Sg3 on 2/7/2012 at 14:28
Quote Posted by henke
Looks like the "Obamacare is a bad thing" side is winning right now honestly, which is a bit disheartening since I kinda like Obama. The whole socialist healthcare thing is working out pretty good for us here in Finland, but maybe it's not the right thing for America?
I'm in favor of socialist healthcare. This Obama thing isn't socialist healthcare. It's even more capitalist than what we already had, and it's gonna leave unemployed and "unofficially handicapped" people like me, completely screwed. What the fuck are they going to do to the people who can't afford the $600, um, charge? Throw us in prison? Wouldn't surprise me at this point. I'm trying to make up my mind whether blowing my brains out or moving to Canada is a better option. [half-smile]
Vivian on 2/7/2012 at 14:43
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're within 400% of the official poverty level don't you get subsidised anyway? Isn't that one of the big new ideas of this thing? That, and making it much more likely that your employer will offer insurance? I mean, it looks like you guys are edging towards the German system. Which works pretty well.
What's 'unofficially handicapped' mean out of interest? And yeah, it does leave the unemployed a little fucked, I guess. It would make sense to tie firmly to your income (German system), but I don't know how they deal with unemployed sick people. England, they get a free pass on everyone else's contributions, same as visitors and other none-contributors, which might piss me off if I was a dickhead.
faetal on 2/7/2012 at 16:20
Healthcare should be socialised because it is the one thing which everyone is guaranteed to need at some point. In the UK it works just fine (or at least did, before our current government rammed a dick up it with the new NHS bill) with tax funded health care, free at the point of service for all with the option to buy health insurance if you want luxury healthcare. Worth noting is that UK health insurance is relatively cheap as things like ambulances, emergency care, blood banks etc.. are provided by the NHS already. Putting a financial gradient on someone's medical treatment is just plain immoral and having a system in place which does so, is essentially the same as saying that profits outweigh people, given the inevitable results.
CCCToad on 2/7/2012 at 17:31
Quote Posted by Vivian
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're within 400% of the official poverty level don't you get subsidised anyway? Isn't that one of the big new ideas of this thing? That, and making it much more likely that your employer will offer insurance? I mean, it looks like you guys are edging towards the German system. Which works pretty well.
Because the German government is running it, not the American one.
Yakoob on 2/7/2012 at 21:11
Quote Posted by henke
Can't wait for this debate to swing back into action again when the DNS server comes back up. Looks like the "Obamacare is a bad thing" side is winning right now honestly, which is a bit disheartening since I kinda like Obama. The whole socialist healthcare thing is working out pretty good for us here in Finland, but maybe it's not the right thing for America?
But here's the point everyone is missing - it's
NOT socialist healthcare, it's
forced emergency-only health insurance, with like a "bonus" free routine health checkup a year. And the definition of "emergency" usually means "after you spend 6000-10000 dollars." So if I have the sniffles, break my arm, or want to consult a doctor on a specific health issue - I am shit out of luck, and will have to foot 100% of the bill :/
THIS is why I am against Obama
CareInsurance. If I am forced to pay for healthcare, fine, but actually GIVE ME healthcare.
Your link PROVES my point dude. Look at it - 7000 deductible? 196 / month premium? Those are NOT low costs for a lot of people, especially on top of California's already pretty high cost of living. And it is true you get some free routine check ups a year, but that's it, routine check ups. If something happens and you actually NEED care, as I said above, you are shit out of luck until you already spend like 10,000
out of your own pocket (between premiums, wait-periods, copays and deductible).
Oh and the $35 / visit copay ? Guess what, if you buy into the government-sponsored Health Saving Account, it goes up to you pay 100%. And lets not forget it also legally requires a "higher-premium plan" on top of that. So the government programs actually
encourage higher cost to to the consumer, BEFORE deductible is met. Look:
Inline Image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/Koobazaur/aetna_plan_comparison.pngThe pic doesn't contain the premium but IIRC the HSA was $130/mo, the non-HSA was $100.
Yes, the plan is BETTER in emergency cases when you speend > 10,000. But before you meet your deductible / out of pocket, it RAPES you with higher deductible, uncovered doctor visits, uncovered prescription drugs, etc.
As I said, that is my beef - it's EMERGENCY INSURANCE, not proper healthcare, and as such I should NOT be forced into it.
My yearly healthcare cost is probably like few 1000s tops, so I would never reach my deductible, and would get no benefit. Why would I want to pay an extra 100/month that goes straight to the insurance company profits? Yes, emergency cases I am not covered for, but if that's what the bill does, lets stop pretending it's universal healthcare. Because it's not.
------------------------
For the record, I am not 100% AGAINST the bill and I do genuinely like aspects such as extended age limit for parent insurance and not-discriminating on pre-exisitng conditions. These things make insurance more accessible.
But while it makes shitty insurance more accessible, it doesn't fix said insurance being shitty, which is the whole problem. If current private healthcare options actually covered healthcare without ridiculous premiums, restrictions or deductibles, we wouldn't even NEED the 2014 mandate.
I keep hearing how this law is supposed to help the "weak" and "poor" who cant afford health insurance, but those are the ones who actually get screwed over the most.
Pyrian on 2/7/2012 at 23:36
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Christ, how hard is this to get???
Well,
you clearly haven't gotten it, yet. :cheeky:
Quote Posted by Vivian
...but it also sounds like it doesn't stop you guys having a ridiculous healthcare system.
True. But fixing the system altogether was rejected - never had a chance.
Quote Posted by Vivian
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're within 400% of the official poverty level don't you get subsidised anyway? Isn't that one of the big new ideas of this thing?
Yeah, you're not
supposed to be able to get into that trap, but there are always cracks when the baseline isn't "everyone". I know some "unofficially disabled" people, and it's just really hard in this country to get out of the trap of being unable to function yet unable to prove that you cannot function, because all of the aid that's intended for those who cannot function is walled off to prevent it from getting into the hands of those who simply
won't function. Which probably doesn't work, or at least people are routinely busted for getting disability benefits while performing high-level athletics or whatnot.
Quote:
As I said, that is my beef - it's EMERGENCY INSURANCE, not proper healthcare, and as such I should NOT be forced into it.
Okay, Yakoob, here's the thing. You. Apparently. Do. Not. Understand. The reasons behind this at all. You are
absolutely correct that it's EMERGENCY INSURANCE, and that's precisely why you're "forced" (er, encouraged, really) to have it.
Nobody really cares about the health care you
can afford. Whether you pay for routine, reasonably affordable care a la carte by yourself, or pay someone else to pay it for you, in the larger scheme it
doesn't matter, nobody really cares. Romneycare/Obamacare isn't
about that stuff, generally speaking.
It
is about EMERGENCY INSURANCE, and while that probably won't benefit you in any given year, there is a certain percentage of people who are essentially just like you who will desperately need it. And if you don't have that EMERGENCY INSURANCE and are not super rich and you
do have an expensive health problem, you literally just cannot afford it, no matter what.
Now, as you are very proudly and very blindly demonstrating, healthy folks don't like to pay for EMERGENCY INSURANCE, the sort of insurance that only covers what you cannot afford, and thus will not kick in normally. But every year, some "healthy" people become not healthy, and in a very expensive way, whether they
believed that they get "NO BENEFIT" from "EMERGENCY INSURANCE" - as you so loudly and repeatedly expounded on - or not.
So, here's the deal.
You don't get to opt out. That's not something Obamacare started, BTW. It's always been the law. You walk into an emergency room, they treat you, that's the law, penniless or whatever. And now we insist that, if you're able to pay for that privilege, you do. And I'm not in the slightest bit sorry or sympathetic. If we're not going to go full-on survival-of-the-fittest and let emergency rooms pitch sick people out if they fail a credit check, then yes, I expect
you to pitch in, in case
you get severely ill and can't afford treatment.
Oh, and yes, it's
very expensive. That's what happens when something increases in cost 10% per year for decades on end. This law is supposed to do a little about
that, too, but we'll see.
Sg3 on 3/7/2012 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Pyrian
and that's precisely why you're "forced" (er, encouraged, really) to have it.
"Encouraged" is a naive way of putting it, even if "forced to have it" isn't accurate either. "Forced to pay for it" is a better way of putting it, because we will be, one way or the other. Or, rather, the poor will be, because the rich already have healthcare. So this fine, or "tax," if you like, is
exclusively for the poor. You support a tax which is, by intention, solely for the poor?
Argh. Another discussion I should have avoided for my sanity's sake. Excuse for sanity, anyway.
Fafhrd on 3/7/2012 at 02:25
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Oh and the $35 / visit copay ? Guess what, if you buy into the government-sponsored Health Saving Account, it goes up to you pay 100%. And lets not forget it also legally requires a "higher-premium plan" on top of that. So the government programs actually
encourage higher cost to to the consumer, BEFORE deductible is met.
Here's a crazy thought:
don't get the HSA. You've already established that it's an option (that being the key word) that's essentially incompatible with your financial situation (and no wonder, since the HSA was established as part of Bush's shit-tastic health care 'reforms'). Get a regular health plan and write off the premiums in your taxes at the end of the year.
Quote:
Yes, the plan is BETTER in emergency cases when you speend > 10,000. But before you meet your deductible / out of pocket, it RAPES you with higher deductible, uncovered doctor visits, uncovered prescription drugs, etc.
Whut? The with HSA deductible is exactly the same (you could even say its $750 less than non-HSA), the after deductible co-pay is 20% lower, the annual out of pocket maximum is ~$1600 less, the prescription drug deductible is integrated with the medical, and the after deductible co-pay is less. Where is your '>10,000' number even coming from?
New Horizon on 3/7/2012 at 13:24
Thanking God every day that I live in Canada.
Sg3 on 3/7/2012 at 17:58
I visited P.E.I. once, with my family, when I was a child. It wasn't a bad place, if a bit chilly. No culture shock at all, either.
