J
Jerry_Miah
Guest
The Affordable Care Act LOWERS the debt, and repealing it will make the debt skyrocket
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
The debt expansion would not be directly related to Obamacare, but in the Medicade funding cuts that accompany it.
The fact is, those cuts ( reduced payments to doctors) have already being blocked
thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicaid/207621-court-blocks-medicaid-cuts-approved-by-obama-administration
And these type of cuts have traditionally been overriden by Congress, as any cuts in funding reduce the number of doctors who will accept Medicaid, and thus reduce the number of physicians who will see Medicaid receipients.
Thus, the calls to keep the Medicade funding ( and thus explode the debt) generally come from Democrats.
credoaction.com/campaign/mm_answers/?rc=homepage
aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-11-2010/medicare_doctors_face_pay_cuts.html
So the question is not really relavent to Obamacare, as even Obama himself advocates for the cuts in the law not to be enacted.
If you are really concerned with the debt not exploding, then it would require the appeal of Obama AND the cutting of Medicare payments.
D
davidmlamb
Guest
I’m with you Jerry,But you will find out from this forum that most professing Catholics will use abortion and contraception to promote euthenasia… People are inherently selfish and unless Catholics deny themselves and take up their cross to follow Christ and love their neighbor as much as they love themselves than they will not inherit the Kingdom mof God.
Peace,
David
J
JimG
Guest
Hmm–opposing abortion and contraception equals support for euthanasia? Pro-life people that I know oppose all three, as does the Catholic Church.
B
Brendan
Guest
And Jerry, you will also find others who will bear false witness, inviolation of God’s Commandments,.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
I agree with you, but the key thing is PRO-LIFE, and Obamacare isn’t. Poland and Malta both have pro-life governments.Personally I think we need to cut the military by 50% and reinvest the savings into a pro-life government run universal healthcare system like the ones in Poland and Malta.
Your Bishops support universal healthcare (although that doesn’t seem to deter the free market yahoos)!
S
sedonaman
Guest
Pray tell how you arrived at that magic number.
B
buffalo
Guest
Obamacare puts another insulator between a person and those closest. Mother government will take the problem off my hands. For this reason I think the bishops need to step carefully. They should be teaching The Catholic principle of subsidiarity
…
One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity
more…
…
Code:
**The Principle of Subsidiarity**
Code:
This is why Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical *Centesimus Annus*. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”
In spite of this clear warning, the United States Catholic Bishops remain staunch defenders of a statist approach to social problems. They have publicly criticized recent congressional efforts to reform the welfare system by decentralizing it and removing its perverse incentives. Their opposition to the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was based solely upon its inclusion of abortion funding. They had no fundamental objection to a takeover of the health care industry by the federal government.more…
G
gtrenewed
Guest
One way is to provide a tax deduction for insurance premiums and penalties for no insurance which is put into a fund to cover such circumstances.
The federal pool is limited to people denied insurance or excessive premiums due to pre-existing conditions. I had to provide proof of denial when making application.
I don’t think it is realistic to do away with insurance companies but they must be regulated. One idea is to make them not-for-profit entities to control the obligation to shareholders over patients rights. There are other ideas out there also but one thing is clear they must be better regulated.
Remember, the whole health care delivery system must be fixed including doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies. Not to say that doctors are broken per se but there are doctors out there who are innovators but can’t put their innovations into practice because of current laws and lobbying against them by hospital and insurance company lobbyists.
M
markomalley
Guest
Thank you for the considered answer.
I am not 100% sure the circumstances you are talking about providing a tax penalty for. Are you talking about a tax penalty for not carrying health insurance? That’s what gets us into this whole Obamacare mess. Who’s to decide what is enough insurance? For a lot of people, high deductible insurance, along with a medical savings account, worked just fine (I had that with an employer for a couple of years and really liked it). That will now be illegal. For a lot of people, insurance with a dollar cap was not optimal, but it’s what they could afford. That, too, is now illegal. Suppose somebody has the ability to self-insure (rich uncle or something). That, now, is also illegal.
Realistically, the problem is not so much one of the penalty (that can easily be turned on its head and made a tax credit if you display the positive behavior)…but who gets to decide what kind of insurance is adequate? (all of a sudden, you have to provide contraception and abortions for your insurance to be “adequate” with the current scheme)
I, for one, prefer individual accountability. If you voluntarily make the choice to not have insurance, you increase your financial risk dramatically. And, well, if you chose right, you’ll have more at the end of the year. If you chose wrong, well, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your belongings are piled in your front yard after your house is lost. It’s rough…but that’s what accountability is about.
I agree fully with the bit about tax deductibility. Employer-provided group health premiums are deducted as pre-tax items; there is no good reason why individual-provided premiums should not be treated exactly the same way.
I am not 100% sure the circumstances you are talking about providing a tax penalty for. Are you talking about a tax penalty for not carrying health insurance? That’s what gets us into this whole Obamacare mess. Who’s to decide what is enough insurance? For a lot of people, high deductible insurance, along with a medical savings account, worked just fine (I had that with an employer for a couple of years and really liked it). That will now be illegal. For a lot of people, insurance with a dollar cap was not optimal, but it’s what they could afford. That, too, is now illegal. Suppose somebody has the ability to self-insure (rich uncle or something). That, now, is also illegal.
Realistically, the problem is not so much one of the penalty (that can easily be turned on its head and made a tax credit if you display the positive behavior)…but who gets to decide what kind of insurance is adequate? (all of a sudden, you have to provide contraception and abortions for your insurance to be “adequate” with the current scheme)
I, for one, prefer individual accountability. If you voluntarily make the choice to not have insurance, you increase your financial risk dramatically. And, well, if you chose right, you’ll have more at the end of the year. If you chose wrong, well, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your belongings are piled in your front yard after your house is lost. It’s rough…but that’s what accountability is about.
Fair enough. (continued)
M
markomalley
Guest
(continued from previous post…sorry, Matilda)
I don’t have a problem with, and in fact, I think it is laudable for society to support those who, through no fault of their own, are unable (not unwilling) to care for themselves.
Let me give you an example (not directly health insurance related). My last office went through major downsizing as a result of corporate reorganization brought on by the current economy. A lot of us, myself included, lost our jobs. I called in some favors and found a job almost instantly. I had to take a $5,000 pay cut and went from a 15 minute commute to an hour commute. But I didn’t have to take any unemployment insurance. (And it is my belief, based on a lot of information, that I should be getting about a $10,000 raise in about two months, along with a promotion in job title that will actually put me ahead of where I was before) The woman working next to me, an exceptionally talented person with great experience, had different standards. She did not want to take any kind of a promotion cut (in salary or job title), and she was unwilling to commute more than 45 minutes. About two months ago she was interviewed for a job near where I work now. We went out for lunch after her interview. The job would have been considered a promotion compared to her last one. But the commute would have been a little over an hour. So she decided that she was not going to take the job. Because of the commute. (Come to find out she turned down a number of other positions that were closer, because the positions would have been considered demotions: a little bit less pay and less prestigious job title).
Should I feel sorry for her? If she has a pre-existing condition that, when she actually gets a job, limits her coverage for a year, should I be screaming about how unfair insurance is?
The only difference is that their earnings that exceed their revenues are applied to some sort of community project rather than going to stockholders as dividends. Otherwise, they operate virtually in the same fashion as any other insurance (at least that I’ve dealt with)
First of all, we have to recognize that people have an innate desire to be healthy. That is a fundamental, God-given driving force motivating people to act. And that’s a good thing.
[BIBLEDRB]3 John 1:2[/BIBLEDRB]
But staying healthy often times costs money. Nothing wrong with that: the doctors, nurses, medical technicians, equipment manufacturers, supply manufacturers, and so on, all have a right to be paid for their labor. And if a person put his capital at risk, he has a right to collect a return based on that risk.
But sometimes the resources (a/k/a money) needed to remain healthy exceed the resources available. Then decisions have to be made. What can I pay for and what can I not pay for?
The bottom line is who makes the decision? The answer is that the person (people) making the decision is (are) the person (people) who have the resources. He (they) is the one who decides whether you do treatment “a” or treatment “b” or “none of the above.”
Even in theory…assuming everybody is 100% honorable…tighter regulation might help around the margins – 5 or 10 percent – but that’s it. (Mind you, I am a full believer in the fallen nature of man and recognize that there are going to be plenty who will game the system…whatever that system is)
No matter what the solution is, you are still stuck with the fundamental point that there is more need for the resources than the resources available to meet the need. Basic economics.
And all the electronic health records and standard data sets and cost effectiveness research and anything else will not change that fundamental equation. Decisions will have to be made on what is to be paid for and what is not to be paid for and for whom. With that fundamental equation comes the fundamental question: who should make the decision?
Those who support Obamacare, or worse, fully nationalized healthcare, are willing to turn that decision making authority over to the government. The consequence is that the government will decide what is covered and what is not covered. And those decisions will have impacts.
Those who support the status quo (a commercial insurance driven health economy) are willing to turn that decision making authority over to the insurers. The consequence is that the insurers will decide what is covered and what is not covered. And those decisions will have impacts.
Those like me who don’t like the idea of insurance say that this decision should be retained by the individual. And the impact might be negative, but it’s my impact.
I don’t have a problem with, and in fact, I think it is laudable for society to support those who, through no fault of their own, are unable (not unwilling) to care for themselves.
Let me give you an example (not directly health insurance related). My last office went through major downsizing as a result of corporate reorganization brought on by the current economy. A lot of us, myself included, lost our jobs. I called in some favors and found a job almost instantly. I had to take a $5,000 pay cut and went from a 15 minute commute to an hour commute. But I didn’t have to take any unemployment insurance. (And it is my belief, based on a lot of information, that I should be getting about a $10,000 raise in about two months, along with a promotion in job title that will actually put me ahead of where I was before) The woman working next to me, an exceptionally talented person with great experience, had different standards. She did not want to take any kind of a promotion cut (in salary or job title), and she was unwilling to commute more than 45 minutes. About two months ago she was interviewed for a job near where I work now. We went out for lunch after her interview. The job would have been considered a promotion compared to her last one. But the commute would have been a little over an hour. So she decided that she was not going to take the job. Because of the commute. (Come to find out she turned down a number of other positions that were closer, because the positions would have been considered demotions: a little bit less pay and less prestigious job title).
Should I feel sorry for her? If she has a pre-existing condition that, when she actually gets a job, limits her coverage for a year, should I be screaming about how unfair insurance is?
They are all regulated. At the state level.
Not for profits still have to operate under the same principles as for profits. My wife was, until she retired, a school teacher in a local Maryland district. Their insurance was provided by CareFirst…a Maryland-based non-profit. They operated no differently than Cigna (my employer’s insurance provider). Premiums were virtually the same, coverage virtually the same, and so on. Their executives are high-paid. They still deny claims. They still consider pre-existing conditions.
The only difference is that their earnings that exceed their revenues are applied to some sort of community project rather than going to stockholders as dividends. Otherwise, they operate virtually in the same fashion as any other insurance (at least that I’ve dealt with)
I agree that fundamental change needs to happen. But it’s in which direction.
First of all, we have to recognize that people have an innate desire to be healthy. That is a fundamental, God-given driving force motivating people to act. And that’s a good thing.
[BIBLEDRB]3 John 1:2[/BIBLEDRB]
But staying healthy often times costs money. Nothing wrong with that: the doctors, nurses, medical technicians, equipment manufacturers, supply manufacturers, and so on, all have a right to be paid for their labor. And if a person put his capital at risk, he has a right to collect a return based on that risk.
But sometimes the resources (a/k/a money) needed to remain healthy exceed the resources available. Then decisions have to be made. What can I pay for and what can I not pay for?
The bottom line is who makes the decision? The answer is that the person (people) making the decision is (are) the person (people) who have the resources. He (they) is the one who decides whether you do treatment “a” or treatment “b” or “none of the above.”
Even in theory…assuming everybody is 100% honorable…tighter regulation might help around the margins – 5 or 10 percent – but that’s it. (Mind you, I am a full believer in the fallen nature of man and recognize that there are going to be plenty who will game the system…whatever that system is)
No matter what the solution is, you are still stuck with the fundamental point that there is more need for the resources than the resources available to meet the need. Basic economics.
And all the electronic health records and standard data sets and cost effectiveness research and anything else will not change that fundamental equation. Decisions will have to be made on what is to be paid for and what is not to be paid for and for whom. With that fundamental equation comes the fundamental question: who should make the decision?
Those who support Obamacare, or worse, fully nationalized healthcare, are willing to turn that decision making authority over to the government. The consequence is that the government will decide what is covered and what is not covered. And those decisions will have impacts.
Those who support the status quo (a commercial insurance driven health economy) are willing to turn that decision making authority over to the insurers. The consequence is that the insurers will decide what is covered and what is not covered. And those decisions will have impacts.
Those like me who don’t like the idea of insurance say that this decision should be retained by the individual. And the impact might be negative, but it’s my impact.
B
Brendan
Guest
In most states, that would be the Blue Cross\Blue Shield system. They are an association of insurance companies. Some ( such as Premeria BCBS of Wash) are for profit. But the majority ( such as BCBS of Michigan) are actually non-profit entities.
What I would like to see is the the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. That is currently prohibited. So if I find a policy that I like in Ohio, I cannot purchase that policy because I live in Michigan.
That would put the consumer more in the drivers seat.
S
sedonaman
Guest
A good article. Back in the late 1970s, the federal government funded a pet census in California. This how democracy gets diluted: The city I lived in had a population of, say, 50,000 voters. If this program is done on a local level as subsidiarity says it should be and I think counting dogs is a waste of money, I can go to the city council and complain. I am one vote in 50,000. As it is, I have to complain to my congressman. I am one vote in 100,000,000. Conclusion: My vote on the local level is 2,000 times more powerful than on the national.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
She had choices. Here we are talking about not having choices. Many people work just for the insurance. I know people whose whole paycheck goes to cover their employer sponsored insurance. If they get laid off, many can’t afford the premium and must drop coverage. Many parts of the country there are not jobs to go to like you and your friend, many would be happy with a demotion just to have a job but that is not an option. Job loss stress can bring on diabetes to those pre-disposed and a host of other possible ailments. Diabetes along with high blood pressure is an automatic insurance denial. If care is delayed due to expense and no insurance the matter gets worse and costs the whole system. Coverage actually reduces costs in the long run but short-term profits suffer. Get my point. There has to be a safety net.
He who is without sin may cast the first stone. You talk about the sin of others but your or my sin is no less sin. Our safety net is Jesus Christ. In the case of health care I believe we owe it to all our citizens to provide a safety net whether or not they sin.
That is under the current laws but the laws need changing to adapt to a new model.
I have talked about some possible scenarios in previous posts. But it has to be in every direction starting with the safety net for the uninsurable. By allowing doctors to be able to apply their innovative ideas the cream will rise, others will follow and economics will take over. Properly applied staying healthy will actually reduce costs.
Under the current system insurance companies make those decisions. It should be the doctor. Under the current system resources are called scarce but in reality under a consumer-driven-health-care system they are readily available. For example, factory safety was thought to be too expensive to implement until the government mandated it and as it turns out it reduced costs in a number of ways.
Give our people a problem to solve without special interest interference and we do it.
G
gtrenewed
Guest
Good idea but without a fundamental overhaul of the entire system this will do some good but not enough. This is one of many starting points so I am for it.
C
Corki
Guest
I have a feeling that you have some bad personal experience with insurance that has colored your view and you paint all employers and insurance companies with the same broad brush.
For example.
No, it’s not. My husband has had high blood pressure since he was a student. He has never been denied or limited in his insurance coverage from an employer. I started a new job when I was 4 month pregnant and they never said a word about it being a pre-existing condition. I have worked in HR for and with dozens of companies and never encountered a plan that had those kind of limitations. That’s not to say they don’t exist but it’s nowhere near an “automatic” denial.
In my whole life, I have never encountered a situation where the decision of how to treat something was determined by the insurance company. The only decision they make is what to pay for. The doctor regularly give me his recommendation and only AFTER we discuss the options, does he check on the insurance coverage. Of course cost goes into the final decision, as it should, but the determination on care is always mine. Not the doctors, not the insurance company’s – MINE.
With the Affordable Health Care act, as we face it now, many of those decisions will be made by the government. Why do you trust the government to make medical decisions but not your doctor or insurance company?
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
It seems like such an obviously horrific idea, proven bad around the world, that it is hard for me not to attribute some sinister motive to those who advance this universal government health control.
M
marymyheroine
Guest
It was common practice for people to sell their property and belongings and lay the money at the feet of the Apostles for them to distribute the funds as they felt necessary. Why are people so worried? Where is their faith? Doesn’t God always provide? Trust in the Lord and He will provide for all of your needs.
I truly believe that there should be a Public Option for those who need it. I personally don’t, but I know that it would greatly help my daughter and her little family.
We are already taking advantage of the new law that allows for us to keep our two adult children on my husband’s insurance until they’re 26. Both of our children are hard workers, but just can’t find a job that offers insurance. A Public Option would be a God Send for them.
I do, however, believe that religious institutions should be completely exempt from offering a plan that goes against their core beliefs.
“Whatever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto Me”
I truly believe that there should be a Public Option for those who need it. I personally don’t, but I know that it would greatly help my daughter and her little family.
We are already taking advantage of the new law that allows for us to keep our two adult children on my husband’s insurance until they’re 26. Both of our children are hard workers, but just can’t find a job that offers insurance. A Public Option would be a God Send for them.
I do, however, believe that religious institutions should be completely exempt from offering a plan that goes against their core beliefs.
“Whatever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto Me”
S
sedonaman
Guest
There is a public option which conveniently gets overlooked. I personally know of two cases in which the patients needed a life-saving operation, received their surgeries paid for by the state, and are alive today.
M
markomalley
Guest
Yes she did. But how many other people have a choice and took the wrong choice?
To restate something I said in my previous post…I think it is laudable for society to support those who, through no fault of their own, are unable (not unwilling) to care for themselves.
Yes, our safety net is Jesus Christ. But does that include those who reject Him? At the judgment, do those who die in a state of Mortal Sin get a free pass? There is, believe it or not, accountability in Christianity. We are all accountable for our actions.
People who quote “he who is without sin cast the first stone” typically forget the next line: “Go, and sin no more.” There is even accountability there. Had the woman continued to commit adultery and not fundamentally changed her heart at that point, there is utterly no guarantee that He would have continued to protect her from the rocks.
When He fed the 5,000, what did He do immediately thereafter: He got away from the crowds immediately and had His disciples withdraw onto a boat on the lake. Why? Because the people liked getting free food and they were going to turn Him into their food dispenser (literally, they were going to make Him the king) (see John 6:15) – they utterly missed the spiritual point of the demonstration He provided.
First of all, I agree that those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for their own health care should have a means to receive health care as an act of charity by society.
Trust me, I know from first hand experience that staying healthy is a whole lot less expensive than paying for recovery from being sick.
I also agree that a consumer-driven model will help naturally keep prices in check due to natural market forces that will be in play. But are we using the same definition of “consumer-driven”? I really don’t think so.
My definition of a consumer-driven model is one where consumers (i.e., patients) are empowered and accountable for making decisions based upon their personal values and their personal economic situation. Also key in that are a sufficient quantity of competitive suppliers for a given product or service where suppliers cannot exert monopolistic control, thus artificially controlling supplies and manipulating prices. Competitive forces would come into play, as providers would be competing for patients…
With the exception of “big pharma”, the health care industry is an ideal place to implement that model. And I would agree that the patent laws could be adjusted (not gotten rid of, but adjusted) to allow generics to be more quickly come to market…thus reducing some of that monopolistic control that Big Pharma can exert on the drug market.
With such a model, society would still be able to figure out some way to take care of those who were unable to provide for themselves. The difference is that that group would be considered the exceptional case and not the norm, for whom the model was built.
If that’s what you mean by “consumer-driven,” we are in probably 99% agreement. If not, could you please clarify what you meant?
By the way, “scarcity”, in economic terms, simply means that there is an economic value attached to something and that the item / service is not simply free for the taking. Breathable air, as long as you are near sea level and not in an overly polluted environment, is not really scarce, from an economic standpoint. On the other hand, a pencil is (unless it was stolen, somebody had to pay for it…).
- Status