Cracks in the Obamacare Facade: One-third of "Uninsured Americans" Disappear in One Day!

Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by jdub297

 

I'm against idiots not having insurance.

People get sick, and like I said, if they go to the emergency room, it's money out of our pockets...

If that is the case why was I billed around $2,000 when I was sent to the E.R.?
It's not like any tax payer money was used to pay for my visit.


On another note it would be cheaper for me to pay the $950 fine than to try and find insurance, unless I can get insured for under $80 a month. What type of insurance is out there that will cover anything for $80 a month?

reply to post by Mak Manto

I would say that you shouldn't need health care insurance if I knew that if you got sick, it wouldn't mean money of the people's pockets.

Does this make sense to you?

If you're saying that indigent care at E.R.s doesn't "come of people's pockets," who do you think pays all the people and institutions involved?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Actually, 12 million is an exaggeration. There's probably 7 million people who actually do not have access to health care. They may work, but for an employer who doesn't provide insurance. Or they have income too high for public assistance but not high enough to afford their own coverage.

There IS a need for a "sagety net." Government (us, you know) and employers and insurance should take care of catastrophic and basic care for those who can't afford it.

But do we need to destroy everyone else's options to help out the few?

jw

So let’s round it off to 10 million and say the government invests 2 billion a year into a program to cover them…. That would fix the issues at hand, but I bet we see a price tag in the trillions though.

I know where the money comes from, but if a lug head who doesn't have coverage just because he doesn't want to pay for it gets hurt and needs to go to the hospital, the public has to pay for it.

They have to pay for his visit when it could've been taken care of by insurance

Do you think a health care fairy flies on in and takes care of the coverage?

And like I said before, this does not mean to people who are UNABLE TO GET insurance.

This is in reference to people WHO JUST REFUSE TO GET IT.

reply to post by Xtrozero

So let’s round it off to 10 million and say the government invests 2 billion a year into a program to cover them…. That would fix the issues at hand, but I bet we see a price tag in the trillions though.

Hey, make it $10 billion. That's $1,000 per year per person. Most people don't spend $500 per year just to stay well. The rest goes into a pool to pay for the "catastrophic" stuff.

How long before the government decides to ROB the surplus to pay for other stuff?

That's what they're doing now with SS, Medicare and Medicaid!

jw

reply to post by jdub297

Profit is already IN the equation!

First, let's understand something about profits.
Doctors expect to profit from their services. So do hospitals, and radiologists, and nurses, and janitors.

LOL. Understood. I never thought my statement would lead people to believe that I thought the medical industry to be non profit. My point was that adding more profit to the equation is not going to make anything cheaper. Right??????

Do you work to give your boss money, or do you expect to "profit?"

Both. (I'm self employed) but what does that have to do with anything.

Insurance companies DO NOT make "huge profits." Look for yourself.

LOL. What!? Does one of the top ten most profitable industries count as huge profits. If not I stand corrected.

Industry Industry 2007 Profits
Rank as % of
Revenues

1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 28.8
2 Mining, Crude-Oil Production 23.8
3 Pharmaceuticals 15.8
4 Medical Products and Equipment 15.2
5 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 13.7
6 Commercial Banks 12.6
7 Railroads 12.4
8 Entertainment 12.4
9 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 10.6
10 Household and Personal Products 10.2

Source

So, you expect the government to save money by paying others to service the poor?

No. But I also don't expect American Citizens to save money by having to add another industry to the cost equation. Do you?


You clearly have taken my comments out of context. Do you even realize we are on the same side of the debate???

reply to post by Mak Manto

They have to pay for his visit when it could've been taken care of by insurance

Why should anyone insure a crack smoking, twinkie eating, whiskey guzzling motorcycle racer? Especially when there will be no insurance w/i 5 years of the "plan."

Do you think a health care fairy flies on in and takes care of the coverage?

No, but you must if you think that this is a risk worthy of anyone else's responsibility.

The public will pay for all care for all risks under Obama's plan, right?

The public already pays for all catastrophic care for all risks (think E.R.)!

Difference?

$1 trillion (at least) going to the Feds.

Please show me what we've bought for the money.

jw

Originally posted by carewemust
I wonder if it would be cheaper for a healthy 25 year old person to
pay the penalty for not having insurance, than it would be for him/her
to buy the insurance? It's these kinds of details..the dollars and cents
stuff, that people want to know.

Sure, till they get hit by a hit and run driver, or have a few brewskies an decide to drive home, taking out someones' grandma on the way to their shiny ICU bed.

Most of the traumas that come into my unit are young. Massive to severe head injuries, neck down paralysis, lifelong medical care recipients with zero covereage for any number of reasons.

No one leaves the house in the morning thinking, "Today would be a good day to have some idiot run a redlight and t-bone me and kill my wife and unborn baby, and leave me paralyzed! Sounds great! Get the keys honey..."

reply to post by Libertygal


You've conflated 2 separate considerations: the 25 y.o. and the victim.

For the 25 y.o., why do you want to subsidize his lifestyle? And doesn't the hospital already pick up his costs through higher fees passed on to everyone else with a "guarantor?" (Ask your accounting dept.)

For the victim,his INSURANCE (following your premise of a reasonable person) will pick it up to the limits of his coverage. Then, his disability program or Social Security will kick in and pay the remainder. (Ask your accounting dept.)

We are ALREADY paying for the 25 y.o.'s behavior!

So, what will giving Obama $1 trillion (for the 1st 5 yrs. of the plan) change?

How does this stop the NEXT 25 y.o. from coming thru the door, not to mention his victims?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Libertygal

 

You've conflated 2 separate considerations: the 25 y.o. and the victim.

For the 25 y.o., why do you want to subsidize his lifestyle? And doesn't the hospital already pick up his costs through higher fees passed on to everyone else with a "guarantor?" (Ask your accounting dept.)

For the victim,his INSURANCE (following your premise of a reasonable person) will pick it up to the limits of his coverage. Then, his disability program or Social Security will kick in and pay the remainder. (Ask your accounting dept.)

We are ALREADY paying for the 25 y.o.'s behavior!

So, what will giving Obama $1 trillion (for the 1st 5 yrs. of the plan) change?

How does this stop the NEXT 25 y.o. from coming thru the door, not to mention his victims?

jw

I was referring o the 25 year old as one of the healthy who chooose to not have insurance, and trying to illustrate the point that no one intends to get hurt, accidents happen.

If he had chosen the option of employer insurance, or any other number of free choices, he wouldn't have to worry about any of it. Medicare has a copay, which he would recieve if totally disabled, and his primary could be used to pay that 20% at that time. Medicaid is only available after you reach destitute.

I agree giving Obama 1 trillion will do nothing except loose more millions in the "cracks" in the system. That's the point. It is coming from taxpayers now, as it is, without the middle men. Add in more middle men and get more fraud, and purportedly lesser, perhaps less timely, health care.

I do not want to subsidize his lifestyle, I want him to take personal responsibility for himself. Something that is becomming harder and harder for the younger entitlement generation to comprehend.

Strangely, we seem to be agreeable on this. Just saying...



[edit on 10-9-2009 by Libertygal]

reply to post by jdub297


No, we only pay for that if the person doesn't have health insurance.

If they do have insurance, the companies take care of it, not the people.

reply to post by Mak Manto


Hi Mak Manto.

Don't forget there are millions of people out there that can't get health insurance even if they want to get health insurance because they already have some pre-existing health problem. That is a problem that will never be overcome unless the government steps up to the plate and helps those who help our government; and that includes anyone that steps on USA soil or in our Territories.

It seems to me Mak that maybe you aren't so heartless after all. Maybe you can see that some people aren't as fortunate as others when it comes to their health.

Everyone in the USA and the rest of the World deserves the basic rights Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; and they can't be happy if they have health problems that they personally can't take care of.

Yes, there are always a few people who seem to abuse the system; but not millions. When someone says that "MILLIONS" of people abuse the system, then there is something WRONG with the System and the System needs to change.

I believe you are a good person, never close your heart on any of the unfortunate people because of a few.

reply to post by jdub297


It plays to the arrogance of this administration, that they don't think we would realize the difference. It plays to their arrogance that we would accept, at face value, anything he has to say.
This president has a credibility problem. His appointments, his decisions on the economy, his take over of the auto industry, his (wanting to) take over of the insurance industry by mandating how they run their businesses.

From messiah to lame duck in 8 months.
Could be a record.

reply to post by jdub297


There is no Bill. Only rhetoric with no details at all. Nobody can say what is in the bill unless it is the one the House passed. If it is the one the House passed, Obama lied.

I could not help but notice he fudged on Tort Reform. It would stop half the frivolous suits and reduce the cost of health care overnight. People need to ask themselves why they just don't do it right now? They could fix that immediately if they wanted to. The attorneys own DC and Obama.

As to paying for this through reducing waste and fraud. Why wait? Just do it right now, this minute? Because they can't, Obama knows it and it is a lie.

How do you add 30 million people to the system and the cost not go up?

I think Obama knows how dumb Americans have become and figures nobody will ask real questions and he can just lie and do what he want's because he is Obama.

They could open up direct competition nationwide for health insurers right now. It would instantly reduce the costs. Why don't they do that? Because the Right is in the Insurance Companies pockets.

The trial Lawyers own the Left, the Insurance companies own the Right and we are stuck in the middle electing lying, phony politicians because they rigged the system so no matter who we vote for it benefits everybody but "We the People".

reply to post by mikerussellus

From messiah to lame duck in 8 months.
Could be a record.

We can only hope so.

I remember '76 when I first voted for a President and Carter was full of "hope and change." What a disappointment!

But, he governed as he ran, and I still give him credit for his integrity, if not his naivete. He was a man of his word, even if a little misguided.

Can't say anything close to the same for the incumbent.

He's governed EXACTLY as promised. Not in his campaign. That was for the sheep. As he promised in his earlier conduct and in his books.

I'll never understand how this wolf got into the henhouse ... . Yes, I do. No one reads anymore. No one thinks. They take whatever is spoonfed them, regardless of the hand holding the spoon - left or right - and assume that if it's "free," it must be good.

Look what they've done to my Country!

jw

reply to post by carewemust


Not trying to agree or disagree, but the maximum penalty($3800) would still be cheaper than my current policy premium. I think there's something wrong with that picture too. I don't have any preexisting conditions or ongoing conditions either.

I find it to be an irreconcilable paradox that the illegal aliens will not be part of the equation, yet they will receive health care if needed when going to the emergency room. I don't understand. Can someone who knows the ins and outs of the health plan illuminate me? I like the universal health plan, but just wonder about this one point. Thanks for your help here.

Illegal Aliens have healthcare now in America. They just go to the
emergency room. For them, Prez Obama is correct when he says
"You can keep the plan you have now...nothing will change".
-cwm

reply to post by jdub297


Actually, here is the exact quote from President Obama's speech on
Wednesday night 9/9/09. :

"We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

If you notice, the "more than 30 million" is referring to citizens who
CANNOT GET COVERAGE. This is probably due to pre-existing
conditions. In prior speeches over the Summer, he referred to 47
million uninsured Americans. Unless the speech was wrote hastily,
without much thought, I assumed that he meant exactly what he
said.. and it makes sense. Of the 47 million uninsured Americans,
30 million are uninsured because they cannot get coverage and
17 million are uninsured by choice. Makes sense to me and dovetails
pretty well with the sample populations I deal with every day.
-cwm

Originally posted by winotka
reply to post by carewemust

 

Not trying to agree or disagree, but the maximum penalty($3800) would still be cheaper than my current policy premium. I think there's something wrong with that picture too. I don't have any preexisting conditions or ongoing conditions either.

You have to ask, "What price freedom." when it costsa you ANYTHING to be free of government intrevention.. Isn't that what this amounts to? Government interventin into the most intimate and personal of decisions you have?

If you're not costing them anything, what business is it of theirs who, when or how much you seek health care!

As far as I'm concerned, Stay the F out! NOYFB who I see, what for or how much I pay for it!

Is that wrong?

jw