It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So who is it that should provide healthcare and under what model? Bear in mind a medical doctor has a 4-year pre-med degree, a 4-year med degree, some sort of internship and 2 - 6 years of residency working for a pittance and paying back huge student loans. Oh, and what model was that?
I don't have the answer. I only know that if I had the money that I've paid for health insurance over the past 13 years with never a claim....oh, the fun I could have!
reply to post by jrod
The problem is that our government would run it.
Name me one government agency that is not bloated, corrupt and so inefficient that it could actually run your health care in a timely and efficient manner. Look at the NHS. It's one of the largest employers in the world with more employees than the US military has soldiers. If a country the size of Britain has that many bureaucrats to run their single payer system, then imagine the mess America's would become. Two thirds of the country would be employed by it with the rest trapped in it.
Oh, and usually there are laws keeping you from having any recourse to any other system if the one your government runs isn't any good or decides that you should just have the pain pill rather than pay for a perfectly viable treatment for you or diagnoses you with an aggressive cancer and tells you that your treatments will just begin in about six months because that's how long the waiting list is ... good luck.
edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)edit on 26-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)
reply to post by beezzer
At this point, if Obamacare were to be scrapped....there would be tens of THOUSANDS more without any healthcare.
As dysfunctional as ACA is....what would happen to those people
I was talking to my doctor about ACA the other day....big surprise he is against it.
He said it was never meant to be healthcare......and we said together......
it was always meant to be an insurance bailout.
It's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Let's face it: insurance companies are about the biggest contributor to RISING and ever rising costs.
reply to post by beezzer
social security is single-payer, Medicare is single-payer, veterans benefits is single-payer...doesn't seem to be a foreign concept
Add to the fact that Medicare is rife with fraud and waste and is poorly run.
One of your recent columns quotes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) as stating, “I don’t believe anybody was promised free lifetime medical care. That’s a popular myth.” He further stated, “I think we have an obligation to the retired force to be generous and to be compassionate to help recruiting and retention. But, you know, there was never any contract with anybody that, for the rest of your life, you will get free medical care. That’s not part of the deal and was never part of the deal.”
Colonel George “Bud” Day, a lawyer and a Medal of Honor winner, took this implied free medical care issue for retiree to the Supreme Court and the court, in a compromise verdict, ruled that any military veteran who served prior to a date in 1956 and were honorably retired were eligible for free medical care under TRICARE For Life. There are few of us still living and our numbers decrease daily.
To extol the value of decreasing this hard-earned care to these veterans is abominable. Our block of veterans who qualify for this legally binding medical care is small and our political power is, for all practical senses, miniscule. But when the bureaucrats feast on $16 croissants, the GSA spends hundreds of thousands of dollars for trips to Hawaii and our Secret Service spends per diem and expense money on prostitutes, maybe it is understandable that we protest Graham’s attitude toward veterans’ medical costs.
Veteran benefits, is a contractual obligation that the government is already weaseling out on!
Obamacare will cost $2.6 trillion dollars in its first real decade.
It’s long-forgotten now, because Democrats had just regained control of Congress, and these newly-empowered legislators pronounced the Bush plan “dead on arrival.” In many ways, though, the Bush proposal was impressive and credible. It would have expanded coverage while reducing the deficit. Should it serve as the starting point for replacing Obamacare?
The Bush plan was formulated by the White House’s National Economic Council, under the leadership of Allan B. Hubbard. The core goal of the plan was to equalize the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased health insurance, without increasing the deficit. (As regular readers know, the fact that employers can purchase health insurance for their workers tax-free, whereas individuals can’t, is the original sin of the U.S. health-care system.)
Bush’s proposal sought to eliminate the unlimited tax break for employer-sponsored insurance, replacing it with a standard deduction for everyone. Under the plan, anyone—employed or not—who bought at least catastrophic insurance would not pay income or payroll taxes on the first $7,500 of their income, or the first $15,000 for a family plan.
President Bush also proposed an “Affordable Choices Initiative,” which would redirect existing federal spending in states that sought to expand coverage to the uninsured.
As you’ll remember, the 1986 EMTALA law forces hospital emergency rooms to care for anyone who shows up, regardless of their ability to pay. In order to partially compensate for this mandate, and underpayments from Medicaid and Medicare, the federal government gives most urban hospitals “disproportionate share hospital,” or DSH, payments. Bush proposed to shift these dollars away from hospitals and toward uninsured individuals directly.
States would design their own programs for expanding coverage, subject to approval by the HHS secretary, such as offering direct subsidies for insurance premiums, expanding or creating high-risk pools, or setting up Massachusetts-style exchanges. “Rather than perpetually pay the bills of uninsured people,” said then-HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, “it’s better to use part of the money to help them get a basic insurance policy. They get better care and the money ultimately goes further.”
Unfortunately, Bush’s plan went nowhere in Congress. Democrats had zero partisan incentive to cooperate with Bush
The Lewin Group analyzed the Bush tax reform using its Health Benefits Simulation Model, and estimated that equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance would expand coverage by 9.2 million people. In addition, the Bush administration estimated that the Affordable Choices Initiative would expand coverage by an additional 2 million or so, for a total of about 11 million. That’s not as large a coverage expansion of Obamacare, at 33 million, but that 11 million is achieved with zero increase in federal spending commitments: a pretty impressive bang for the buck.
Even more impressively, the Joint Committee on Taxation—the government agency responsible for the CBO’s estimates of the impact of tax legislation—projected that the Bush proposal would reduce the deficit by $334 billion from 2008 to 2017, and by trillions more in later decades, because the tax deduction would grow at the rate of inflation, whereas the tax exclusion of employer-sponsored health insurance isn’t capped by law, and grows along with overall, and higher, health inflation.
reply to post by xuenchen
Even Worse ???
More than half of the counties in 34 states using the federal health insurance exchange lack even a bronze plan that's affordable
MY "Bewildering" Question: ... WHY? has this thing NOT (already) been ... "REPEAL"d ???edit on 26-12-2013 by FarleyWayne because: ... STAR and FLAG
reply to post by xuenchen
Let me break it down for you. I work in the insurance industry. We are being taxed on all existing clients by the government we have brought on since 2013. This means only cash rich companies can survive, your local guys have no chance. Going forward we are adding an ACA tax in our rates to compensate for this tax on our company which will increase up until 2018. (im sure then there will be new taxes)
now the exchanges that are being setup privately by large house brokers to keep clients in house are now taking standard commissions from 10% to 15% to account for all the fees. rates have increased and commissions so its getting pretty steep. Lets not mention how providers have gone down because of all the poor reimbursement rates.
so what does this mean...it means that the consumer be it on a individual or group plan through an employer will now pay these increased premiums because of all the taxes levied by the government to the carrier which levies it to the group or individual, then the government will tax you yet again on your wages
sounds fun doesn't it. everyone is being affected by this. not just people, businesses, brokers, carriers, etc. At least the people elected read it before voting oh wait...what......hahahahahahahhahaahh
forgot i'm sure the big companies have ways to write off these huge ACA bills what are due jan 2014edit on 27-12-2013 by NONPOINT21 because: (no reason given)