Obamacare decision

[Kevan]

Ok, I'm out. All I wanted to do was inject some facts and equanimity into the discussion to counter some of the hyperbole I'm seeing. I believe I've done that, so by all means, carry on guys.

[jmorris]

Agreed. I believe I've probably said enough as well. Good talking with some of you!

[Dalejr]

Canadian Health Care sucks but I guess it's better than needing to have a medical insurance policy to go to the doctors...

[Jporco]

Anyone have art's address? I have a few bills to send.....

[jd_1138]

Canadian Health Care sucks but I guess it's better than needing to have a medical insurance policy to go to the doctors...

Do you have to wait a long time to see your Dr.? I hear both good and bad things about Canadian healthcare. I think I've heard more good things than bad things, though. A simple office visit in the states doesn't require insurance. Like my Dr. for example only charges like $50 for an office visit if you don't have insurance, and he contracts with a place to process his patients' blood work/labs for a cheap price -- $30 or so. He's a D.O. and is sort of hippy like in wanting to take care of his patients. And he usually squeezes you in on the same day without an appointment, if you are sick.

And if you are low income and without insurance, a lot of hospitals have programs to give you free healthcare and surgeries. They can't turn you away if you are sick. But the new Healthcare Reform seems to fill in some holes, so people (even with pre-existing conditions) can get covered ahead of time and not be in the dark and wondering what will happen if they get sick.

[whavens]

Relax Tom, they'll print more. Interesting that Obama was so adamant when he was interviewed by George Stephenopolous that this is NOT a tax, then Roberts uses the justification that Congress has unlimited power to tax us.

Sums it up very nicely. It's beyond me how anyone can be excited about another huge government program that there is simply no money to pay for it with.

[Duckster]

Anyone have art's address? I have a few bills to send.....

Just write "King Art" on the envelope. The post office will have it in his mailbox within 24 hours.

[whavens]

The only result would be half the population suing the other half.

Reminds me of the town that was too small for a single lawyer to make a living, but was plenty big enough for two.

[whavens]

buying more of something (increasing demand) actually increases the price, not decreases it, whether you are in the USA, China, Brazil, or Thailand.

Actually it only increases the price if consumers want to buy more of it. If suppliers buy more of it it decreases the price. For example if I buy a million pounds of dog droppings I have only increased the supply, I am guessing I won't have many buyers, because I didn't increase the demand at all. And if someone had two million pounds of it to sell and I wanted half of his stock, his cost to move half of his inventory went way down, hence my cost per pound would be less than if he had to sell it to 1,000 people that only wanted to buy 10 pounds apiece.

[scottish steve]

Impressively long and civil thread on this issue. I think everyone knows/can guess what I think, so I'll leave it at that.

[jd_1138]

Relax Tom, they'll print more. Interesting that Obama was so adamant when he was interviewed by George Stephenopolous that this is NOT a tax, then Roberts uses the justification that Congress has unlimited power to tax us.

It's largely semantics. Part of the role of a major case's decision is to educate people on the finer points of the law and to clarify terms. If the elected reps were calling it "not a tax" but Roberts saw it as being a tax, his role is to rule as such and not overturn laws based on semantics. I have been seeing this as simply a rise in taxes for months. The only difference is that you know exactly where this tax money is going. It's Constitutional to impose a blanket tax on peoples' incomes (IRS), and then let the politicians decide how to spend it, so why would simply telling you ahead of time where this particular tax money is going make it LESS Constitutional? If anything, telling you where the money is going seems to be more Constitutional (more due process?).

[whavens]

The problem was that they didn't tell us what it was or where it was going. As Pelosi said we need to pass it to see what is in it. This was passed in such a way as to make it unsavory. Rammed down our throats without a chance for those voting on it to even read it prior to the vote. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to vote on legislation they haven't fully read and have a thorough understanding of. Politics in this country is going down the tubes, on both sides. No one cares what their constituents think, just what their special interests think. We are becoming an example of how bad democracy can become.

It's largely semantics. Part of the role of a major case's decision is to educate people on the finer points of the law and to clarify terms. If the elected reps were calling it "not a tax" but Roberts saw it as being a tax, his role is to rule as such and not overturn laws based on semantics. I have been seeing this as simply a rise in taxes for months. The only difference is that you know exactly where this tax money is going. It's Constitutional to impose a blanket tax on peoples' incomes (IRS), and then let the politicians decide how to spend it, so why would simply telling you ahead of time where this particular tax money is going make it LESS Constitutional? If anything, telling you where the money is going seems to be more Constitutional (more due process?).

[Taylor of Bank Street]

Some observations...

Do you have to wait a long time to see your Dr.?

That depends. If I roll into emerg with something immediately life threatening I would get seen as fast as humanly possible. There would be no need to be fishing through my wallet for cards, documents etc before full, immediate treatment began. If I wandered into emerg with a broken bone, I would bring a book or two, my iphone, some snacks etc. because it could be a while.

I can usually get same day treatment at one of the walk-in clinics in my city for the typical pedestrian ailments we all get and not be out of pocket (directly). Yes, I do pay for this, and gladly, via my taxes.

For specialists, it can sometimes be a wait. As with other issues I take it that the more serious go to the front of the line.

I believe there are some elements of private health care which are starting to establish themselves, such as private clinics for MRI's but this is a sensitive area in Canadian politics. There's a fear of developing a 'two tier' health care system, one for the 'haves' and one for the 'have nots'. This must sound crazy to some Americans but preservation of health care is and has been one of the major priorities for most Canadians for decades. I don't have all the facts in this area w.r.t. the private clinics so if someone has better information, all the better.

Canada's health care system is most definitely not perfect and I'm not certain there is a perfect.

I have read exactly 0 US constitutional cases or law texts and have not attended a single class on the subject. What the case at hand says may be interesting from a legal and political perspective I'm sure, but there's more at stake than a pop quiz on US Constitutional law. If I were an American I'd be more interested in taking a step back from it all and asking some basic questions:
1) Is the health care system as good as it gets in terms of creating the best possible 'USA' that there could be?
2) If not, what would I want to change? Are there examples of countries which might have some good ideas to examine?

Rather than getting caught up in political mudslinging is there an opportunity to look at things, see if there are weaknesses and then think about how those weaknesses might be addressed. The US spends more per capita on health care than any other country in the world yet doesn't offer the health coverage to all of its citizens of nations with a fraction of its wealth.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita
I don't have the stats handy, but I remember looking at 'health outcomes' for various ailments and procedures a few years ago and the US did no better or worse than many countries that do offer universal coverage. For clarity, I am not bashing America, but I do think that it's worthwhile to widen the perspective from a political battle into more basic questions.

Listening to past discussions (not here) there was this looming sense that government was going to take over people's lives and before you knew it we'd all be goose stepping around singing praise to some 'Dear Leader'. If you substitute the phrase 'national defence' in place of 'health care' in some of these discussions the contradictions jump off the page. For the long-term well-being of my own health and my nation I understand that it makes sense for everyone to 'pitch in' fiscally via taxes, get a professional standing army, a few things that go boom and bang etc. On the same token, I understand that clean water is a basic public good and am thus content that my municipal taxes pay for the provision of this good. I don't understand how the provision of basic healthcare services isn't seen in the same light.

It's a tough area where ethics, philosophy, law, politics, economics and medicine all intersect and we must stand at these crossroads and try to decide what kind of a society, in terms of health care, do we want?

*I hope this hasn't come across as an attack on America or Americans. I can't imagine what kind of a sorry state the world would look like right now without an America.

**I also hope that I've kept things generalized enough not to have fallen afoul of the rules.

[gaseousclay]

the Obamacare debate makes me think of some of my wife's relatives. her aunt and uncle are apparently against Obamacare because they don't want the government inserting themselves in their lives. I think she said they currently pay $1000 per month for their entire family. so basically he's willing to foot the bill on overpriced healthcare rather than see his healthcare costs go down as a result of pooling.I bring this up because whenever we go out for family dinners he insists on everyone ponying up an equal share for the bill. meanwhile, my wife and I consume very little while him and his family consume the most (beer, appetizers, etc). when we went out to dinner with them a couple weeks back my wife and I shared a $15 entree and each had a drink. our own bill should've cost us $30-35 max if you included the tip but he asked us to pay $50. so in a nutshell he's willing to pay more for his health insurance premiums per month but when it comes to eating out for dinner he wants everyone to spread the wealth. talk about ironic

[Mycon]

I think one thing that would benefit the healthcare industry, is fully accessible and transparent pricing for medical services. There really can't be much competition when all of the services are a total mystery until you actually incur the cost. This also prevents the situation where a doctor or facility tries to game the insurance company by charging far more for a service than it actually costs.

[goatee]

only my opinion but,,, i believe my health care cost will only rise because of this. time will tell as i said before.
one VERY interesting fact i have noticed is that the poll i set up that was merged with this thread (thank you mods btw)
is that it is nearly a dead heat. i did not expect that at all! most talk around the water cooler is negative. very interesting indeed.

[Kevan]

only my opinion but,,, i believe my health care cost will only rise because of this. time will tell as i said before.
one VERY interesting fact i have noticed is that the poll i set up that was merged with this thread (thank you mods btw)
is that it is nearly a dead heat. i did not expect that at all! most talk around the water cooler is negative. very interesting indeed.

People against things tend to be more vocal. That typically works for any issue no matter what it is.

[malocchio]

Canadian Health Care sucks but I guess it's better than needing to have a medical insurance policy to go to the doctors...

and so many say Cuba has excellent health care....as another member posted,probably not one politician has read,or understands the health care package,this was certainly true with the patriot act,they could not find one politician who read the entire document.

[Artimid]

From my own perspective, I am both happy and annoyed that this went through. A bit of background on me though: I hate doctors. My Grandmother had several organs removed and lots of "your have this and this" before anything was actually found. My sister (at around 15) was told she was a drunk, on drugs another visit, and on the last was told "Oh, she her appendex just burst... she might need some help" and rushed into the emergency room. That visit cost $60,000+ 15 years ago. This sort of problem has happened all my life, so I don't trust doctors.

Now, for my run in's with medical costs: When I was working at a store, I had the fun job of unloading stuff. As a relatively strong guy and someone who wanted to work quickly, the UPS guy would throw the heavy boxes at me, not a problem until one day it felt like I had a bite on my back by my shoulder blade. This "bite" continued appeared until about two weeks later I felt an extreme amount of pain that was like someone stabbing me, and then running the blade down my back. I had torn my rotator cuff and it didn't hit me due to the way I had been using my shoulder. My work denied all requests for any medical help because I hadn't informed them in 24 hours. My shoulder still hurts to this day, as I couldn't afford surgery and they didn't offer medical coverage. This bill won't fix that.

Next I had injured my finger in a sparring match, my right ring finger was hit such that it knocked the front half onto the top of the knuckle doing into my wrist. That visit left me in the emergency room for 4 hours, I was sat in a hall, and given a pill before the doctor came and just yanked it out. I was then given incorrect advice to use the splint for two days (he really meant 6 weeks, or should have) and go see a specialist. That visit cost me $5,000. Both the hospital and the doctor billed me for the exact same things, $250 for x-ray, ~$800 for a room I shared with 10 other people, $200 for the the pill, $1250 or so for the work of the doctor. I was not happy. After this, until everyone DOES have coverage, this bill does not change the gouging that cash customers receive vs what insurance companies are charged. It will simply be the people on the bottom who have enough coverage to count, but not enough to do anything that get gouged. Hospitals will make their profit.

When I then did something to my other shoulder, I lost movement for three days, but as I am not over flowing with money, I figured it was okay after I started to get use again. It now clicks and pops nicely whenever I move it.

I am quite possibly one of those who this bill is aimed at. Later on, one day, I know I will need coverage, and with this bill I know I can get it. On the other hand, I currently work for a company that charges $160 a month for insurance, and has such low coverage that I might as well go pay cash (to be expected of a company that considers us lower than the food left behind for cattle.. we aspire to BE cattle to the company, they would have to treat us better). The places I have worked either have not offered insurance at all, or charged a HUGE premium (one place was around $380 a month for just my own coverage, a male aged 25 at the time.. the cheapest person to cover with a cap of like $10,000). So I am NOT thrilled at being told I need to buy coverage not just for me, but the people who are dependent on me. I know I simply cannot afford any sort of coverage that is meaningful.

So again, I wanted this bill to pass, but modified because with the incentive that I can get coverage and one day get help when my shoulders no longer work, I would get coverage on my own after shopping around and considering all options, this is to say I would NOT have waited until I was in the hospital. I do not appreciate, however, being treated like a child by the people who I pay to basically exist and think up ways to spend my money (supposed to be for all of our benefit), that I now -need- to go out and spend a large portion of my income. I like the thought behind it, I like some of what it does, but the one aspect that was unacceptable to me got passed and I am pretty disappointed, but not surprised. And this will probably be as irritated as I get, as I have more important things to focus on my concern on at the moment.

[scottish steve]

I don't think it's contentious to say that health care in The US is criminally expensive. This is a huge part of the problem. $250 for a pill? $1,250 for a 'room'? My sister was charged $500 for a 'walking aid' when she broke her toe. This was a $5 wooden cane. The health companies are charging amounts that no snake-oil salesman would be comfortable charging and crippling the economy and the dignity of the American People with it. You work for years and one slip on the pavement cleans out your savings. This is simply wrong.
My Czech girlfriend a decade ago was disgusted with UK health care. Her Eastern European system was apparently much quicker, cleaner and still free at the point of need.