It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ObamaCare, cutting through the politics.....

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
When one looks at the issue, sans the rhetoric, the simple truth of medical care, the cost, who pays for it, is we do.

No matter what "system" is used,the healthy pay for the sick and infirm.

It is safe to say that no one wants people to go untreated, especially when a disaster can befall any of us at any time.

Be it Medicare, private insurance, free service at any federally subsidized hospital, we pay for it.

Higher hospital costs to compensate for the "free" services. Higher taxes or higher insurance premiums to pay for the ill.

There is no getting around it. There is no such thing as free medical service. Never has been, never will be.

Sure there are stand-out issues such as prior conditions which were/are glitches, however, even now those with prior conditions ARE getting quotes for coverage...one eg. 37,000 per year for an existing condition!!

My problem with the "Affordable Care Act" is it plays on the "free" issue with those that could care less the effect it has on the rest of us, but worse, it lessens the quality of care for those who do pay for it and makes it mandatory for me to purchase.

Bottom line is it costs more for most people, lowers the quality of service for the majority, removes the freedom of choice of even having coverage and transfers my freedoms to gov't control.

It has nothing to do with who supports it or is against it,politically, it's less bang for the buck and, as usual, less individual freedom that it engenders.

I am not against reform. I am saying this isn't what most had in mind when the reform/change slogans where used as an election platform.

Scrap it. Start over with full and OPEN input by all concerned, then decide on the best course of action, THEN put it to the people via vote.

After all, it's the people who are going to be stuck with what results.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The problem with your reasoning is that when the GOP had a chance to contribute to the health care mess, didn’t care to even reform it, they just rejected any reform out of hand: single payer, ACA, or any other change to the system that would get everybody heath care in a civilized society

The GOP are not civilized!

The ACA is the only reform this rotten political system of whores would do at this



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The best way to go about it is too enforce it vigorously. The administration tweaked the law and delayed the employer mandate, this infuriated some members of congress, it also may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act and go beyond President Obama’s constitutional powers. And as I understand it, law can only be changed by legislative action through congress and signed by the president.

As president Grant stated, " Laws are to govern all alike,' Grant added, 'those opposed as well as those who favor them. I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.'

So if the law was put into full effect as intended initially, we could see if it upholds all the decrees it's stated to uphold.




edit on 2-10-2013 by Daedal because: edit



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Willtell
 


That's interesting. You say nothing was offered by the GOP, yet I've seen many suggestions/offers. Private accounts, tort reform re the medical industry, to name a couple that come to mind.

The A.C.A. was what 3000 pages? That HAD to be worked on for YEARS. An immediate overwhelm for those voting on it, NEVER shown to the public for their input, never understood by any until those outside the cabal could "digest" it.

No one is that stupid. Certainly not the Democrats. This was planned and prepared long before Obama's election. It might even go back the Clinton's effort.

Still, if it was not for the above, many, including myself wouldn't be upset with it.

It's a bad law. It needs to be scraped. We need to start over with open input.

If you disagree with that...well, sorry. It is the right thing to do.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedal
 


A good point. I see the merit of it.

Still, that point doesn't change my view that it is a bad deal all around.

The exemptions for Congress, big business and so on reinforces that opinion. Defunding pushes this back to the next election where it can be decided whether to start again or heavily alter it.

Just my opinion though...



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
My problem with the affordable care act is that it isn`t affordable.
Obamacare is going to cause financial hardship on those least able to afford it.

A minimum wage full time worker won`t be able to afford to use the insurance that they will be paying for.
Monthly premiums will be partial subsidized through tax credits but who is going to pay the deductible?
A minimum wage full time worker making $15,000 a year can`t afford to pay a $5,000 deductible.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


Agreed. yet, all the minimum wage worker has to do is NOT sign up for it and he is "fined" what? 4% of his annual earnings for coverage. 600 bucks for his 15,000/year wages.

Not a bad deal.....until the fines go up....after the next presidential election......
edit on 2-10-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
In 5 years everyone will be wondering what the big deal was about Obamacare.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The problem is that the healthcare system in this country has been on life support for many years as this particular can has been kicked down the road for decades. Over that time fewer and fewer employers have offered healthcare benefits and those that do are covering less and less. Over the last couple of decades the gross number on nonelderly uninsured has increased more than 50% (from roughly 31M to 47M). This has placed a back-breaking financial burden on hospitals. As you point out, the insured pick-up the tab through higher rates and increased fees. Although the percentage of people with coverage has stayed more-or-less constant at ~85% the massive increase in the uninsured has mushroomed the financial burden thy must shoulder.

The idea that our government could EVER reach any solution is laughable. They can't solve jack and seem to have little interest in even trying. Leave it up to the American people to vote on it? Even assuming that government COULD devise a solution (maybe when pigs fly inverted) you're asking the 85% or people with coverage and who will shoulder the expense to decide whether or not the remaining 15% get any insurance at all. See the problem? What was happening under the old model was that healthcare was increasingly becoming available to only the more affluent. That scenario was exploding in recent years. Eventually a substantial portion of healthcare providers would close and only those who could afford to pay would have access.

There's no easy fix for the problem. The fundamental intent of ACA was to spread the financial burden over a greater number of shoulders.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Its simple, it has a "black" "Muslim"'s name on it and its proposed by democrats.

Why else would they reject it and delay it? and shut down the government for it?



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


That is the hope, at least by the authors of it.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Simple??? Was Hillary a "Black Muslim"? What did that do for the Dems in the day??

It cost them control Congress. First time in 40 years!!



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


I believe the fundamental intent was gov't control.

I read a quote. unsure of it's accuracy, that stated the goal was 10 million more insured. 14,000 new IRS agents for enforcement. Zero increase in doctors to service that 10 million as well as less money for the same services to the same doctors.....

Spread the cost? maybe, but via more gov't control.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 

I'm a rare white person who has experienced both corporate and federal health care through IHS.

I was on Kaiser HMO when I was pregnant with my son. I was a high risk pregnancy, suffered a TIA, and had been on strict bed rest for 6 months of that pregnancy. Yet, when I went into labor, it was ruled by what was called "capitalization". You see, the healthcare companies had decided that to cut their costs, they would pay a bonus to ob/gyn's who had a limited number of C-Sections. I went into labor and wasn't dilating. They sent me home. 4 days of labor later, I had started to bleed and was admitted although I still had barely dilated. Two days later, after minimal dilation and constant contractions, an ob/gyn (I was passed around to 8 different doctors as mine was out of town and nobody wanted "the C-Section") discovered that my water had broken and my eldest was sitting inside me, bone dry and in breach. He was in fetal distress. They put me on oxygen, "refilled" my waters with god knows what, and accelerated my labor through medicine. And waited. For 14 hours, my son was in fetal distress but the medicine worked and I went into hard labor at 12:30 am. I pushed for three hours and was feeling my life leaving me. I started screaming for help though I had an ob/gyn in the room with me. Outside, nurses were crying because of what was being done to my son and I. They were so angry, my mother said afterward. I started screaming for help after 3 hours and 30 minutes because I knew we were dying. The ob/gyn told me to shut up but then, looked at me with horror on his face, because of what he was doing. Then he realized that there was no way in hell that my eldest was going to be born naturally. Cephalopelvic disproportion. Any one of those 8 doctors could have realized this at any point in time if they had only made a simple measurement. I was whisked to the OR and given an emergency C-Section. My son and I survived nearly 60 hours of in-hospital labor.

The hospital called my son the "miracle boy" because he had lived. He had health problems including seizure like activity for the first two years of his life, to which even his Kaiser pediatricians pointed to the hard and long labor as being the source of blame. I ran into one of the nurses a month later and she told me that they had tried the same thing with a 16 year old girl who died at the 40 hour mark. I was a high risk pregnancy and we survived nearly 60 hours of in-hospital labor, 14 hours of fetal distress, breach, cephalopelvic disproportion, shoulder dystocia, and more. It's a miracle that we are here.

Six years later, I was living on the Navajo reservation and pregnant. Indian Health Services was the only hospital and my pregnancy was fully covered as my child was half Native American. After reviewing what had occurred with my pregnancy and labor with my eldest, my ob/gyn at IHS determined that I should never be allowed to go into labor again. He ordered cryo in advance and scheduled the c-section a month before my due date to avoid my going into labor entirely. My youngest was born without a single issue, a health 6 1/2 pounds (big baby family). The bonus? The IHS ob/gyn gave me a surprise by fixing the tissue damage done from the first emergency c-section.

With one, my eldest and I nearly died plus the risks of a hastily done emergency surgery. With the other, my youngest and I faced just the risk of major surgery in a pre-planned and fully prepped setting. I'm extremely lucky to be here. If there is a point to my having almost died and then, seen what it could be like alternatively, then it's to be here to tell my story and call b.s. on the allegations that it's going to reduce the quality of care. I received far better care from a federally run hospital than I received from the corporate one. The former's goal was to assure the life of my child and I and the latter's was to make a profit.

Which one had the higher quality of care?



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


I believe you and am very happy you and your child survived this stupidity.

My mother, when she was still with us, lived in British Columbia. She collapsed at a restaurant was rushed to the hospital. She had zero BP in the ambulance.

Five hours later, without any specific medication, her BP had returned to normal.

They discharged her.

In the U.S. they'd wouldn't have dared discharging her without finding the cause as they could be sued six ways to Sunday if they did and she died as a result of incomplete tests/diagnosis.

There are good doctors and bad ones. There is even more bureaucracy in gov't controlled services, more restrictions on tests and lesser pay for more tests in Obamacare than even the medical insurance!

Stupidity is a human condition.

I'm assuming your financial circumstance would allow you to benefit from a Obamacare. My belief is there is a better way than the one currently offered/mandated.

The Affordable Care Act hurts more people than it helps, in my opinion.

One thing is certain, no system is perfect.

I'm glad you and yours came through the ordeal.
edit on 2-10-2013 by nwtrucker because: spelling error



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


Thank you. My l&d was the worst in the history of the hospital in which my son was born. My only regret was just being grateful to have been alive afterwards. If I had gone after those doctors and Kaiser Permanente immediately, then maybe the teen that died would be here today with her child. That's my cross to bear. I was too late in reporting it and I should've. Every single one of those doctors lost their licenses between her and I. Every single one. The practice, iirc, was outlawed in, at least, my state. I will, however, never forget what was done in the name of profit.

I'd be loathe to compare one country to another. Here in the states, through Indian Health Services, I received infinitely better care than I did through private insurance. My experience with both forms was entirely in the US. In the case of what happened to my son and I under private insurance, it was all 8 doctors who engaged in the behavior that nearly cost my son and I our lives. All 8 doctors just passed me off. Not a single one of them did what was needed until it was critical. That's here in the US. IHS not only assured that I wouldn't go into labor but was without fault, did everything they could and more. That's all in the US.

I am sorry about what happened with your mother in another country. Even doctors can make some seriously bad calls. However, it was every single ob/gyn that saw me that participated in one happened to me. That wasn't stupidity. That was greed appealing to the basest element in a person whose profession is supposed to be about saving lives.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It's the bottom line that counts--for all of us. Obama said, "If you like your current plan, you can keep it!" Remember that? You can look it up. That's what he said. That's what helped sell the plan.

But it was a lie. There's no "explaining" it. It was a lie.

I like my plan. It works for me. It's the right amount of insurance plus personal responsibility. I did my own risk assessment and chose a plan suited for me offered by a well-established regional HMO.

But I don't get to "keep my plan." Instead, my rates will just about double. It looks like the coverage is roughly the same (I can't tell exactly.) My wife's plan will increase 39%.

For those of you who claim Republicans did not contribute, you are not remembering that at the time Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Republicans were completely frozen out of the process. They weren't even invited to the meetings. They did not contribute because they were not allowed to. That's how the democrats handled the whole thing.

Bottom Line is Obama lied to get the plan passed. I can't keep my current plan like he said I could. My costs double.

He lied.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


The Govt has NO business in the Health Care Industry.

I guess this day and age, personal responsibility means nothing anymore.

The Govt is here and ready to save us from ourselves.


I can't wait till it all collapses on its own weight.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nwtrucker
 


That defeats the whole purpose of an affordable care act, the minimum wage worker will still have no insurance, like he does now, but he will be $600 poorer.
so, basically it is a poverty tax, to make sure that everyone is "paying their fair share" of taxes which is what the republicans have been wanting for a long time now.
edit on 2-10-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteAlice
 


Thanks for what you did do to correct it.

I would like to point out that it was the Doctors who made that choice, not Kaiser. If I understand correctly, it was a percentage issue. Still,it's the Doctor's call. They have the ultimate decision authority, not the carrier.

I believe those same Doctors would have made some other, if not the same, stupid decision no matter who pays the bills. Ultimately, it was on them and their Hippocratic Oaths.

From what I gather, the Affordable Care Act will be far worse than what was there before it. The same PRIVATE health care carriers, with even tougher, tighter budgets than before, will result in degraded tribal services, (I'm guessing on that one).

Have you discussed the Obamacare issue with the tribal doctors? What feedback have you been getting, if any?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join