Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Clodfobble]

Right, currently the hospital has to charge you $900 for a $2 thermometer, because they aren't getting paid by all the people with no insurance.

Under the new--and dare I suggest, better--plan, the hospital can now charge everyone normal prices, because the insurance company is paying them for every patient. And the health insurance company will be charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get sick,) just like your auto insurance company is currently charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get in a wreck.)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Right, currently the hospital has to charge you $900 for a $2 thermometer, because they aren't getting paid by all the people with no insurance.

Under the new--and dare I suggest, better--plan, the hospital can now charge everyone normal prices, because the insurance company is paying them for every patient. And the health insurance company will be charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get sick,) just like your auto insurance company is currently charging you $100 for nothing (assuming you don't get in a wreck.)

My auto insurance has not risen 30% a year all the while increasing my deductible and covering less. Obamacare will do nothing to control what insurance companies are going to charge you.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

I guess my post was poorly written, but I was curious as to whether that particular piece,
or any for that matter could be changed. The point was regarding medicare, not Obamacare.
However with respect to you pre-existing question, no I don't think it should be changed.
May I ask why you brought that up. It seemed to come out of nowhere.

My bad ... a senior moment... I lumped the two programs together,
mainly because I don't really see Medicare and Obamacare as having separate or different goals.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My auto insurance has not risen 30% a year all the while increasing my deductible and covering less. Obamacare will do nothing to control what insurance companies are going to charge you.

Well, if it has no effect on the cost of insurance, then I'm even more in favor of it! People I personally know are now allowed to buy coverage that they couldn't get before. This is a good thing.

If you're so worried about what your insurance company is going to charge you, why didn't you just opt out of the whole thing? Even now, no one is forcing you to be insured for a few more years. Yet you choose to be.

[TheMercenary]

"No effect on the cost of Insurance" means they can continue to charge you more and more and provide you less.

Because right now I can afford it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"No effect on the cost of Insurance" means they can continue to charge you more and more and provide you less.

Right. And they were going to do that anyway. So why shouldn't my friend's family also be allowed to get charged more and more, if they want to join the party?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Right. And they were going to do that anyway. So why shouldn't my friend's family also be allowed to get charged more and more, if they want to join the party?

To what end? Obamacare and the insurance companies are in bed on the costs to the end user. They made a deal with the devil. As I have said many times, if they were really serious about it they should have just gone ahead and offered a Public Option to control costs for the insured. But they didn't.

[Clodfobble]

You mean the Republicans prevented them from offering the Public option. And as I recall, you were very much against it as well.

I agree that a single-payer system would be better than what we have now, but what we have now is also better than what we used to have. Baby steps are still steps.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You mean the Republicans prevented them from offering the Public option. And as I recall, you were very much against it as well.

I agree that a single-payer system would be better than what we have now, but what we have now is also better than what we used to have. Baby steps are still steps.

Repubes may have been against it, but in the end they had neither any say or any vote to repeal it. It was completely a onesided bill. I am against socialized medicine on a mass scale for this country. In the end I said many times that they should have just gone all in and offered the public option.

[Spexxvet]

[quote=classicman;786911... Why can't that part alone get changed?
...[/QUOTE]
R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N-S

[classicman]

But the R's are all for capitalism and firing people. One could conclude that they would be in favor of that now.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

But the R's are all for capitalism and firing people. One could conclude that they would be in favor of that now.

The out of context quote by Romny was talking about people in government that were advancing programs he disagreed with.

[classicman]

We all, I hope, know that. You're off on a tangent though.
Do you think it would be beneficial to end the part of medicare D that prevents the Gov't from negotiating prices?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

We all, I hope, know that. You're off on a tangent though.

What eva...

Do you think it would be beneficial to end the part of medicare D that prevents the Gov't from negotiating prices?

Yes. I thought that was stupid. The whole donut hole thing was completely idiotic, cover them or don't, but don't leave a frigging hole in the middle.

[henry quirk]

"Well then HQ, apparently you do not wish to contribute to our society in any way."

There's so much wrong with this statement: let me count (some of) the ways...

1-I'm hard-pressed how you arrived at this above conclusion...care to explain your reasoning?

2-In the context of 'mandatory', 'law', and 'single payer', there is no such animal as 'contribute' (normally a voluntary event), there is only 'take'.

3-What is 'society'? Define it.

4-If a body pays for the services and products he or she needs and wants directly (instead of shuffling cap in hand to big daddy government) is this not 'contributing'?

#

"How are all those thing going to exist without contributions?"

Again with 'contributions'.

Each of these -- public transportation, public beaches, libraries, parks, etc. -- is a separate item on the list...some (because of the way municipal, regional, state, national, living is currently organized) require some communal funding, while others don't.

If you wanna dicker about what should be funded by 'all', start a new thread (or revitalize an old one if such already exists).