weed out the weak Citizen

What we really need is some good old fashioned Darwinism.

Relapse wrote:
With all this talk of premiums going down and the insurance some one getting with it quite possibly not as good, I think this is the time to put that chart up from the other thread showing how much more Obamacare is going to cost this country than we were told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-now-estimated-cost-26-trillion-first-decade_648413.html

I don't trust that any more than I trust the .9 trillion number that Obama gave.

Relapse wrote:
With reports like this coupled with statements of doctors and now unions and politicians trying to exempt themselves, it's no wonder people are not happy at the prospect of Obamacare:


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19521749-not-so-royal-treatment-britons-lucky-to-get-out-of-some-hospitals-alive-report-reveals?lite

They'd have been better off coming to the US for care, that's for sure.

Assuming someone saw them.

 whembly wrote:
sigh... that's New York you're talking about... one of these most heavily regulated, most convoluted healthcare market in the states, with some of the highest individual market premiums.

Yeah, and that high price is driven mostly by New York preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Which meant the young and healthy mostly dropped out of healthcare (knowing they could get it if they got sick). Which is why you need the individual mandate...

At this point, I think defending ACA in it's current iteration is a lost cause now politically.

That is a big, big call. It's pretty similar to calls made about The New Deal as that was rolled out, and about Medicare as it was rolled out.

Wut? Where do you see that? Please direct me to the information supporting this assertation.... if anything, that's one of the popular aspect of this bill, along with keeping your college kids on parent's plan, abolition of lifetime insurance, etc...

Sorry, my post probably wasn't too clear. I was saying that ACA bans denial of coverage, and people are very in favour of that. So the Gingrich productions piece says that only 12% of people support the individual mandate, but ignores that similar numbers support the part that prevents denial of coverage... and that you can't have one without the other (or else you get the New York situation).

The analysis on the Gingrich site is akin to arguing that no-one likes taxation, therefore it is inevitable that we will soon not have taxation. While ignoring that while they don't like taxation, people are still in favour of all the things that money pays for, and you can't have all those services without tax revenue to pay for it.

Yeah... seriously... ego trip much?

That guy's whole career has basically been an ego trip.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
It will not be the same policy as far as I can figure, it will suit the standards set out by HHS... like having the no copay contraceptives and whateverthehellelse Madame Secretary wants you to have…but those other things you want that she thinks you don’t need or she might tax you for, I am not sure that is going to be in the cheaper policy, especially a difference in your copays for things, I think they want you to have a high deductible, when you might not have had that with your expensive policy. I don’t think it is apples to apples in this comparison, just that this new policy counts with the feds, so they are concluding you don’t “have” to pay more. I think they want everyone to pay the first $500. at the hospital if you are not on Medicaid.

Actually, one of the problems with the comparisons has been the comparing of new schemes to schemes offered under the old act that offered so little insurance, and with such a high co-pay that they're not legal under ACA. Picking out the apples to apples comparisons only makes the ACA look better.

Anyone tracking how much waivers are to be giving out? Also how is the system suppose to cover the loss funds from the waiver? Passing it to the production of items? Just curious you know.

Once all the waivers are done, we will all be exempt from the ACA/Obamacare. All of us. There will probably be some court ruling somewhere, where some guy running a hobby business from his garage will argue he can not afford it, and will be given a waiver.

The rest of the masses will follow suit, by finding some difficult to find form, located in a government office, probably a welfare office, but only if you specifically ask for the form by the correct form title and number.

If waivers are implemented for everyone then how will the program pay for itself. It'll be Raistlin Snake eating its own tail analog

I'm liking this Dave Camp dude...

IRS employee union: We don’t want Obamacare

IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.

National Treasury Employees Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.

The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”

The NTEU represents 150,000 federal employees overall, including most of the nearly 100,000 IRS workers.

Like most other federal workers, IRS employees currently get their health insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which also covers members of Congress.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp offered the bill in response to reports of congressional negotiations that would exempt lawmakers and their staff from Obamacare.

“Camp has long believed every American ought to be exempt from the law, which is why he supports full repeal,” Camp spokeswoman Allie Walkersaid.

“If the Obamacare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress and federal employees,” she also said. [whembly: See?! SEE! Bazinga!]

“The NTEU represents Internal Revenue Service employees who have the responsibility to enforce much of the health insurance law, especially in terms of collecting the taxes and distributing subsidies that finance the whole system,” said Paul Kersey, director of Labor Policy at the Illinois Policy Institute.

“IRS agents will also collect data and apply penalties for those who fail to comply with many of Obamacare’s requirements,” Kersey said.

What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
What is even funnier by the Repuvlican backlash against the ACA is that while they invoke the 10th Amendment, states should be the ones to take care of it, what have those states done to assist in their own health care? Nothing. Because of that, the Federal government has decided to take matters into its own hands.

Meh... they're not really invoking the 10th at all here brah.

Mainly... it's a bad bill/system such that the ELECTED officials and FEDERAL employees do NOT want to even participate in this.

The other thing I heard that REALLY pisses me off even more, is that some Congress-critters are thinking of cutting funding to the VA to move most military servicemen/women to ACA. My retort... feth no. If anything the VA needs to be the pre-eminent healthcare system....(this is coming from someone who doesn't benefit from VA at all). Bottom line, if there's ANY discussion to cut benefits from Military, all other Federal department must go first.

 whembly wrote:
Bottom line, if there's ANY discussion to cut benefits from Military, all other Federal department must go first.

Why? What makes the military special?

Its the most important function of the government. to protect its citizens from foreign invasion.

 dogma wrote:

Why? What makes the military special?

Because it's the only thing stopping the Fascist/Communist/Jihadist armies arrayed against us and lurking around every corner from rushing in and taking over our country In all seriousness I am 100% convinced that we can get our military running efficiently on significantly less money than it was being paid previously (although I've talked to some people who pretty much say they have no clue how they're going to continue operating with the massive funding cut they received lately). It kind of pisses me off that defence, really the core reason a government exists, is "discretionary" spending while wellfare is "non-discretionary".

Also my dad uses the VA for a lot of his medical stuff, and (at least up in the netherlands of Idaho) it's one of the most poorly run inefficient organizations I've ever seen. No idea if what they really need is more money or just a quick kick in the pants.

A healthy mix of both.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its the most important function of the government. to protect its citizens from foreign invasion.

The military is the only element of the United States* that does that?

What about all the civilian personnel in the State Department, NSA, CIA, NRO, DIA, and NGA?


*The military is not a function of government. It is the result of a required function of government stipulated by the Constitution.