Obamacare a glimpse in the future

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I absolutely agree that someone should have ownership of their health issues if they are ignorant in eating, drinking or smoking habits. That is why I find it so ironic when Michelle Obama takes so much grief for her efforts to promote healthy eating, exercise and educating youth ( and sadly, parents) about these topics. It DOES piss me off when I see a 300 lb person in a motorized scooter puffing on a cig knowing that I very likely could be funding some part of their healthcare down the road down the road. But I'm not quite at the "let 'em die" phase yet

But we are at the, "start to pay for your own healthcare so we no longer have to" stage with the PPACA, and that's a good thing.

Yes, the attacks on Michelle Obama for trying to get kids to eat right and exercise are beyond absurd and silly. It would be like attacking Lady Bird Johnson for environmental issues, or Nancy Reagan for trying to eliminate drug abuse.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

But we are at the, "start to pay for your own healthcare so we no longer have to" stage with the PPACA, and that's a good thing.

Yes, the attacks on Michelle Obama for trying to get kids to eat right and exercise are beyond absurd and silly. It would be like attacking Lady Bird Johnson for environmental issues, or Nancy Reagan for trying to eliminate drug abuse.

I agree that it is society's responsibility to educate folks on healthy living, with more exercise and balanced diets we could virtually eliminate obesity (except for genetic and physiological causes), if folks stopped smoking and drank only in moderation, refrained from using addictive drugs, health care costs would drop drastically...these are goals and hopefully over time we can actually reach most...but, a moral society cannot legislate who deserves medical care and who does not based on lifestyle. We cannot adopt the concept that we can judge one life worthy and one not, when folks need help. we should help them not because they deserve it but because they need it!

[dellinger63]

we have 7 times their population and we're going to somehow handle the influx of newly insured patients many of who are subsidized by presently insured patients? Don't think so and this is a catastrophe in the planning. 18 weeks times 7 is just over a year but thank god Egypt and Pakisan are getting aid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...g-times-longer

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

we have 7 times their population and we're going to somehow handle the influx of newly insured patients many of who are subsidized by presently insured patients?

It's a shame that, months after this law was passed, you still have apparently deliberately not bothered to learn what it actually contains, in favor of made up assumptions.

First, the statement above is false. The majority of patients won't be "subsidized" by anyone but their own money. They will no longer be subsided by you and I, as they are right now.

Is this really too hard for you to understand? That private patients will be purchasing health insurance from private insurance companies? And getting health care from whatever private doctors those insurance companies allow, just like now?

Secondly, the population of other countries has nothing to do with our population, or our doctor-patient ratios.

Third, those "newly insured patients" are currently getting health care in our ER's. It will be nice to both get them off my (and your) dime, and get them out of the ER.

Fourth, if we need more internists, we will make them. That isn't very difficult.

Fifth, are you really making the argument that people shouldn't be able to purchase their own health insurance and get health care in this country, because we have a limit on how much health care we will give in this country? And once we reach some quota, everyone else is shine out of luck? What is that limit? Who set it? It's an absurdly silly argument.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

First, the statement above is false. The majority of patients won't be "subsidized" by anyone but their own money. They will no longer be subsided by you and I.

Secondly, the population of other countries has nothing to do with our population, or our doctor-patient ratios.

Third, those "newly insured patients" are currently getting health care in our ER's. It will be nice to both get them off my (and your) dime, and get them out of the ER.

Fourth, if we need more internists, we will make them. That isn't very difficult.

Fifth, you are making the argument that people shouldn't be able to purchase their own health insurance because we have a limit on how much health care we will give in this country? And once we reach the quota, everyone else is shine out of luck? What is that limit? Who set it? It's an absurdly silly argument.

No one statement, take subsidies out of it and get it done. Unhealthy people pay more for health insurance as risky drivers do for car insurance. My premiums aren't inflated for teen age drivers on my auto insurance and my health insurance shouldn't be inflated for riskier patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OId8ByO4jg

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

No one statement, take subsidies out of it and get it done. Unhealthy people pay more for health insurance as risky drivers do for car insurance. My premiums aren't inflated for teen age drivers on my auto insurance and my health insurance shouldn't be inflated for riskier patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OId8ByO4jg

Your health insurance is inflated now for the riskier patients, and for people with no insurance getting treatment. You are paying for that right now, and always have been.

Wouldn't it be nice to stop doing that? I'm all for it. You want to keep paying for people with no insurance, go right ahead.

What will happen when your insurance company carries a few million more healthy people? Your rates will go down. What will happen when sick people buy insurance? They will pay more than well people. Like now.

Your assumption that all the 40 million who are currently uninsured in this country are riskier or sicker than you has no basis in reality.

[Nascar1966]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your health insurance is inflated now for the riskier patients, and for people with no insurance getting treatment. You are paying for that right now, and always have been.

Wouldn't it be nice to stop doing that? I'm all for it. You want to keep paying for people with no insurance, go right ahead.

What will happen when your insurance company carries a few million more healthy people? Your rates will go down. What will happen when sick people buy insurance? They will pay more than well people. Like now.

Your assumption that all the 40 million who are currently uninsured in this country are riskier or sicker than you has no basis in reality.

I don't know about you but my tax paying money shouldn't have to go to give someone a free ride.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your health insurance is inflated now for the riskier patients, and for people with no insurance getting treatment. You are paying for that right now, and always have been.

Wouldn't it be nice to stop doing that? I'm all for it. You want to keep paying for people with no insurance, go right ahead.

What will happen when your insurance company carries a few million more healthy people? Your rates will go down. What will happen when sick people buy insurance? They will pay more than well people. Like now.

Your assumption that all the 40 million who are currently uninsured in this country are riskier or sicker than you has no basis in reality.

Again I'm fine with where I am now though on anticipation of Obamacare my premiums have gone up almost 15%.

Why not form some sort of private co-op health care system where everyone pitches in according to what their able to pay and nothing else. See how that works. Put a grocery and apartment complex nearby with the same business plan and show us republicans how great that life is.