DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> U.S. ObamaCare...
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 992, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/23/2009 11:27:45 PM · #51
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Today, I'm in a similar scenario. College degree, a family of five, and doing "ok". Decent house, job, etc... Do I worry about funding my kids education - yes. Do I worry about retirement - yes. Do I worry about a catastrophic illness - sure. While I can make ends meet, I pay a healthy dose of taxes now, and pay for healthcare insurance, car insurance, etc...do I want to see more $$$ coming out of my paycheck to fund healthcare for everyone? No. It's tight enough now as it is.


Tight for me, too, but I would be willing to pay more taxes for government healthcare. Otherwise, not only do I have to make sure I make money, I have to have a certain kind of job solely so I can get healthcare. It amazes me that conservatives are so stridently in support of a system that strangles entrepeneurs and small businesses, and is a burden to ALL businesses. Why should businesses have to pay for all the healthcare in this country?

You pay taxes to the government. You get services from the government. What's so hard to understand? Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.

Instead let's make the providing of medical services into a profit-making capitalist enterprise! Brilliant! Just like we do for war! We can do it for police, too! Robocop come true!

Anyone who worships one god is a slave, whether that god is Government or the Free Market. Nothing is Free when it is given all the power.
 07/23/2009 11:44:42 PM · #52
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
.....Like the portion of your taxes whicch pay for fire protection? At one time, the fire department only responded to adresses whose owners voluntarily paid into a special fund ... otherwise it was burn baby burn ...


Which fire departments was this?


For the education of those who lack the power of Google. All of them from Phoenicia until Edinburgh Scotland founded the first municipal fire department in 1824, were either paid for by subscription or through bonds, which competing fire fighting companies would fight for, literally. The term "Pug Ugly" originated with bruisers that a fire company would send out to deny a competitor access to a fire hydrant. The private enterprise model was phased out between 1853 ( Cincinnati, Ohio) and 1900 across the United States, in favor of municipally supported firefighters, either volunteers in rural areas, or professionals paid for by your tax dollars.

In the good old days, fire fighting, education, sanitation, sewage, street cleaning was all done by private individuals, or more commonly not done at all. It was decided that some risks were better pooled, and the fear of the socialized state began to haunt the dreams of good men.
 07/23/2009 11:48:44 PM · #53
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems. Just last week, I flew up to Toronto to get a Canadian citizen that had their child's liver transplant done in Atlanta. I had about 4 hours to spend with the mother between ground and FW transport in a little King Air 90. Her insight was wonderful. She said that emergencies are always easy and covered in Canada. The problems come in where there are everyday issues, pain, toothache, headaches, rising liver function tests, etc...where you are placed in line to wait with everyone else. There are very few general practice docs because none of them can make money there after spending nearly a DECADE in school. They all come to the US to practice. If we institute that same socialist system, they will also stop practicing here. I, as a nurse/paramedic, will stop practicing here. With this type of system, you end up with EVERYONE running to the ER and expecting primary care there...exactly like what we have now, only with me paying multiples more for it. Canada's system has left that government near bankruptcy. Why do we think we can institute the same thing here and expect different results? Answer that one legitimately and I'll buy into the idea.
 07/24/2009 12:03:39 AM · #54
Originally posted by pawdrix:
A number of people have mentioned having "their taxes"raised and I was wondering two things, are you guys aware that you will only be taxed if you earn over $250,000 and that will be 1% equaling $2500?

That's not a lot of money and I have trouble breaking out the violins for anyone in that bracket. They'll be fine.


Sugar daddies are nice when handing out the cash. It's that other hand you worry about...
 07/24/2009 12:12:54 AM · #55
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Canada's system has left that government near bankruptcy. Why do we think we can institute the same thing here and expect different results? Answer that one legitimately and I'll buy into the idea.


Canadian debt is currently $21,055 USD per capita, and falling currently. American national debt is currently $27,484 per capita and rising.

The US has 2.4 doctors per 1,000 population. Canada has 2.1 doctors per 1,000 population. Cuba has 5.8 doctors per 1,000 population.

Do any of those facts sway your opinion? I understand that you are inside the system and are probably well cared for by it, but our system has a few good points, and a whole lot of flaws and the flaws are getting bigger every year.

I think we have some of the best medicine in the world, if you are in the system, and the worst medical delivery in the first world, because that great medicine is being delivered to fewer and fewer of our citizenry.
 07/24/2009 12:14:45 AM · #56
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems. Just last week, I flew up to Toronto to get a Canadian citizen that had their child's liver transplant done in Atlanta. I had about 4 hours to spend with the mother between ground and FW transport in a little King Air 90. Her insight was wonderful. She said that emergencies are always easy and covered in Canada. The problems come in where there are everyday issues, pain, toothache, headaches, rising liver function tests, etc...where you are placed in line to wait with everyone else. There are very few general practice docs because none of them can make money there after spending nearly a DECADE in school. They all come to the US to practice. If we institute that same socialist system, they will also stop practicing here. I, as a nurse/paramedic, will stop practicing here. With this type of system, you end up with EVERYONE running to the ER and expecting primary care there...exactly like what we have now, only with me paying multiples more for it. Canada's system has left that government near bankruptcy. Why do we think we can institute the same thing here and expect different results? Answer that one legitimately and I'll buy into the idea.


Ya right. If Canada's government is near bankruptcy, where does that put the US gov't with a debt more than 10 times as large as ours?
 07/24/2009 12:19:51 AM · #57
The last line of this LA Times article is one of the better Obama quotes so far.
LA Times Health Care Bill Article
 07/24/2009 12:25:13 AM · #58
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems.


I'll gladly trade for Canada's problems.
 07/24/2009 02:02:30 AM · #59
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Don't you also pay additional income taxes to fund healthcare?

This was the info available on Wikipedia:

Health and Prescription Insurance Tax
Ontario charges a tax on income for the health system. These amounts are collected through the income tax system, and do not determine eligibility for public health care. The Ontario Health Premium is an additional amount charged on an individual's income tax that ranges from $300 for people with $20,000 of taxable income to $900 for high income earners. Individuals with less than $20,000 in taxable income are exempt.

Quebec also requires residents to obtain prescription insurance. When an individual does not have insurance, they must pay an income-derived premium. As these are income related, they are considered to be a tax on income under the law in Canada.

Other provinces, such as British Columbia, charge premiums collected outside of the tax system for the provincial medicare systems. These are usually reduced or eliminated for low-income people.

Alberta does not levy any taxes or premiums for its provincial medicare [1].


No, we're charged the premiums I quoted instead of the costs being included in taxes, not as well as.
I should add, though, that basic medical doesn't cover dental. It used to cover 12 physiotherapy visits a year but now only does if it's done at the hospital and used to cover 12 chiropractor visits a year but doesn't any longer, thanks to our capitalist premier, Gordon Campbell.

Our system is far from perfect. Wait times to see a specialist or to have elective surgery ARE long, but I just can't imagine what it must be like to be suffering, not know if it's something life-threatening, and have the extra stress of having to decide if your budget can possibly stretch to cover doctor's visits for diagnosis and treatment.

Message edited by author 2009-07-24 02:06:54.
 07/24/2009 03:55:04 AM · #60
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems.


I'll gladly trade for Canada's problems.


It's such a short ride.
 07/24/2009 09:58:44 AM · #61
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems.


I'll gladly trade for Canada's problems.


It's such a short ride.


There's a typical response. "Don't like it? Get out muh country!" rolls eyes
 07/24/2009 09:58:56 AM · #62
I'm currently out of pocket $6500 for medical care this year. Using the absolute greatest numbers being tossed about here ($96 per month, plus the $900 annual tax, plus an increase in my taxes of $2500), using Canada's system i would be out of pocket at most $4552. And i wouldn't have an insurance company that is going back 3 months and trying to change their own approval so that i have to be out of pocket even more (once i hit my max, they went back and decided i didn't have pre-approval for my surgery, even though they had accepted all the claims as long as *I* was the one paying for them).
 07/24/2009 10:05:17 AM · #63
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems.


I'll gladly trade for Canada's problems.


It's such a short ride.


There's a typical response. "Don't like it? Get out muh country!" rolls eyes


What would be the proper response to someone who'd rather have the government and issues of another country?
 07/24/2009 10:07:07 AM · #64
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'm currently out of pocket $6500 for medical care this year. Using the absolute greatest numbers being tossed about here ($96 per month, plus the $900 annual tax, plus an increase in my taxes of $2500), using Canada's system i would be out of pocket at most $4552. And i wouldn't have an insurance company that is going back 3 months and trying to change their own approval so that i have to be out of pocket even more (once i hit my max, they went back and decided i didn't have pre-approval for my surgery, even though they had accepted all the claims as long as *I* was the one paying for them).


The problem is that you'd still be out of pocket AND waiting in line to have done all the things that you already have. Wow, that would be better.
 07/24/2009 10:23:10 AM · #65
I'm curious as to how many people here have actually had to pay their own insurance instead of having some sort of assistance through employers.

When I closed my business in the beginning of 2004 and was paying for al;l of the medical insurance for myself, my wife, and my daughter, I was paying over $10,000 a year, and I had *NO* dental, optical, or prescription drug plans.

I now have insurance through my wife who works for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and things are MUCH different.

Somehow, I just don't see Obama's ideas being bad.
 07/24/2009 10:36:16 AM · #66
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'm currently out of pocket $6500 for medical care this year. Using the absolute greatest numbers being tossed about here ($96 per month, plus the $900 annual tax, plus an increase in my taxes of $2500), using Canada's system i would be out of pocket at most $4552. And i wouldn't have an insurance company that is going back 3 months and trying to change their own approval so that i have to be out of pocket even more (once i hit my max, they went back and decided i didn't have pre-approval for my surgery, even though they had accepted all the claims as long as *I* was the one paying for them).


The problem is that you'd still be out of pocket AND waiting in line to have done all the things that you already have. Wow, that would be better.


My problem is in a few months I'll have no line to wait in...unless I go to an emergency room BUT it'll have to be an emergency to get served.

So, unless I get that 24 Hour Cancer emergency thing, I'm screwed...right.

Keep in mind even with good plans that I was able to pay out-of-pocket they have now been chiseled away to to the point where they cover nothing at a very high rate.

Like posthumous, I never minded paying taxes for services...road maintenance, schools, military defense, clean water etc.

I look at it this way, taking care of our fellow man is one of the few things that sets us aside from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Perhaps, we're not that far apart or as advanced as we think...?

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'm curious as to how many people here have actually had to pay their own insurance instead of having some sort of assistance through employers.

Somehow, I just don't see Obama's ideas being bad.


Last month I was fully covered under a great plan for around $150 a month (maybe less) and even then I didn't mind paying extra in taxes if it helped other people out. Now I'm on my own and it scares the shit out of me.

I like the ideas he's put forth so far but of course, they need polish. It's complex so I hope they take time to get it right or as right as right can be. If the politicians who have been taking fat money from drug companies, insurance companies, pacs etc. screw the plan it will be a shame. There advertising blitz has been misleading according to the fact checking organizations and typical fear tactics that too many Americans fall for.

Too many people want the President to fail. They just don't like him and it seems like they'll take down anything and everything just to screw him. Debate is great but this is pure politics, of the worst kind. If you watch 10 minutes of FOX you'll barely find a pundit who thinks Obama can even brush his teeth right.

Message edited by author 2009-07-24 10:52:38.
 07/24/2009 10:55:06 AM · #67
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Let's eliminate health insurance altogether. Nah, too sensible. It'll never happen.


Then you end up with Canada's problems.


I'll gladly trade for Canada's problems.


It's such a short ride.


Your timing is off. A couple years ago, you might have talked me into it, but now I've got a president who's smart and gives a damn about somebody outside of his own frat house. I want to see what he can do.
 07/24/2009 10:57:52 AM · #68
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by shamrock:
I'm currently out of pocket $6500 for medical care this year. Using the absolute greatest numbers being tossed about here ($96 per month, plus the $900 annual tax, plus an increase in my taxes of $2500), using Canada's system i would be out of pocket at most $4552. And i wouldn't have an insurance company that is going back 3 months and trying to change their own approval so that i have to be out of pocket even more (once i hit my max, they went back and decided i didn't have pre-approval for my surgery, even though they had accepted all the claims as long as *I* was the one paying for them).


The problem is that you'd still be out of pocket AND waiting in line to have done all the things that you already have. Wow, that would be better.


If you can afford the current out of pocket costs. Great. You're probably in a minority. Noone should have to consider a choice between getting medical help or having shelter or having any other necessity of life.

If you think noone get's turned away for not having a means to pay then I think you're fooling yourself. Sure, a hospital will accept you if you have no insurance but will think twice if you have no other means of paying the bill. The hospital is there to make a profit.
07/24/2009 02:39:19 PM · #69
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Do I worry about a catastrophic illness - sure. While I can make ends meet, I pay a healthy dose of taxes now, and pay for healthcare insurance, car insurance, etc...do I want to see more $$$ coming out of my paycheck to fund healthcare for everyone? No. It's tight enough now as it is.


The problem is you are paying a insurance company for your health care insurance. The only purpose of a company is to get as much money in as possible and as less possible out. They will do anything not to pay you, they will try to find the tinyest loophole saying they don't have to pay you. You pay a lot every month and will get practically nothing out of it. If you earn enough to be among those who will be taxed under Obama's system, it will probably be around the same amount as you are paying today, so no more money will be coming out of your pocket.

Message edited by author 2009-07-24 14:40:09.
 07/24/2009 02:57:17 PM · #70
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Do I worry about a catastrophic illness - sure. While I can make ends meet, I pay a healthy dose of taxes now, and pay for healthcare insurance, car insurance, etc...do I want to see more $$$ coming out of my paycheck to fund healthcare for everyone? No. It's tight enough now as it is.

The problem is you are paying a insurance company for your health care insurance. The only purpose of a company is to get as much money in as possible and as less possible out. They will do anything not to pay you, they will try to find the tinyest loophole saying they don't have to pay you. You pay a lot every month and will get practically nothing out of it. If you earn enough to be among those who will be taxed under Obama's system, it will probably be around the same amount as you are paying today, so no more money will be coming out of your pocket.

What you say about the cost may be true, but what about coverage and services available/provided under a government run program? For example, I had sinus surgery a couple years ago. It wasn't "life threatening", but certainly made life miserable. The total cost of this procedure (for all parties involved - doctor, hospital, anesthesiologist, etc...) came to over $25,000. I paid out-of-pocket around $2000. Would this even be available under a government run program?

This brings up another point. Consider that I was in the hospital for about 2 hours for this procedure, and then released shortly thereafter (outpatient procedure). For this the cost was $25,000?! I think there's more broken with our healthcare scenario than just getting coverage to everyone. How in the world can we get costs' in line to something reasonable? Are doctors going to work for less? If yes, then will we see a decline in the number of people entering the medical field? In many cases we're already short of skilled professionals...
07/24/2009 03:26:38 PM · #71
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Too many people want the President to fail. They just don't like him and it seems like they'll take down anything and everything just to screw him. Debate is great but this is pure politics, of the worst kind. If you watch 10 minutes of FOX you'll barely find a pundit who thinks Obama can even brush his teeth right.

Agreed. It's astounding that there are still people who question Obama's citizenship even after it's been repeatedly proven. Likewise the people who sow fears about the dangers of hosting Gitmo prisoners in the U.S. when Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Ted Kaczynski, Jose Padilla, Ramzi Yousef, Tim McVeigh and others are already here. Duh. Continuing on with such claims only makes these people look completely clueless and gullible, believing only shock jocks and bloggers. It's more of a cult than a political group, and it's spilling over into the healthcare debate. The U.S. spends FAR more per person than any other country in the world, yet lags way behind in quality of coverage and overall health. You'd have to be completely clueless and gullible (see above) to believe the current system is working. There are obviously dozens of countries who have figured out healthcare systems that cost much less, yet haven't resulted in industry collapse.
 07/24/2009 03:36:18 PM · #72
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Too many people want the President to fail. They just don't like him and it seems like they'll take down anything and everything just to screw him. Debate is great but this is pure politics, of the worst kind. If you watch 10 minutes of FOX you'll barely find a pundit who thinks Obama can even brush his teeth right.

Agreed. It's astounding that there are still people who question Obama's citizenship even after it's been repeatedly proven. Likewise the people who sow fears about the dangers of hosting Gitmo prisoners in the U.S. when Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Ted Kaczynski, Jose Padilla, Ramzi Yousef, Tim McVeigh and others are already here. Duh. Continuing on with such claims only makes these people look completely clueless and gullible, believing only shock jocks and bloggers. It's more of a cult than a political group, and it's spilling over into the healthcare debate. The U.S. spends FAR more per person than any other country in the world, yet lags way behind in quality of coverage and overall health. You'd have to be completely clueless and gullible (see above) to believe the current system is working. There are obviously dozens of countries who have figured out healthcare systems that cost much less, yet haven't resulted in industry collapse.

In both of your posts, replace Obama with Bush and every example with "Bush orchestrated 9-11", "Bush stole the election" and all the other nonsensical rantings that went on for 8 years and you can see who the clueless and gullible were then. Nothing changes. The socio-political pendulum just swings to the other side and as long as people participate in the partisan bickering instead of debating issues on their own merits or faults, we will all continue to be gullible, clueless tools.

*going back to work on planning my escape from the handbasket*
 07/24/2009 03:43:44 PM · #73
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Do I worry about a catastrophic illness - sure. While I can make ends meet, I pay a healthy dose of taxes now, and pay for healthcare insurance, car insurance, etc...do I want to see more $$$ coming out of my paycheck to fund healthcare for everyone? No. It's tight enough now as it is.

The problem is you are paying a insurance company for your health care insurance. The only purpose of a company is to get as much money in as possible and as less possible out. They will do anything not to pay you, they will try to find the tinyest loophole saying they don't have to pay you. You pay a lot every month and will get practically nothing out of it. If you earn enough to be among those who will be taxed under Obama's system, it will probably be around the same amount as you are paying today, so no more money will be coming out of your pocket.

What you say about the cost may be true, but what about coverage and services available/provided under a government run program? For example, I had sinus surgery a couple years ago. It wasn't "life threatening", but certainly made life miserable. The total cost of this procedure (for all parties involved - doctor, hospital, anesthesiologist, etc...) came to over $25,000. I paid out-of-pocket around $2000. Would this even be available under a government run program?

This brings up another point. Consider that I was in the hospital for about 2 hours for this procedure, and then released shortly thereafter (outpatient procedure). For this the cost was $25,000?! I think there's more broken with our healthcare scenario than just getting coverage to everyone. How in the world can we get costs' in line to something reasonable? Are doctors going to work for less? If yes, then will we see a decline in the number of people entering the medical field? In many cases we're already short of skilled professionals...


Don't worry about our doctors financial health... they are doing VERY well! (the reason they wash their hands so much is beacause they don't want to dirty their Audis and Porches)

There is a line to what's covered and what's not. It doesn't only covers lif threatning stuff, but "annoying stuff" too.

For example, reconstructive surgery is, breast implants, not. But then again, I remember a case where a girl managed to get her implants covered by having a psy arguing that it was a critical need to her self-esteem.... so yeah!
 07/24/2009 03:54:49 PM · #74
Originally posted by glad2badad:

This brings up another point. Consider that I was in the hospital for about 2 hours for this procedure, and then released shortly thereafter (outpatient procedure). For this the cost was $25,000?! I think there's more broken with our healthcare scenario than just getting coverage to everyone. How in the world can we get costs' in line to something reasonable? Are doctors going to work for less? If yes, then will we see a decline in the number of people entering the medical field? In many cases we're already short of skilled professionals...


The idea of extending coverage to everyone is laudable, but to my mind a secondary effect. Creating a government option to put pressure on the for profit insurance companies is another. If you have ever been to a hospital in a single payer country you would see where the savings come from. At my hospital after being looked at, I have to be wheeled from place to place, though I was capable of walking, which mean waiting for the transport team to arrive, ect. I assume the policy is based on fear of law suits. In Denmark I came in with a broken hand, saw a doctor who was walking around the emergency waiting room making diagnoses, was told to walk to radiology, and walk back with my films. I was sent back to emergency where the same doctor splinted the break. 35 minuets in and out, no paperwork, no fuss no wasted anything.

As far as doctor salaries, yes, doctors will probably make less, but outside certain specialties they will probably take home about the same. A friend runs a small hospital in Alemeda, California. He has to fund an entire department to fill out different required paperwork for different insurance carriers, ensure that the required tests are carried out before a procedure is undertaken, ect. That might save about 8% of total hospital costs if that was streamlined or eliminated. Time savings of the doctor and reduction of medical malpractice suits would be another cost savings. Kaiser Permanente, a California based HMO pays their doctors less than the going rate. Doctors still compete to work there because they are overseen by doctors, not accountants, they cover malpractice in house through self insurance, and basically allow doctors to simply practice medicine. Some single payer systems have fewer doctors per thousand population than the United States, but most have more than the 2.4 doctors per 1,000 we have.

Did you know that we spend more money as a country to try to convince doctors to prescribe one pill over another (weekend "seminars" on golf courses for big prescribers, notepads, pens, samples literature and office visits by attractive representatives) than we spend educating doctors? The bloated money soaked environment that surrounds the average hospital gets in the way of the doctor's ability to see his patients more often than it helps. All of these pointless costs are what make for $25,000 2 hour surgeries, $18 charges for a single aspirin.

07/24/2009 04:50:29 PM · #75
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A friend runs a small hospital in Alemeda, California. He has to fund an entire department to fill out different required paperwork for different insurance carriers, ensure that the required tests are carried out before a procedure is undertaken, ect.

My famil doctor is a personal friend as well, so he'll occasionally sound off about some of the grief he has to go through in having a family practice. He says that his office has to be able to sort through the various forms and operating policies of over.....are you ready?

600 Different insurance companies!!!!!

How much does that suck?????
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:16:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:16:47 AM EDT.