Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

    Originally posted by AFM View Post
    So if I have it right you are paying $1,100.00 per month not $1,100.00 per year which equals $13,200.00 per year and if I am still right you are paying what Rupud Murdock would pay in Australia and get not one private room but two or three at that cost.
    Lets get this right as well Australia has around 22millions people and has an affordable Medicare system that everyone contributes 1.5% of their income to and private health cover if one wants it but the US with around 300million people carn`t afford it because it smacks of socialism wasn`t it FDR that set up a pension system in the 1930`s for Americians wasn`t that socialism???

    Tony
    That is pretty much it. There is a lot that goes into that but basically that is what I pay.

    Mark
    "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

    I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

      Originally posted by AFM View Post
      So if I have it right you are paying $1,100.00 per month not $1,100.00 per year which equals $13,200.00 per year and if I am still right you are paying what Rupud Murdock would pay in Australia and get not one private room but two or three at that cost.
      Lets get this right as well Australia has around 22millions people and has an affordable Medicare system that everyone contributes 1.5% of their income to and private health cover if one wants it but the US with around 300million people carn`t afford it because it smacks of socialism wasn`t it FDR that set up a pension system in the 1930`s for Americians wasn`t that socialism???

      Tony
      Well yes you can take pretty much anything the govt is involved in and call it socialism. For example we all have to pay taxes - is that socialism. The taxpayer pays for airline security by funding the TSA here in the US. So there's our government "looking after us" at airports as Andy_M puts it. Is that their job?

      I personally don't agree with the notion of people being forced to buy insurance but on the other hand have no issues with a govt run medical system along with private healthcare for those who want it. I cannot see how the current situation can be resolved without govt intervention or laws - I mean the heath insurance cos and medical systems are making good money as things stand - who involved in that system wants to give that up.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

        Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
        That is pretty much it. There is a lot that goes into that but basically that is what I pay.

        Mark
        Our system isn`t perfect and there are other out of pocket expences where some dotors charge outside the recommended fees that your private health and medicare insurances will pay for but I couldn`t afford your health system and that is what governments are set up for to organise and run social services or no country would have one and it would be everyone for themselves and you could imagine just how long it would last a civilization is judged on how it looks after it weak and poor.

        Tony

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

          Originally posted by AFM View Post
          Our system isn`t perfect and there are other out of pocket expences where some dotors charge outside the recommended fees that your private health and medicare insurances will pay for but I couldn`t afford your health system and that is what governments are set up for to organise and run social services or no country would have one and it would be everyone for themselves and you could imagine just how long it would last a civilization is judged on how it looks after it weak and poor.

          Tony
          Tony - one thing to point out is that for a lot of working people their companies offer health insurance and depending on the company you either pay a small premium or in some cases even nothing.

          Before I started my consulting business I worked as an employee and the last company I worked at I paid something like $50 a month for a pretty good insurance plan. I have a friend who works as a well known wireless company here in San Diego. He met with a serious motorcycle accident and is lucky not to have died. Regardless he was in hospital and had several surgeries etc. He never paid anything towards the cost - the insurance and the company paid for everything.

          I don't know if this is common generally - I'm only familiar with the sector I work in (high tech) designing integrated circuits and other electronics. But I think a lot of people on this site are self employed and are in a situation of having to get their own insurance.

          I worked at a technology startup for a while here in SD and got to see that insurance companies also screw with smaller companies with various rules and regulations. In other words the bigger companies can get the better deals with the volume of buying power (obvious I suppose).

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

            I've always had health insurance for my family and I. It is a "benefit" of most companies or at least should be. But, I always paid a weely or monthly premium. In the 60's it was only a few dollars, but over the years it has grown considerably and I know that the company that I retired from, after 30 years, was paying $millions to cover just half of the insurance premiums.

            I do agree with AndyM, that health insurance has seriously contributed to the exorbitant increases. It's like a feeding frenzy and is now way out of hand. I recall back in 1973, when I started my job here, that a typical doctor's visit was $8 and the insurance paid $6 of it. Then the insurance increased it's payment to $8 and the doctors immediately increased their charge to $10 and so it went, time after time.

            My wife and I are very diligent about our bills and we have on many occasions questioned medical charges and there has NOT been one time that the insurance company has welcomed our concerns. I recall back in the 80's when my wife was in the hospital for three days. She saw the specialist only the first afternoon of her admittance, but when we saw the bill that was sent to the insurance company, it had four visits for each day that she was there. We brought that to the attention of the doctor and he was very indignant about it, telling us he "didn't charge one dime more than what the insurance would pay!". (Apparently they have books telling them what each insurance company payment schedule is.) We reported this to the insurance company and they could have cared less.

            Last year I had to have a couple of tests (stress cardiogram and then a "nuclear" stress test). Those few hours cost over $9K, which was ridiculous. I demanded an itemized bill and it was a joke. You could easily see that they "filled" the whatever was necesary to meet what the insurance payment maximum was allowed.

            If you look around your community, maybe its like mine. Everywhere is closed shops, empty buildings and abandoned factories. But now there's a pharmacy on practically every corner and the only thing that is really new in my town are the medical buildings. Corning hospital was on the verge of closing a few years ago, and now they're planning a multi-miillion $ brand new hospital, outside of town. In the Binghamton area, both Wilson and Lourdes hospitals have been on continuous expansions for the last several years and UHS is in the midst of a brand new multi-story office. Back in the early 70's, Guthrie was this sleepy little hospital in Sayre, PA which is a very small town in the northern tier of Central Pa. Today, it is a massive business with huge hospital in Sayre and several other places that they have taken over. In Corning, Guthrie has taken over all but a handful of private practices and has one four-story center and huge "health-works" facility and several surroundng specialist offices.

            Health care is probably one of the biggest industries in the U.S. and it is continueing to grow, all because of surging profits. Yet, actual "health care" is pretty much second rate compared to other countries.

            I personally think that what everyone refers to as "ObamaCare" should be a good thing for most Americans. But, it totally lacks price controls, thanks largely to lobbying efforts and the backing of the Republican party. Like any "industry, the last thing a Republican congressman or Senator is going to do is bridle the handouts and position cost controls. Hence, many of us can't afford health insurance and those of us who can are paying ransom fortunes every year.

            Along with that, we see laws passed that prevent us from buying our pharmaceuticals in Canad or anywhere else. The industry says it's for safety's sake, but considering that many of this companies have "off-shored", I believe the reason is "profit".

            CWS

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

              There's a lot of history in the world on socialized medicine. Obamacare is socialized medicine, the only difference is that the money goes direct to the heath insurance company. Price controls on healthcare only result in a sharp decline in care. In many countries that have (government run) socialized medicine, getting care takes months, and the quality isn't good. It's the classic problem with socialism. Look at the Soviet Union. They had full employment, yet produced almost nothing to export. Internally, there were chronic shortages of many of the necessities. Do you really want Government running healthcare? Based on their sterling performance in every other area? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                There's a lot of history in the world on socialized medicine. Obamacare is socialized medicine, the only difference is that the money goes direct to the heath insurance company. Price controls on healthcare only result in a sharp decline in care. In many countries that have (government run) socialized medicine, getting care takes months, and the quality isn't good. It's the classic problem with socialism. Look at the Soviet Union. They had full employment, yet produced almost nothing to export. Internally, there were chronic shortages of many of the necessities. Do you really want Government running healthcare? Based on their sterling performance in every other area? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
                I already posted that I used to live in the UK which has socialized medicine and got a reasonable level of healthcare - nothing to complain about. It's true that they can be slow on non-critical procedures and there is waste in the system. On the one occasion I hurt the muscles in my lower back while trying to unscrew a diesel injector that was stuck on my car I could not get speedy physiotherapy so the last company I worked at (which also offered private medical care) took care of the issue at no cost to me.

                Here in the US there are plenty of HMOs that prefer to offer you a lower level solution to a problem in the interest of saving money. For this reason I prefer to go with PPO/POS type plans but I know people with HMOs who have had this experience.
                Last edited by blue_can; 08-16-2011, 01:04 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                  Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                  There's a lot of history in the world on socialized medicine. Obamacare is socialized medicine, the only difference is that the money goes direct to the heath insurance company. Price controls on healthcare only result in a sharp decline in care. In many countries that have (government run) socialized medicine, getting care takes months, and the quality isn't good. It's the classic problem with socialism. Look at the Soviet Union. They had full employment, yet produced almost nothing to export. Internally, there were chronic shortages of many of the necessities. Do you really want Government running healthcare? Based on their sterling performance in every other area? I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
                  Well I look at capitalism and its not a prety picture right now its dog eat dog world wide and its every one for themselves where the rich pay nothing and the poor pay it all I just head on the radio where Warren Buffit who isn`t poor says he wouldn`t mind paying more tax as he payed the massive sum of Seven million dollars tax last year and thought it wasn`t enough and says its the only way that the US is going to get out of its mess by making the rick pay more.
                  Like it or not socialism is part of what governments have to do where everyone contributes to the common good and health is just one of those goods as police teachers and your armed forces are and without this type of socialism you just don`t have a civilisation

                  Tony

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                    Originally posted by CWSmith View Post

                    I personally think that what everyone refers to as "ObamaCare" should be a good thing for most Americans. But, it totally lacks price controls, thanks largely to lobbying efforts and the backing of the Republican party. Like any "industry, the last thing a Republican congressman or Senator is going to do is bridle the handouts and position cost controls.
                    How could this statement be remotely possible and factual, when NOT 1 Republican voted for this bill, and a Democratic super majority passed Obama care? If you remember, the Republicans got pushed aside for the crafting of this bill, so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                      As an employer I am expected to provide health insurance, dental insurance, maternity leave, paid vacations, overtime pay and the list goes on and on. We forget that these benefits used to be just that, benefits. They were provided because the company made the choice to provide them. Generally the choice was a balance between cost and keeping the work force healthy and happy. Now though it's all but manditory in the eyes of the employee's. Since FDR we have become a nation of people expecting the government, employers and society to give us things because we deserve them. I love the word deserve. It has to me the most misused word of the century. Maybe if we didn't provide all these benefits people would start thinking about the choices they make.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                        Originally posted by AFM View Post
                        Well I look at capitalism and its not a prety picture right now its dog eat dog world wide and its every one for themselves where the rich pay nothing and the poor pay it all I just head on the radio where Warren Buffit who isn`t poor says he wouldn`t mind paying more tax as he payed the massive sum of Seven million dollars tax last year and thought it wasn`t enough and says its the only way that the US is going to get out of its mess by making the rick pay more.
                        Like it or not socialism is part of what governments have to do where everyone contributes to the common good and health is just one of those goods as police teachers and your armed forces are and without this type of socialism you just don`t have a civilisation

                        Tony

                        Capitalism is alive in well, just not in the places that you would expect to find it. The rise of Communist China as a world economic power is largely if not entirely due to their adoption of capitalist principles of operation, combined with totalitarian control of thier currency exchange rate, wages and profits. Meanwhile the US drifts farther and farther away from a capitalist, free-market economy thanks to a Government that insists on regulating on every aspect of business with no regard to the effects.

                        Of course capitalism is dog-eat-dog. That's the basic principle of a capitalist system: survival of the fittest. It has always been like this in the US, and that's the reason that the private economy in the US grew to dominant levels. Dog-eat-dog provides the incentive to be smarter and work harder. It doesn't, and never has, attempted to provide a uniform standard of living for society. Socialism, that you seem to support, does attempt this, but consistently fails. And that's the problem. The US has subjected itself to what was referred to in the 70s and 80s as "creeping socialism" via the constant and large-scale expansion of Governmnet control over all aspects of life and business. It is not a coincidence that the decline of the United States economy has run concurrently with this "creeping socialism". Moves to the left are the PROBLEM, not the solution. Socialism removes the competitive incentive to improve and grow from a society. That's why countries that more strongly implement socialist policies have generally not been able to approach the success of capitalist ones like the United States. You don't really see many socialist countries that have put men on the moon, that have $15T economies, or lead the world in any area for that matter. The Soviet Union, the quintesential socialist state, failed. They had full employment, yet almost no exports, and were unable to support their population. These are the facts. Promoting socialism today is the same nonsense that resulted in the Soviet State after the Czar was overthrown. It made no sense, other than it was very appealing to a population that was tired, hungry and starving. Today, we KNOW what works. We have seen the failures of socialism and the unbridled success of a functioning capitalist system. China's rise is not due to their socialism. It is due to the fact that after many decades of very pure socialism, they have seen the light and adopted capitalist behavior to enable them to compete globally. If socialism is the answer to the world's ills, why didn't China do well up until now? Why aren't the Soviets still around? Why are the socialist states in Europe failing? The reason should be clear. Socialism is a disaster. The last thing we, as thinking men and women, should do is throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bathwater (economic problems).

                        Finally, with regard to taxes, you are way off base in thinking that the rich pay nothing and the poor pay everything. The overwhelming majority of taxes in the US are paid by the top 10% of wage earners. The lowest 47% of wage earners pay NOTHING in income tax, not a dime. How can we possibly conclude that the rich are paying nothing?

                        Buffett has been on the raising tax bandwagon for years. He never addresses the facts. First of all, if you taxes the seriously rich at 100%, it would make NO real impact to the debt. There simply aren't enough rich people around to matter. Second, and more importantly, the fact is that taxes are capital resources that are removed from the private sector economy and given to the Gov't. The Gov't redistributes that money, pumping it BACK into the economy, but in the process creates nothing that contributes to the goods and services pool. Since the effect is a net decrease of goods and services available, the result is an increase in prices, for everyone. Which is good if you happen to be a foreign country that is importing stuff into the US. I do not agree with the notion that we should give blanket tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, but it would be economically stupid-stupid-stupid to raise taxes in an economy that is stagnant and not producing anything.

                        Jobs and economic growth dictate that the burdens on the economy be decreased, not increased. It's just common sense. If the Gov't increased the financial burden on YOU, would you buy more stuff or less? Would you be inclined to hire people to do things for you or conserve cash? Would you buy a new car or live with the old one? And if it got bad enough, would you stay put and starve or move to a locale that provided you with greater opportunities?

                        Sorry, Tony, but I really just don't see how anyone can objectively think about the problems we face and conclude that increasing taxes or implementing more burdensome socialist policies can possibly be a good thing. We have a constipated economy due to all the socialism and excess Gov't we've been fed. More of the same diet isn't the cure.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: HealthCare Law Unconstitutional

                          Originally posted by Andy_M View Post
                          Capitalism is alive in well, just not in the places that you would expect to find it. The rise of Communist China as a world economic power is largely if not entirely due to their adoption of capitalist principles of operation, combined with totalitarian control of thier currency exchange rate, wages and profits. Meanwhile the US drifts farther and farther away from a capitalist, free-market economy thanks to a Government that insists on regulating on every aspect of business with no regard to the effects.

                          Of course capitalism is dog-eat-dog. That's the basic principle of a capitalist system: survival of the fittest. It has always been like this in the US, and that's the reason that the private economy in the US grew to dominant levels. Dog-eat-dog provides the incentive to be smarter and work harder. It doesn't, and never has, attempted to provide a uniform standard of living for society. Socialism, that you seem to support, does attempt this, but consistently fails. And that's the problem. The US has subjected itself to what was referred to in the 70s and 80s as "creeping socialism" via the constant and large-scale expansion of Governmnet control over all aspects of life and business. It is not a coincidence that the decline of the United States economy has run concurrently with this "creeping socialism". Moves to the left are the PROBLEM, not the solution. Socialism removes the competitive incentive to improve and grow from a society. That's why countries that more strongly implement socialist policies have generally not been able to approach the success of capitalist ones like the United States. You don't really see many socialist countries that have put men on the moon, that have $15T economies, or lead the world in any area for that matter. The Soviet Union, the quintesential socialist state, failed. They had full employment, yet almost no exports, and were unable to support their population. These are the facts. Promoting socialism today is the same nonsense that resulted in the Soviet State after the Czar was overthrown. It made no sense, other than it was very appealing to a population that was tired, hungry and starving. Today, we KNOW what works. We have seen the failures of socialism and the unbridled success of a functioning capitalist system. China's rise is not due to their socialism. It is due to the fact that after many decades of very pure socialism, they have seen the light and adopted capitalist behavior to enable them to compete globally. If socialism is the answer to the world's ills, why didn't China do well up until now? Why aren't the Soviets still around? Why are the socialist states in Europe failing? The reason should be clear. Socialism is a disaster. The last thing we, as thinking men and women, should do is throw the baby (capitalism) out with the bathwater (economic problems).

                          Finally, with regard to taxes, you are way off base in thinking that the rich pay nothing and the poor pay everything. The overwhelming majority of taxes in the US are paid by the top 10% of wage earners. The lowest 47% of wage earners pay NOTHING in income tax, not a dime. How can we possibly conclude that the rich are paying nothing?

                          Buffett has been on the raising tax bandwagon for years. He never addresses the facts. First of all, if you taxes the seriously rich at 100%, it would make NO real impact to the debt. There simply aren't enough rich people around to matter. Second, and more importantly, the fact is that taxes are capital resources that are removed from the private sector economy and given to the Gov't. The Gov't redistributes that money, pumping it BACK into the economy, but in the process creates nothing that contributes to the goods and services pool. Since the effect is a net decrease of goods and services available, the result is an increase in prices, for everyone. Which is good if you happen to be a foreign country that is importing stuff into the US. I do not agree with the notion that we should give blanket tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, but it would be economically stupid-stupid-stupid to raise taxes in an economy that is stagnant and not producing anything.

                          Jobs and economic growth dictate that the burdens on the economy be decreased, not increased. It's just common sense. If the Gov't increased the financial burden on YOU, would you buy more stuff or less? Would you be inclined to hire people to do things for you or conserve cash? Would you buy a new car or live with the old one? And if it got bad enough, would you stay put and starve or move to a locale that provided you with greater opportunities?

                          Sorry, Tony, but I really just don't see how anyone can objectively think about the problems we face and conclude that increasing taxes or implementing more burdensome socialist policies can possibly be a good thing. We have a constipated economy due to all the socialism and excess Gov't we've been fed. More of the same diet isn't the cure.
                          The state of the healthcare system to me seems to be an example of a capitalist concept that has failed. While in theory the concept of it being private should encourage good healthcare, competition etc what appears to have happened is that the players in that sector (insurance companies, drug companies etc) have all arranged it so they all keep the costs high as it is in their best interest. Unless other players enter the market and offer good healthcare at an affordable cost this situation will remain. So far from what I've seen that has not happened.

                          In my opinion the healthcare industry knows that compared to most other things people will do what it takes to have their health issues looked after. It's not like going out and buying a nice to have item which you can live without. For that kind of service/product the free market system is fine.

                          I personally see healthcare as a basic need that should be provided to a population the same as other essential infrastructure to keep a society running.

                          The reason I believe the govt should get involved is that without laws and left to the free market the current system is not going to change. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be a govt run system.

                          So I'm curious to hear what you can propose as a solution to this situation. Or do you believe the system is great as it stands

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X