'American' Health Care Bill

a reply to: reldra

Scrap all of this government garbage and go back to the way it was. We will all be better off for it.

a reply to: CharlesT

The way it was? How far back do you want to go?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I've said plenty of times in this thread military pulls from this. But I fail to see how my taxes would be less for the same coverage as private.

You don't think taking just a half a Trillion from the military budget toward healthcare wouldn't decrease the cost of healthcare for all Americans? Also, taking profit out of the hands of Insurance companies, would also reduce costs. Regulating the high costs of pharmaceuticals and medical devices would also go a long way at reducing costs. We've seen time and time again how pharmaceutical companies have tried to take advantage of people in need by outrageously raising prices on a particular prescription.

There are many countries out there who have been able to manage universal healthcare and keep costs under control. Our government should be taking the time to research all of these healthcare programs and devise a plan that would encompass the best parts of all these plans!

Ramming a new healthcare plan through congress, will continue to make healthcare an issue 4 or 8 years from now. None of these plans work and leave millions without healthcare. Isn't it about time our government does the right thing and follow the lead of other countries who provide healthcare to their citizens? These plans will never reduce high medical costs that take advantage of those who need treatments, the vulnerable sick and those who are dying.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Obama care has officially opened the door to lie and cheat on a level I never thought I would see.

President Obama lied for months on end about cost and dr.'s. He lied to get it passed, and is not on the average man's side. Bought and paid for by corporate lobbies.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CharlesT

The way it was? How far back do you want to go?

Back to just prior to Obamacare.

a reply to: seasonal

Yup I'm well aware of that I don't support the former Romney Care very much as it is. Looks like the new plans aren't helping to reverse much as it is anyway.

a reply to: reldra

No, I am not pleased. The entire idea that people were forced to be insured was that the uninsured were using the ER as a doctor and those costs were passed onto the insured

Really? Then why did the one's, that were paying for insurance anyway, premiums skyrocketed when Obamacare came around.
Everyone was insured then. It looks like it was cheaper seeing the ER as a doctor then, would it not?

Obamacare insured almost everyone, they could go to a doctor rather than the ER that costs 50x times more. Most of the uninsured were people who were employed

You mean it forced everyone working, to pay for insurance, that was crap insurance at an outlandish amount even if they couldn't afford it. That is not right. Insurance isn't a right, especially when it is forced on you. Then it is more of a tax, but to only certain people. I guess it would be discriminatory really.

We are on the brink of a horrible healthcare situation, just because greedy people, 'especially the Freedom Caucus (love these ironic names)' think it gives TOO MUCH. It doesn't promise even the bare minimum a country as great as ours should expect.

On the Brink?! We have been in a horrible healthcare situation since Obamacare, where have you been. It is one of the reasons Trump was elected. Duh.. And you think it is the Freedom Caucus that told me Obamacare sucked? You mean the Great Country that is Trillions of dollars in debt? I tell you what. If you can convince our Government to stop giving money to other parts of the world, then I will convince them to give us all free,or at the least very affordable, healthcare.

a reply to: reldra

I wont comment on what I think the solution to the health care problem should be, for two reasons:

1) My views are too libertarian for most of ATS.

2) Its not like the government would ever consider ideas that parallel mine.

However I will say this. Why doesn't congress just do an emergency repeal of the Individual Mandate and the tax penalties, and take their time writing a real bill? The bill they're proposing is rushed. No good can come of rushing legislation.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: reldra

Yea they're prospering because Obama made it mandatory to buy health insurance (unless you can't afford it).

The federal government shouldn't be able to force me to use a private product or service.

That being said I don't care if it's good for insurance companies. I care if it helps me, and in this case it didn't. It hit me pretty hard actually.

If you can't afford it, you can get medicaid, if you are in a state that thought ahead and expanded it.

The reason to require it was so people weren't using the ER as a doctor, passing on costs to taxpayers and the insured. They surely could not afford to payb for the ER visit, which often has multiple bills. So, someone was paying and it wasn't the hospital, wasn't the ambulance company....hospitals were reimbursed in tax dollars and raising prices for services.

And yet the expected reduction of ER visits hasn't actually happened according to the CDC.

But findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that not having health care coverage isn't the only factor keeping people from defaulting to the ER for care, and that "ER use overall has not changed significantly after the first full year of ACA implementation." The report from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics used data from the 2013 and 2014 National Health Interview Survey to assess why and how often people went to the emergency room. Data from 2014 – the year that coverage provisions in Obamacare went into effect – showed the percentage of adults visiting the ER didn't differ much from the year before, despite the fact that 7.9 million gained coverage between the two years.

www.usnews.com...

Why would a 63 year-old woman need maternity care? Why should she be forced to buy it? Before Obamacare I had a policy that excluded maternity care because it is physically impossible for me to become pregnant. Seemed sensible to me to offer such policies since those of us who are incapable of further reproduction have no need of that type of coverage. But NO! The wise Dems and the greedy insurance companies got together and wrote that mess and decided that all females must pay for maternity care coverage. Reality be damned.

They also got together and decided that one visit per month to my chiropractor was all that could be covered under insurance. Now, there is no such limit on my primary physician. I could go see him and get pills every day but if I'm trying to avoid taking pills and taking responsibility for my own health with "alternative" care, NO WAY!

The current bill is far worse than Obamacare in my opinion. It would make me pay my "fee" or "fine" or whatever they are calling it these days to the insurance company instead of Uncle Sam. I've been walking around with my head sideways since I heard that... My very objection has always been that I have no need of a middleman between me and my health care. I see my doc. We decide on treatment and cost. No consultations with anyone else. I refuse to pay an insurance company $10k/yr. for services which I can purchase for less than $4k. I would have to spend at least $5K/yr. before the insurance would even kick in. That is sheer madness. That's why young people won't bite. THEY AREN'T THAT STUPID. And some of us old folks are healthy and chose not to entrust our health to the industry called health care.

The only major policy position I do not share with President Trump is healthcare.

Obamacare should be allowed to collapse and its corpse hung around the necks of the leftists who forced that disaster on us in the first place.

The Federal government has no constitutional authority to meddle in healthcare other than basic regulation.

American citizens have no constitutional right to healthcare.

If the states want to provide healthcare to their citizens, they are perfectly within their rights under the 10th Amendment.

If a representative of the government tells you, I'm here to help you, GRAB YOUR WALLET.

originally posted by: diggindirt

And yet the expected reduction of ER visits hasn't actually happened according to the CDC.

The "ER" thing was a big issue too !!

a reply to: SBMcG

But But But

Obama: "It's NOT a tax"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax"



Obama: "States will pass expanded Medicaid or lose Federal money isn't coercive"

SCOTUS: "It's coercive"

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

Those little "extras" would be optional I thought.

What 'little extras'?

The minimum "essential" coverage.

I would imagine Addiction Care, Mental health Care, Maternity Care and Prescriptions are essentials.

Ask any other developed country if they feel those things are essential.

How are those things "essentials"?

I am not an addict therefore I have no need to pay for addiction care.

I can get my mental health care at the free clinic should I need it. In fact I have a choice of two free or income-based clinics which offer a far wider range of treatments than any for-profit offices in our area.

I cannot get pregnant therefore I have no need to pay for maternity benefits.

I might buy one or maybe two prescription drugs on a yearly basis, (antibiotics mostly) so I have no need to pay for a prescription drug plan that I will not use.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: reldra

I wont comment on what I think the solution to the health care problem should be, for two reasons:

1) My views are too libertarian for most of ATS.

2) Its not like the government would ever consider ideas that parallel mine.

However I will say this. Why doesn't congress just do an emergency repeal of the Individual Mandate and the tax penalties, and take their time writing a real bill? The bill they're proposing is rushed. No good can come of rushing legislation.

I couldn't agree more. Get the repeal done first.

My solution would be to go back to catastrophic coverage. All my vehicles are fully insured and yet that insurance doesn't pay for my oil change and lube, nor for my new tires or my windshield wipers. My house is fully insured and yet I can't send the housepainter's bill to the insurance company and expect it to be paid.

Give me a reasonably priced catastrophic coverage policy based on my health history and I will seriously consider buying it. But I am not paying the equivalent of a house payment for "coverage" which I neither want nor need.

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CharlesT

The way it was? How far back do you want to go?

Back to just prior to Obamacare.

When people were unable to find insurance because of a pre-condition? And, employers were paying for birth control, and abortions were covered?

a reply to: windword

I would say some where prior to it being forced down the throat of this nation, taking another choice away from the citizen.

I never understand how anyone can be opposed to helping people in need in general.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes indeedy. Just like "You can keep your doctor." "Your health care will be better and cheaper." and on and on....

But what is really breaking it for young people is the fact that they're going to be spending more to pay their insurance premiums than they would normally spend for health care for a year. This for insurance that doesn't kick in until they've spent $5k out of their pockets. They are already paying for Social Security and Medicare for their parents and grandparents out of their paychecks. They've worked hard, budgeted their money, saved their money and bought homes based on their budget before Obamacare. Now they're being hung with premiums that are almost equal to their mortgage payment. This has reduced their ability to save for the future. I don't blame them for being mad.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Hey... uh, raising the price of fast food, will not lower the price of healthy food. It will simply mean, that people cannot afford food, regardless of how furred it makes their arteries. That seems illogical.

The answer is to make healthy, wholesome food so cheap, that fast food cannot compete with it, and to do that, you simply ban global agribusiness from making more than a certain amount of profit on every item sold in stores, but force them to pay the same wages, so that only their bottom line suffers, not the workers who get the food from the ground to your table, and not the consumer, the only important two demographics in the entire situation.