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.

This speech is a good spring board for research. Any doctor I am acquainted with hates Obamacare just for all the extra paper work it will create, cutting heavily into their time with patients.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=DRGq5ZSJ3Ys

Relapse wrote:
This speech is a good spring board for research. Any doctor I am acquainted with hates Obamacare just for all the extra paper work it will create, cutting heavily into their time with patients.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=DRGq5ZSJ3Ys

Saw this earlier...

And yeah... the doc's I deal with says the same thing or are "meh" about it.

I like the way she makes her point about how ridiculous and damaging it can be.

So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

Before I watch this, I'd like to know who this lady is and why I should care about her opinion. Plenty of folks have made "Obamacare iz the suck" speeches, this one would need to actually say something new if you don't want me billing you for wasted time.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

It is when it drives everyone into ruin to pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Before I watch this, I'd like to know who this lady is and why I should care about her opinion. Plenty of folks have made "Obamacare iz the suck" speeches, this one would need to actually say something new if you don't want me billing you for wasted time.

She's a candidate for the Illinois state senate.

I still can't see what's wrong with healthcare. It might cut into the federal budget but it does more good than harm in my opinion.

 ineptus astartes wrote:
I still can't see what's wrong with healthcare. It might cut into the federal budget but it does more good than harm in my opinion.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with healthcare, or increasing government spending with respect to it. The problem is that the American government, and more importantly the American people, refuse to give up the system they presently have due to a combination of a "devil they know" mentality, national pride, and a particular group of people that are ideologically or fiscally opposed to the best possible set of solutions.

Obamacare is terrible, but instead of arguing for its repeal and further contending that there are better alternatives the opposition is arguing only for its repeal. This is an awful shame because the existence of a bad set of reform policies would be a great means of developing political support for a much better set of reform policies.

Lots of good stuff in the ACA bill, and "full repeal" talk is stupid and lazy. It is people pandering to a crowd that has deluded themselves into thinking the government has never helped them with anything. There are a lot of improvements that can be made to it and if politicians are serious they should be using it as a springboard to really fix what's broken.

Instead we want to throw away the baby with the bath water.

 d-usa wrote:
Lots of good stuff in the ACA bill, and "full repeal" talk is stupid and lazy. It is people pandering to a crowd that has deluded themselves into thinking the government has never helped them with anything. There are a lot of improvements that can be made to it and if politicians are serious they should be using it as a springboard to really fix what's broken.

Instead we want to throw away the baby with the bath water.

Romney has stated he wants to keep some of the best elements of it.
Noithing ever gets repealed in Washington, the bureacratic monster is out.

Most if the repeal talk is made by people in congressional races and by the people making money by making sure people are angry (aka: talking heads in radio and tv).

I really do think that for-profit news is a major cause of partisanship on both sides.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

And this is false... everyone has to pay something.

Just go to Canadian model already... that cat is out of the bag.

I like the German model, but I also grew up in it.

The Japanese system works pretty well too.

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

And this is false... everyone has to pay something.

Just go to Canadian model already... that cat is out of the bag.

Its too late for that. We're stuck with the ACA albatross...forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I like the German model, but I also grew up in it.

How is that different D?

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

And this is false... everyone has to pay something.

Just go to Canadian model already... that cat is out of the bag.

Its too late for that. We're stuck with the ACA albatross...forever.

We missed the boat in the 60's and 70's to go to a single payer system. Now we are playing catch up. I don't think we are stuck with the ACA I think that our politicians need to stop grandstanding about "Obamacare" and take real steps to universal healthcare and not universal health insurance.

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
So, uh...People having a right to healthcare without having to pay is "ridiculous and damaging"?

And this is false... everyone has to pay something.

Just go to Canadian model already... that cat is out of the bag.

Its too late for that. We're stuck with the ACA albatross...forever.

We missed the boat in the 60's and 70's to go to a single payer system. Now we are playing catch up. I don't think we are stuck with the ACA I think that our politicians need to stop grandstanding about "Obamacare" and take real steps to universal healthcare and not universal health insurance.

Universal healthcare is an incredibly toxic concept with this electorate though. It's been tied to the nebulous concept of socialism too many times in too many places for it to be a viable policy without a major seachange in American politics.

 d-usa wrote:

Instead we want to throw away the baby with the bath water.

I'm fine with that. I had hoped Obamacare would have ignited a general push for healthcare reform, but it seems that hasn't been the case.

It does have some good provisions, though:

The pre-existing change is good, and an excellent way of convincing insurance companies to endorse a single-payer system.

The change regarding children staying on the policies of their parents until 26 is good, and reflective of economic conditions.

The move towards knocking down state boundaries regarding coverage is also good, and reflective of present economic conditions.

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Instead we want to throw away the baby with the bath water.

I'm fine with that. I had hoped Obamacare would have ignited a general push for healthcare reform, but it seems that hasn't been the case.

It does have some good provisions, though:

The pre-existing change is good, and an excellent way of convincing insurance companies to endorse a single-payer system.

The change regarding children staying on the policies of their parents until 26 is good, and reflective of economic conditions.

The move towards knocking down state boundaries regarding coverage is also good, and reflective of present economic conditions.

True on all points.

Again, whats the German system like D?

Relapse wrote:
This speech is a good spring board for research. Any doctor I am acquainted with hates Obamacare just for all the extra paper work it will create, cutting heavily into their time with patients.

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=DRGq5ZSJ3Ys

There already is a ton of paperwork they have to do, mandated by their industry and insurance companies. So hire another staff member to work on paperwork and get back to work. Why is this so hard?

Because its not that easy?

Relapse wrote:
Any doctor I am acquainted with hates Obamacare just for all the extra paper work it will create, cutting heavily into their tee times....

Fixed that.

Doctors like to make every process as difficult as possible as concerns paperwork, etc. so it is hard to feel sympathy for them.

Ever tried to get medical forms for your kids for shool/sports/etc.?

A form that takes five minutes to fill out or a record that could be scanned in about a minute requires you wait weeks as they consult an astrological chart to determine when and if they should fill it out for you...

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Instead we want to throw away the baby with the bath water.

I'm fine with that. I had hoped Obamacare would have ignited a general push for healthcare reform, but it seems that hasn't been the case.

It does have some good provisions, though:

The pre-existing change is good, and an excellent way of convincing insurance companies to endorse a single-payer system.

The change regarding children staying on the policies of their parents until 26 is good, and reflective of economic conditions.

The move towards knocking down state boundaries regarding coverage is also good, and reflective of present economic conditions.

True on all points.

Again, whats the German system like D?

Here is the quick wiki summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Thanks.

And by the way, someone needs to tell her, her name is spelled incorrectly. Bar BAR a...

whembly wrote:
Just go to British model already... that cat is out of the bag.

d-usa wrote:I like the British model, but I also grew up in it.

ShumaGorath wrote:The British system works pretty well too.

Fixed that for you

Maybe i'm being naive, but isn't Obamacare a deliberate "mid-way" between a complete free-for-all, and a more efficient Canadian-style model? Radical change is rare in a democracy, you have to take it in baby steps.

D how does the private system compare to the public system there? We have that here, which is problematic.

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, whats the German system like D?

Its actually much like Obamacare, the primary difference is that mandatory insurance is provided through nonprofit carriers dedicated to that function.

The private system is probably pretty comparable to our "normal" health insurance in the United States. People being able to compare plans and pick the one they want and such. The care delivered is comparable to the public system with some of the differences being that you might have better coverage of alternative and not well-proven therapies. Do keep in mind that it has been forever since I have had personal experience there, although my family that still lives there (grandparents, uncle, brother) are all still on the public system and happy. Back when I still lived there some of the benefits of being a private insurance patients might be getting the private room in the hospital vs. having a room mate, stuff like that.

But a lot of people prefer the public option over the private, but even with the public plans you can still shop around and pick one that you like. They do have slight differences. The public plans are ran in a similar way as the US plans, they have their own board and can offer different benefits as long as the core benefits are covered, AFAIK.

A ton of focus on preventative medicine though, promotion of mid-level providers, etc..

 Frazzled wrote:
D how does the private system compare to the public system there? We have that here, which is problematic.

Technically the system is entirely private, bar things like government employee health plans, but in reality the government funds roughly 85% of healthcare costs by way of taxes. It is actually very close to being single payer.

Truthfully, while I think single payer isn't the most efficient option, it is probably the best option for the US because of political reality.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
D how does the private system compare to the public system there? We have that here, which is problematic.

Technically the system is entirely private, bar things like government employee health plans, but in reality the government funds roughly 85% of healthcare costs by way of taxes. It is actually very close to being single payer.

A simple (and probably too over simplified) way of explaining it might be:

Majority of funding and coverage limits set by Government, with care delivered by the private sector and non-profit hospitals.