Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act PPACA aka Obamacare

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

against it 100%! Personal choice and personal responsibility should rain supreme!

Apparently through the "general welfare" clause means whatever the fuck the politicians can dream up. Why do we even have a constitution? What happened to personal responsibility?

lbj?

[Uncle Punk]

now how about seat belts?

That's easy for me, I hate the law. I wear mine not to comply but because I want to, like most traffic laws I will violate them if they don't meet my needs.

I can't understand how you can have a seat belt law and allow motorcycles on the road at all let alone without helmets. I'm thankful that it is that way but don't get the freedom of one and the over moderation of the other.

[Tpoppa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

[Uncle Punk]

This is from the other thread. Casper didn't want the front page littered with political talk so I am respecting his wishes.

The only reason you guys are arguing about this is because large corporations have put millions of dollars into advertising to make this seem like a bad idea. Why? Because they are not interested in making life better for the common man. They are only interested in protecting their profits. And you ask "what's so wrong with that it's capitalism right?". I don't want for profit healthcare any more than I want for profit prisons. It's not a good thing.

I'm all for establishing private hospitals that can sell a membership for their services or actually sell their services. If they can run, test, treat and limit their liability without interference from the government. The government will not allow it though; they have created the healthcare cost mess and want to be the savior so they can have control. Some amount of tort reform support from them would have eased the quick cost rise of healthcare.

[cg2112]

so what if health care was actually "taken over" instead of this compromise?

Would you be in favor of the government purchasing all of the hospitals and running them like they run the police and fire stations?

I would. But I'm pretty far left when it comes to health care.

All of the industrialized nations that have better health care than us have some sort of universal/single-payer system, and they all spend less than us.

In fact, we're the only industrialized nations without universal health care, yet we spend more than anyone else in the world, by far.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I would. But I'm pretty far left when it comes to health care.

All of the industrialized nations that have better health care than us have some sort of universal/single-payer system, and they all spend less than us.

In fact, we're the only industrialized nations without universal health care, yet we spend more than anyone else in the world, by far.

And we use more advanced tech. then anyone else in the world.

[Disclaimer]

And we use more advanced tech. then anyone else in the world.

We do?

The first heart transplant was in South Africa, btw.

[smashweights]

I would. But I'm pretty far left when it comes to health care.

All of the industrialized nations that have better health care than us have some sort of universal/single-payer system, and they all spend less than us.

In fact, we're the only industrialized nations without universal health care, yet we spend more than anyone else in the world, by far.

I still think this point is irrelevant. Our lack of health is based on poor primary health habits: diet, exercise, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.

It's a fallacy to try to apply the economic concept of "you get what you pay for" here, ie: pay more get better health. Spending more doesn't equate to better health because better health primarily comes from non-medical interventions. IMO, spending more comes as the result of our poor health, not an indicator that we are somehow wasting our money. In other words, if we swapped the population of these other industrialized nations with representative people from America who maintained the same health habits, their systems would look terrible too.

If someone pays $xxx to go to your primary doc and smoke and eat fast food on a regular basis but don't follow the "stop smoking and eating shit" recommendation, that's not the system's fault. With freedom comes responsibility, but we tend to want one without the other.

BUT the good news is we can always just elect Bloomberg president and let him regulate what we can eat like he's starting to do in NYC.

Edited June 29, 2012 by smashweights

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I read it the other day that the machines we use for diagnosis and treatments are what put us over the top in health care cost.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I still think this point is irrelevant. Our lack of health is based on poor primary health habits: diet, exercise, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.

It's a fallacy to try to apply the economic concept of "you get what you pay for" here, ie: pay more get better health. Spending more doesn't equate to better health because better health primarily comes from non-medical interventions. IMO, spending more comes as the result of our poor health, not an indicator that we are somehow wasting our money.

If someone pays $xxx to go to your primary doc and smoke and eat fast food on a regular basis but don't follow the "stop smoking and eating shit" recommendation, that's not the system's fault. BUT we can always just elect Bloomberg president and let him regulate what we can eat like he's starting to do in NYC.

True story. When I was in college a lady had gastric bypass or gastric band surgery for her obesity right before classes started for the year. We would have pot lucks and this lady would still out eat everyone, then bitch that the surgery didn't work because she hadn't lost her muffin top.

[cg2112]

I read it the other day that the machines we use for diagnosis and treatments are what put us over the top in health care cost.

That would be nice. But are high health care costs are largely due to advertising and overhead.

Our lack of overall health can be attributed to lifestyle, for sure. But when you look at the rising costs of health care, it's hard to blame those costs on smoking and McDonalds. People smoke less than they used to 15 years ago, not more, and we're becoming better educated about nutrition and exercise. Heart disease, for instance, is on a dramatic decline. Meanwhile, the cost of health care has gone up like 150% over the last 10 years.

Our technology is not the most advanced in the world, not across the board. Much of our technology is imported. Our ability to fight HIV, for instance, largely comes from Canada, as does our knowledge of heart health, diabetes, etc. Canada, in fact, has historically has a disproportionately large number of medical breakthroughs and discoveries, despite spending far less than the US for health care.

And please, before someone says "But Canadian health care sucks!" you'll be hard pressed to find a large number of Canadians making this complaint. Sean Hannity and G Gordon Liddy aren't Canadian, despite their vast knowledge and always 100% honest account of Canadian health care.

[magley64]

Penny Pinchers:

latest CBO release estimates that Obamacare REDUCES deficit, and that the deficit would be increased substantially by repealing it...

http://www.examiner.com/article/cbo-confirms-killing-obamacare-will-blow-up-the-deficit-by-109-billion

Mitt Romney has claimed that killing Obamacare will cut the deficit. He also says he will not cut military spending and will increase the Bush tax cuts for everybody, forever. Sometime between now and the election, Mr. Romney will have to come up with a clear explanation of how increasing spending by killing Obamacare with no cuts to the defense budget while bringing in less in revenues will cut the deficit. Spending more while taking in less will make the deficit larger, not smaller.

We eagerly await the details of Mr. Romney's plan, which we can only assume he will reveal as soon as he comes up with one.

oh snap

Edited July 25, 2012 by magley64

[Uncle Punk]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-to-employers-obamacare-has-4b-more-in-taxes-than-expected/article/2503013

[magley64]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/8-biggest-mix-ups-about-health-care-reform.html

1) Mandate muddle

Fiction: Everyone must purchase health insurance beginning in 2014, no exceptions.

Fact: While most uninsured Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty (or tax, if you like) beginning in 2014, several groups are exempt from the so-called individual mandate.

2) Misplaced worker apathy

Fiction: If you're insured through your employer, health care reform won't affect you.

Fact: On the contrary, many new consumer protections under the Affordable Care Act are already benefiting people with job-based health insurance.

3) New government insurance?

Fiction: The Affordable Care Act creates a new government-run insurance plan.

Fact: The health care reform law includes no such provision.

4) Business befuddlement

Fiction: All businesses will be required to provide employee health insurance.

Fact: The Affordable Care Act does not require employers to provide health coverage.

5) Immigrant inaccuracy

Fiction: Undocumented immigrants will receive federal aid to purchase health insurance.

Fact: Undocumented immigrants are excluded from health care reform.

6) 'Death panels' notion lives on

Fiction: Health reform creates a "death panel" to make decisions about end-of-life care for seniors.

Fact: Early drafts of health care reform would have allowed Medicare to reimburse physicians for time spent talking with older patients about advance care planning. But these provisions were eliminated in subsequent revisions.

7) Medicare scare

Fiction: Health care reform will reduce Medicare benefits to all seniors.

Fact: Traditional Medicare benefits will be unaffected by the law, and some seniors will even enjoy better coverage.

8) States on the sidelines?

Fiction: States that don't set up health exchanges will be exempt from the Affordable Care Act.

Fact: If states fail to establish a health exchange, the federal government will set up and run one for them.

Edited August 1, 2012 by magley64

[Disclaimer]

#8 is the funny one, only because many of the Republican governors' rhetoric about "I don't like it so I'm not doing it" are going to lose their own states' right to setup and run their own to the federal gov't.

States rights lost because GOP governors want to pick up their ball and go home.

[Uncle Punk]

#4

No coverage, pay a fine (Tax)

[magley64]

Actually, #4 is expected to impact .2% of businesses, meaning it will not have any bearing on 99.8% either because they are too small, or because they already comply...Legally

Now as for those which are too small to be required to comply legally, this exchange program is designed to help them to be able to afford it easier should they choose to offer it anyway as an encouragement...

the rest of the text under #4:

However, it does impose a penalty on larger employers that either do not offer a plan or offer unaffordable coverage.

"The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees -- 96 percent of all firms in the United States, or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms -- from any employer responsibility requirements," says Chiglinsky. "More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements."

The health care law features a variety of incentives meant to encourage small businesses to insure their employees, including tax credits and access to more affordable plans through new Small Business Health Options Programs, or SHOPs, that will be part of the state insurance exchanges.

The SHOPs will give small businesses "the clout that big businesses already enjoy when purchasing insurance," Chiglinsky adds.

Edited August 1, 2012 by magley64