Obamacare A Big Lie From The Start...

To Hudson1955: it's nice to see that someone on this thread actually understands the economics of medicine. You are absolutely right. Health care is not a free market and hasn't been for some time. The regulation of the market is soley responsible for the persistantly high costs and lack of cheaper options despite innovation and increased supply. I would like to add one thing to your post which you seemed to almost conclude on your own. Regulation of any industry is not an issue of practicality. It is an issue of morality. All arguments for obamacare (or other forms of healthcare market manipulation) have been arguments of practicality and have entirely avoided the discussion of morality. Does the government have any right to control the market, demand that people purchase health insurance, expand medicare or even create in the first place? They do not.

The claim that health care is a right is a moral claim and must be supported by a moral argument. Not a practical argument. No one has attempted to back up such a statement with any moral rational, however this statement is widely accepted across the globe. It has even been stated by the UN that health care is a basic human right. Let me illustrate the significance of this statement with an analogy: liberty is a right and therefore, any violation of liberty is a moral injustice and must be corrected immediately. If health care is a right, than it would be morally unjust that any human being does not recieve health care. This is an illogical statement on it's own. Prior to the existence of healthcare, did all human beings live in an immoral state? Of course not.

The only philosophical support of such a statement would be that of social subjectivism/Marxism (the founder of communism). Social subjectivism essentially invents morality based on what society "feels" is right based on what the "feel" is best for the greater good. The most important word here is "feel." Social subjectivists do not use reason to establish morality. They feel it out. There is no certainty in what they claim and morality changes over time with the ever changing opinion of the masses.

This country was founded on the ideals of individualism. That individual rights would always be protected from the whims of the collective. This is a morality based in reason. Individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are demonstrable morals (If anyone wishes me to demonstrate how to prove these rights through logic, I can but it would greatly lengthen this post). Under the constitution the government is not allowed to violate the rights of individuals. Any regulation of healthcare is a direct violation of individual rights to liberty and property.

To pay for medicare or medicade, you must redistribute wealth by violating some idividual's right to their own property. To enforce regulation of fee for service prices is to violate a doctor's right to liberty. Making the claim that health care is a right is to claim ownership of the knowledge in the mind of a physician. This is a ridiculous statement and has yet to be supported by any politician by anything other than issues of practicallity. It would not matter if healthcare could only be offered to 10 human beings in the country without government intervention, because the government has no right to force doctors to work for less than they want. Health care is a service/product and must be paid for just like any other product/service.

In a free market health care system, there would be wealth disparity but there would be basic health care for all economic classes. No free market system would ignore the gigantic lower income class. That's an enormous amount of customers. The beauty of such a system is that despite the disparity, inovation would be so accelerated that technologies would soon become affordable for the lower income class. That's how a free market works! Take cell phones for example. When cell phones were first invented, only the rich could afford them. Now everyone has a cell phone. They even make disposable cell phones! Medicare and medicade have killed inovation in health care. Ridiculous beurocracy has made it so difficult to run a private practice, that it is impossible to deliver high volume cheaper care... None of this really matters though because these are issues of practicality and we are dealing with a moral issue. It is immoral to regulate the health care market for multiple reasons. We must not allow our government to continue violating our rights as americans. The role of the government is to create judicial law that ensures that citizens ascribe to moral law. Too many people have forgotten this.

 

Since most people hate the truth, causing my "death sentence for the elderly" thread to get shutdown. Here's more proof of the obvious. enjoy your nightmare Americans. you deserve what you're about to get. Read up here, Obama appoints this death wart Donald Berwick chief of Medicare/Medicaid. Say goodbye to your loved ones on meds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html

 

Its not an issue for me I'm poor ,by choice I need to stay off everyones radar for ability to pay, and have no credit rating so I will just stick to that. No hospital can bill me under the charity care law in Florida and so far no doctor has pushed for payment after hospital care since they figure out I can't pay and the bill goes to you who have insurance or can pay. And there is the free clinic and for dental care can fake being homeless and the homeless healthcare van can tend to that. There are ways to get treated and all. And I already decided if I get a serious medical problem such as heart blockages I will not opt for treatment unless I can pay and let nature happen.

The fact is expanding Medicaid or giving me access to an exchange would be cheaper for everyone, I frankly if I work full out not make enough for insurance now so why bother my only defense is to be "on paper dirt poor" and avoid getting credit rated (I have a thin credit file). Its best for me even if I give up a better lifestyle as it is and live with my father. Poor people will still get care people its just we will not pay for it either doing what I'm doing or just go bankrupt in the end.

Economics ignore this fact its not a free market is it if I get cancer and its advanced the government, hospitals, doctors and others will surely treat me somehow in fact hosptials if I have a life threatening condition must treat me and worry about payment later. And they cannot bill me most won't bother trying.

 

45,000 Americans Die Every Year From RepubliCON Care:


http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/



Vote RepubliCON and see your fellow citizens die!

 

I found it interesting after reading the posts on this thread that Mr. Truth was the only commentor that demonized a given Political Group, attempting to blame them for the failure of the Current Medicare and Medicaid programs established by the Fed Government many years ago. I believe the majority of us have been commenting on the "mis-information" the public was given regarding the PPACA as the Democratic President and Congress attempted to gain our approval prior to pushing the legislation through by questionable means(not following the normal legislative process for passing a law).

So, Mr. Truth, exactly what is your rebuttal to the comments on this thread? I like debate on issues and respect everyones right to their opinions. I do not respect people that provide no "truthful" information" to rebut anothers comment. It is not any one given group/party that is responsible for people being uninsured. After WWII it was the Federal Government that worked with business/employers to urge them to provide Health Insurance as a benefit to employment, so that more individuals and families would have coverage. Had the business community not agreed, there would obviously have been many many more uninsureds. Would you agree that many of those first businesses and the businesses owners of today were/are Republicans? I haven't read the Harvard article but I can assure you that Republicans agree with the portion of ObamaCare that regulates the Insurance Industry in regards to life-time caps, cancellations of policy, premium gouging and coverage of newborns under individual policies(already covered under 99% of Group policies). personally I have issues with mandating they cover "major pre-existing illinesses" as I bellieve to require them to do so will end up increasing the premiums of the entire insured pool. These individuals need to be covered under a State or Federal High Risk program.

I could go on but I am tired and won't.

 

Can you explain what you mean by healthcare inflation, including what is driving the inflation? Are Providers being paid more for their services? No. Most physicians/surgeons have been experiencing yearly reductions in their reimbursements for services by both Federal and Private insurers beginning in the early 1990's with the growth of PPO's HMO's and managed care. So health care costs have not gone up due to providers raising their fees and being paid more.

IMO costs of providing medical care has increased in part due to: advancement in diagnostic equipment, surgical implants and laboratory tests; advancements in surgical procedures that are highly complex and require more skill, education and training, development of new drugs to treat disease/illness previously untreatable by drugs, such as HIV, cancer and so on; demand by the public that their health insurance policy basically cover all medical care costs where as in the past insurance was puchased to pay for surgical care and hospitalization. (now policy pays for routine office visits, outpatient care, preventative care and the like. Obviously increasing what is covered by the policy is going to mean you pay more for the poulicy.

In regard to Medicare, expenditures by the Government have increased due to what I just previously stated, and, the number of Medicare insureds has been dramatically increasing over the past decade and will continue to do so and given that the Federal Government has been borrowing to cover costs not paid for by those in the Medicare Program it is no wonder that it has increased our debt/deficit.

Lastly, the cost of doing business is always increasing as the price of commercial property, rents, build-out costs, equipment, electric, supplies and so on continue to rise. Then add the increase in costly government regulations. Obviously, Physicians, Clinics, Hospitals and other businesses in the medical profession have to increase their fees inorder to pay their overhead and make a profit commensurate to their education, skill and experience.(as any other professional does).

You can lower premiums by reducing what the policy covers or increasing your deductible and co-pay. Physicians and hospitals must pay for equipment and supplies and have no control over those costs. Manufacturers of products have their costs/overhead and are also in business to earn a profit. Taxing them more on their products will mean that the increase in cost will be passed on to those purchasing the products.


So, "tackling the healthcare problem" in terms of rising costs has not been addressed in the PPACA. For the most part the legislation as written will result in increasing costs at a faster pace.

*I have 35+ yesrs in Health Care Administration".

 

So where is your proof that this scientific study is incorrect? Hmmm???

 

Here is one although my comments were not necessarily regarding the study but your comments in general and attitude.

http://radioviceonline.com/fact-check-45000-die-because-they-lack-insurance-not-so-muc/

Additionally, there are other studies on this subject that show different results you can google those studies if you are interested in getting the whole picture.

I would concede that those without insurance may not be able to afford payment for health care services including prescriptions but many uninsured individuals can afford to pay upfront or via a payment plan, additionally, even those with insurance may have a high deductible or co-pay which could influence their decision to seek medical care and lastly many individuals eligible for Medicaid and other programs that provide low-cost or free health care fail to apply or pursue the avenues available to them.

And lastly, many individuals whether insured or not never have a major medical condition or need surgery and only seek treatment for minor problems that can be paid for out-of pocket and the total cost is less than what their deductible would have been and annual premium for insurance. For instance many families pay $12,000./year for family coverage and yet they may never meet their annual deductible or the cost of their annual medical care may have totaled less than what they spent on premiums. Therefore, that is why health savings plans can be good for younger families; providing they put atleast 80% of what an insurance policy would have cost annually into the account.

 

The worst part of our government is the fact that the stupid people get to vote too... Apparently there are a lot of stupid people.... and that folks pretty much sums up why Obama is currently in office.

 

Apparently there is a lot of stupid people whose emotions are easily manipulated to the point where they stop thinking and continually vote for people who end up making their lives more miserable because of their anger about something about the other candidate or something. That is why we have so many republicans in office, voted in by brain dead emotionally driven zombies, a quite large constituency in certain parts of the US.

 

^ Actually that explains why some people vote Republican.




BTW, have you read this?




GOP to the uninsured: Drop dead


http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/250443.html



Republicans: the party of death

 

Debates on those type of findings are best left up to experts on the subject. Your site is entitled to her opinion but it doesn't make it fact.

As for me (former accountant) I saw more people go bankrupt and ultimately die broke due to lack of health care insurance to cover their medical costs than for any other reason. That is not a scientific research but the conclusions that you would have also reached had you been in my occupation.

 

There has been a few larger studies on the subject of medical bankruptcy but the problem with the findings were that the individuals had not only medical debt but other debts that caused their filing bankruptcy. It has been my observation working in all aspects of medical administration, that Hospitals and other providers are extremely willing to work with patients by allowing them to pay in installments and outright forgiving a portion of what they owe and.........

the law actually requires that for a Hospital or physician to pursue litigation they must demonstrate that the bills charged are up-to-date and accurate, that they made every reasonable effort to provide assistance (including checking for Medicaid assistance), and that payment installments were affordable.

You can't get blood from a turnip or an ill person that is unable to work. Many physicians and hospitals will agree to performing treatment/surgery for free when it is a matter of life or death. My husband has done this many times and the hospital where he performed the surgeries agreed in advance not to bill the patient(s).

And many bankruptcies are for elective surgical procedures such as breast implants, cosmetic surgery and the like, where the patient requested the procedure, agreed to pay for the procedure and then defaulted on the payment. much of which wouldn't have been covered by health insurance to begin with.

 

Many people go bankrupt because their insurer dropped them in the middle of their cancer treatment or put a limit on what they would pay leaving them with medical bills far larger than their income. Many of these people had jobs, and mortgages and health insurance before their illness. Once they became ill they became unable to work and lost their job, their health insurance, and their income all at once.

To say that many people who go bankrupt from medical bills had other bills they were also unable to pay as an insinuation that they are somehow spendthrifts is an entirely specious thing to say. If the US had a health care program that actually paid for health care none of these people would be put in this position.

A recent trend in the health care industry is to sell all unpaid bills to aggressive collection agencies. This bypasses the legal requirement that hospitals make a reasonable effort to provide assistance or seek reasonable payments since they are no longer the debt holder. Collection agencies are not bound by these laws and do indeed try to get the blood from the turnips.

The number of bankruptcies of people who fail to pay for cosmetic surgery is a drop in the bucket compared to those who declare bankruptcy due to cancer. Besides, the great majority of cosmetic surgeons require payment up front because they are not foolish trusting people. Many of them also perform a lot of cosmetic surgery for free in a humanitarian gesture, financed by their vain and egotistical patients who pay full price up front.

Your attempts to mis-characterise the issue need some work, or a more gullible audience.

 

The question is will the law be able to be repealed which is unlikely by any scenario one can reasonably see in play. So what is the point how he got there. Show me one way the Republicans can do this without having to deal with a filibuster at some point on parts of the law? If Obama is re-elected or the Democrats hold 50 or more Senate Seats the fight is over.

I think we can agree the odds of eleven Senate seats changing hands is so remote as to not be considered likely at all so lets assume that is off the table.

 

harvard and cambridge have no credibility. anybody can walk into any hospital and get treated, just ask any illegal alien invader.

 

And how about all those "waivers?" Waiver being a code word for BRIBE.

 

Well under the law the people that poor are supposed to go into Medicaid and if over that income level can get into an exchange with usually pretty generous subsidies for the premiums and out of pocket costs up to a fairly decent income level so few would opt out if low income. I wouldn't if I had to do an exchange I would with my income it would be a sweetheart deal and I could go to my normal level of employment again.

Anyway like I said repealing the law is not going to be easy if the Democrats keep the majority in the Senate the fight is over, if Obama is re-elected the fight is over and even if the Republicans get into the needed positions and take over the Senate with a bare majority repealing will not be easy. The mandate insurers takes everybody and other parts of the law cannot be reconciled just financial parts they could strip out alot of the law and leave the regulatory mandates out but then the Democrats can filibuster to keep those. If they move to repeal the whole law then they will be able to filibuster in the Senate very likely, unless the Democrats lose almost a dozen seats in November (not going to happen).

They could repeal the mandate tied to the tax penalty then force this back to court but by the time its heard the law will have kicked in there is no way they could get that out before the end of 2013.

Romney could issue waivers to states but if a state expands their medical care system under the ACA they must get the funding so that is not a great option. Plus this is a jobs bill for health care employment, it will make states that enter the ACA provisions appealing to small employers (if I was going to open a business with under 50 employees I would go to such a state). And added to this to states its virtually free money they can cover all the poor which is good for the medical infrastructure and gets a free $9 for every $1 they put in later on and exchanges are not going to cost that much to put into place. That is hard to say no to if the law is not going to be repealed or stalls in a repeal to red tape.

I just don't see many options for the Republicans.

 

I am somewhat baffled at the republican's resistance to the exchanges. could someone explain that please?

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself. The problem is that there are currently no exchanges and the PPACA provides very little specific information on exchanges.
There is no guarantee that all States will have exchanges at all or that they will be up and running at the time the individual mandate takes effect.

Even the CBO was unable to guarantee that premiums through the exchanges would be less than current premiums, and many people may still not be able to afford the premiums and may not qualify for premium assistance.

There are too many unknowns and I believe private insurers and groups(similar to employee group health or group health through organizations) could have worked as well and kept the Government out of it. Thus far nothing the Government has touched has faired well.

 

Well the law is pretty simple on subsidies if your earning at or under 400% of the poverty line the law provides for these in clear language. Over that your right they might be more expensive but since insurance premiums are tax deductible as are related health care costs that should be less of an impact. But it is a open market approach the government has fair guidelines and the like but costs and how the individual insurers do their plans are pretty open there are business models they can use I'm sure to make their plans good and lower cost.

But there is another matter Exchange plans are not tied to an employer it might be worth a bit more to have that if one looks at it that way.

My big issue is what is the GOP plan for the working poor those at say at 100% of the Federal Poverty line they won't ever be able to buy insurance, many can't afford it if offered now and the Medicaid expansion is at least covering this critical group. And its a large group in my area the best jobs are at "corporate full time" 28 hours more or less at a low wage many people are taking out of need. Even if two parents earn those wages its under the poverty line or close to it what about them?

 

How can you comment on the cost of premiums through exchanges or the "generous" subsidies when none of this exists and when few specifics on either are outlined in the PPACA? Lets stick with facts and parts of the program that have been fully implemented so as to not mislead people.

 

It doesn't need to be totally replealed but exchanges set up by the Fed Gov and premium assistance can be defunded and States can refulse to expand Medicaid and/or to set up exchanges all of which will mean reforming the law as it stands.

 

There is a chart with the exact subsidies for each tier of care from 0% to 400% of the poverty line in fact its on the info page on the law on Wikipedia and other sources, I have a book explaining it and its also in there referenced in the law.

As for defunding yes the can do that by reconciliation which is allowed to be used once a year, which sacrificing it for the budget fight at the end of 2013. But if they do this the rest of the law stands and can be filibustered the Democrats have grounds they can say fine the mandate insurers take everyone and the rest stand, when YOUR bill comes up we will THEN consider a repeal. But you have one year to do that.

Now Romney can let states opt out of the exchanges and do so by executive order but states that opt in will get the funding.

I know they could eliminate filibuster in the Senate but neither party wants to lose that option really. My guess is if Obama is not returned to office and the Senate shifts to the Republicans they will do some reforms both parties can live with and not really do much more. If it gets dirty the Democrates can likely stall a full repeal since a partial repeal will not do what must be done romove the insurance company mandate, the one thing the rest of the bill is built around to make it work.

I will lastly note who says the law is bad its not in effect yet it could be a great law and do what was promised slow the costly growthof health care slowing it down. It might make more providers available and create better delivery models using the open markets creativity. If nothing else what is the plan let the poor rot bleeding the system, risking everyones lives if a pandemic hits and spurs on faster due to the uninsured not getting care when it mattered (remember HIV, polio, the early 20th century influenza outbreak) we are in a global environment it would just take one carrier to bring in something dangerous from abroad and some uninsured to get it and bammo it might come to your household. Just in my state there was a TB outbreak when they closed the state TB hospital and the poor didn't have options to get care soon enough and some of that is immune to treatments with drugs.

 

The law already allows States to opt-out of creating Exchanges that will then require the Fed. Gov. to set them up at no cost to the State. Has nothing to do with Romney. And several Fed Gov. funded studies and the CBO have projected that premiums will increase and that the revenue needed to subsidize premiums and establish Exchanges was far underestimated and will cost taxpayers much more that we were told just prior to the passage of the Law. Too many unknowns to give my support to Obamacare. The only portion of the law that made sense and was badly needed is the "patient protection" and Insurance regulations.