What is the big deal about Obamacare being declared unconstitutional?

I take it you're not familiar with the way in which Singapore's healthcare system actually works. You are in fact required to pay a percentage of your earnings into a government-controlled healthcare fund (which covers ordinary needs) and obtain government-controlled insurance (covering extraordinary healthcare expenses). You can also, if you choose, obtain supplementary private insurance for, say, upgrades to a better class of hospital ward, etc.

In return, Singapore controls costs and other aspects of healthcare, resulting in a healthcare system that is not only one of the best in the world, but very affordable from both an individual and national perspective. Underpinning this - as with all universal/single-payer systems - is the fact that this everyone understands that their mandated contributions both enable and allow them to enjoy these benefits.

 

Which is cheaper, the tax of what comes out of your check every pay period?

 

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

The percentage of earnings required to pay for the system.
Do you think its a cost savings to do it that way, or more expensive then what the insurance companies charge you.

For instance.
Updated December 18, 2019


According to research published by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2019, the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance for annual premiums was $7,188 for single coverage and $20,576 for family coverage. The report also found that the average annual deductible amount for single coverage was $1,655 for covered workers.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/re...e-cost-of-employer-sponsored-health-insurance

 

Nope, there was no cap.
It never fails, you dems will try to tell me how and why I saved money by paying double premiums and 3x more deductible for less coverage. Don't tell me things about my experience that you know nothing about. I know what happened. Millions of policy holders LOST their coverage when the ACA became law and you didn't care, so don't pretend to care now.

 

Bleh, thats supposed to be "Or", not "of".

 

Right...you want us all to believe your premiums doubled due to maternity coverage. Hahahahaha

 

Yes. My policy ceased to exist. What do you not understand? How many times does that need explaining? I had to get a whole new ACA compliant policy which sucked and cost twice as much.

 

Payments into the Singapore healthcare fund range from 8% to 10.5%.

Applying these rates to the median US income of about $34,000 for an individual, annual payments would be:

x 8% = $2,720
x 10.5% = $3,570

You'd have to be earning $70K to $90K to end up paying $7,188 (at 10.5% and 8% respectively).

There's also the mandated insurance to pay in Singapore, but this only costs the equivalent of about US $100 to $1,000 per year, plus you can use the money paid into the fund to pay for it.

 

I understand that. Not sure why you think I don’t. What you don’t seem to understand is you keep telling us other than maternity coverage your old plan was ACA compliant but there is no way that your plan doubled in premiums just by having maternity as the one thing added. Sorry but that isn’t possible. Your old plan clearly didn’t have many of the covered services required for a compliant plan.

 

Ignorance like you're displaying is why you keep losing and the ACA is becoming bunk. You keep stating that my plan doubled due to adding maternity and I keep explaining that plan ended completely but yet you keep repeating the same thing. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with this, but now ACA is ending so it doesn't matter anyway. The ACA was a lie and a disaster.

 

My lord...you really aren’t getting it. Let me try explaining it to you in another way. You said your new plan doubled in premium from your old one, correct? You also said your old plan was ACA compliant EXCEPT for maternity coverage. Meaning, all the things covered in your old plan were the same things covered in your new plan EXCEPT for maternity. I’m saying there is no way your new plan doubled in premium from your old plan just for adding maternity coverage. Not sure why you’re struggling to understand this.
And what do I keep losing? There is a Repub in the WH and the Repubs have majority in the Senate. I helped get a Repub governor elected in my state. So help me understand what I keep losing at.

 

No, actually the new ACA plan had LESS coverage, not the same coverage, and higher deductibles and double premiums. You don't believe it because you don't want to admit it. It was a dismal failure!

 

:lol I believe the solution starts with diet and removing all subsidies for unhealthy foods. I am not under the illusion it will happen any time soon. Food and drug companies are powerful and have deep connections in the government. Change will come when the percentage of people too ill to work reaches a tipping point.

ACA may be the result of the best intentions, but results show that it is doing more harm than good.

 

What wasn’t covered in your new plan that was covered in your old one?

 

Again ACA has nothing to do with Americans being glutinous pigs. The trend of Americans getting fatter and fatter started well before ACA.

 

I know of no such conspiracy. Results are easy to look up. Use of pharm products is at record levels and is growing. Illness is at record levels and is getting worse. Putting people on meds does not make them healthier. Results speak for themselves.

 

Of course there is a plan. The idea is to remove government from the health care system.

 

Then what are you doing to present it to your congressman or senator?

Everyone thinks they have a good idea, but without actually having the means to have those who ideas explored, vetted, and initiated it's just an idea that sits there collecting dust.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong. It's just in these days, people are wanting to grab onto conspiracy theories far too easy to explain what they themselves do not want to research.

We as a country have indeed allowed big pharma way too much latitude. In my mind, it began in the late 80s when the FDA allowed pharmaceuticals to advertise directly to consumers through TV ads. It was followed by them applying the lessons learned from the Big Mouse, aka Disney, and their hyper-militant approach to copyright infringement. The government is always at least two steps behind in keeping that industry balanced with the needs of the public good.

I'm very much pro FDA. We seem to have very short memories about what the world was like before we had that agency protecting us from all sorts of snake oils and peddlers brandishing tonics. IMO we need to expand the FDA, not cut it back. Of course, the biggest obstacle to that is big pharma's wallet and influence on K street.

 

Exactly! The only way they could minimize that risk is to increase the pool of insureds which would spread the risk more equitably, which is why the mandate was needed. What people refuse to see is that if they choose to not have insurance, eventually they will wind up in the hospital and we the taxpayers are going to have to pay their bill, and there go the savings that were designed into the system because some people don't want to be told what to do.

In reality, it would be far easier to just create a universal healthcare system rather than all these contortions to appease people with a political and/or selfish motive.

 

Having worked in pharma for many years in the past, I know a fair amount about this subject.

-I too am opposed to direct to consumer advertising of drugs, but my question would be why do you oppose it?

-For what reason do you believe that the FDA needs to expand?

 

Are you saying so because you actually read it from the plan's EOC (explanation of coverages)? Or because someone told you so?

 

The expectation is that if Barrett is confirmed, it will help drive a Democratic sweep.

If the Senate falls to a veto proof majority for the Democrats, they can reinstate the ACA, adding back in all the things that the GOP wouldn’t settle for, and add a public option.

The public option will end the whole discussion in the long run. It’s going to be the option that employers pick. Which will leave the insurance industry out in the cold unless they can administer the programs, or come up with a better product (something they have been singularly disinterested in so far).

 

Trump’s EO on pre existing conditions is a theatrical gesture, designed to fool folks like you.

The President has no legal authority in the matter, and his showy EO is nothing more than another one of his lame stunts.