My family is on Obamacare

[SuperLuigi]

Sy Noe;12197188]I always hear that argument and it fails drastically. Because before Obamacare it happened all the time in the US that people were denied or forced to ration their healthcare services because they couldn’t afford the cost.

One of the biggest cost to the US healthcare system is related to tort law, which the Democrats will not touch because they need the support of trail lawyers in their fragile coalition to win elections.

Most of what Americans pay up front is to cover either lawsuits or other patients on government programs because the government doesn’t pay doctors on time or even the full amount.

That is what happens in the marketplace. The government gets involved, naturally costs go up, and those costs are passed on to the customers.

By healthcare I don’t mean a trip to the ER when things got dire. I’m talking about adequate healthcare like preventive care, dr checkups, regular prescriptions, things like that. Obamacare is not perfect. Some still can’t afford the cost. But more can.

I’ve lived under universal health care before. I doubt most Americans have even the slightest idea of what it is and what it means, even when they go on vacation abroad for a few days.

A lot of what is described in the prior comment is not readily available. I heard about one guy who had to pull out his teeth with pliers because he couldn’t get a dental appointment, a girl who died at age 24 of cervical cancer because she couldn’t get a pap smear (after trying since she was 19) and another woman who gave birth in the shower.

What if a person one cared about got raped and couldn’t get a rape kit because the government thought it was too expense. Or if they were told “basically, we have the technology to save your life, but we won’t because you’re too old/sick, and we’ve decided that you’ve lived a good life.”

It’s not so much fun when it’s oneself laying around in pain or a loved one for that matter.

These are real events that happen.

I will also add that Canadians spend thousands of dollars to come to the USA for healthcare because they can’t get it despite the fact that it’s supposed to be “free”.

That alone should really get people to stop and think about what’s going on.

I just posted a thread showing how 2:1 Americans say the ACA is hurting more than helping.

Just wait until the 2015 premium notices come out, just in time for the 2014 midterms.

 

[Sy_Noe]

See post # 59.

There is no right—Constitutional or otherwise—to an abortion.

Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the Supreme Court decision and what is legal in the US. Yes there is a legal right. You might not like it. There are plenty of things I don’t like too, But to say there is no right shows a lack of understanding of what is and is not legal in the US.

 

[phillylawyer]

Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the Supreme Court decision and what is legal in the US. Yes there is a legal right. You might not like it. There are plenty of things I don’t like too, But to say there is no right shows a lack of understanding of what is and is not legal in the US.

I think he is saying that, properly interpreted, there should be no right to abortion under the Constitution. That is sort of like, when liberals say, corporations are not people under the Constitution for purposes of spending money on elections (i.e., Citizens United). The Supreme Court has ruled the other way, but they disagree with that ruling.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think he is saying that, properly interpreted, there should be no right to abortion under the Constitution. That is sort of like, when liberals say, corporations are not people under the Constitution for purposes of spending money on elections (i.e., Citizens United). The Supreme Court has ruled the other way, but they disagree with that ruling.

Which is why I said there are plenty of things I disagree with too. You can put 2 people including 2 SC justices in a room together and they can interpret things differently. It happens all the time in many SC decisions. People interpreting things differently is just a fact of life.

 

[phillylawyer]

Which is why I said there are plenty of things I disagree with too. You can put 2 people including 2 SC justices in a room together and they can interpret things differently. It happens all the time in many SC decisions. People interpreting things differently is just a fact of life.

I hear you. To be honest, after studying a lot of these decisions in law school, sometimes the difference in outcomes is a difference in interpretation. But, usually the difference occurs between one side interpreting the clear meaning of the statute (or Constitution) and the other side trying to stretch the reading of the interpretation to get what they consider to be a more just result.

Justices on both sides of the aisle tend to do this, but I think that is actually a more common situation than “there really is no proper interpretation, and minds can disagree.”

 

[Luvz2travel]

Glad it’s working for someone. Everyone I know can barely afford it or just can’t. Affordable is a lie. It doesn’t take into consideration other expenses you might have such as housing and food then the deductable is so high you have to go broke before it covers anything. I am barely make the insurance payments I have now. I will likely be without insurance next year and have to go further into debt because of it. Such is life.

 

[phillylawyer]

Glad it’s working for someone. Everyone I know can barely afford it or just can’t. Affordable is a lie. It doesn’t take into consideration other expenses you might have such as housing and food then the deductable is so high you have to go broke before it covers anything. I am barely make the insurance payments I have now. I will likely be without insurance next year and have to go further into debt because of it. Such is life.

Sorry to hear that Luvz2travel. Are the federal subsidies provided not enough to bring the cost of the private health insurance down enough to make it affordable?

 

[on_the_hill]

It’s not insurance; it’s the government deciding who lives and who dies.

In a wholly free market, the market would decide who lives and who dies. That’s not better, IMO.

The **government **wastes money on corruption and its own selfish interests.
…

Again, I wouldn’t be **generalizing **about the forum. It’s too diverse.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sorry to hear that Luvz2travel. Are the federal subsidies provided not enough to bring the cost of the private health insurance down enough to make it affordable?

It depends. There are certainly many many cases where the subsidies have worked great for people There are also those who don’t qualify for Medicaid under their state’s guidelines and many states unfortunately imo refused to expand Medicaid. And it’s even possible someone could make too little to have to file a federal tax return and not qualify for a subsidy but have too much in assets to qualify for Medicaid. And they need their assets to survive on and can’t afford what the cost of coverage would be for them without Medicaid or a subsidy. The AFC has been imo a godsend for many. But is not perfect by any means. A public option might have been more beneficial. But all of this is partly why I still believe single payer is the best way to go. (Btw regarding the other post I hear you too)

 

[phillylawyer]

It depends.

Thanks for the follow-up. I know that it depends on the particular situation. I was just curious with Luv2Travelz particular situation if the federal subsidies offered to her were not enough to make purchasing a plan affordable. It sounds like maybe they were were not.

 

[Luvz2travel]

Sorry to hear that Luvz2travel. Are the federal subsidies provided not enough to bring the cost of the private health insurance down enough to make it affordable?

Well you don’t get the subsidies till you file your tax return and have to put the money upfront. Sorry I can’t afford 300 a month plus for insurance and housing and eat too. My house isn’t selling so most likely I’m on the road to bankruptcy as well. I guess I should quit my second job and not work and claim medicaid or something and not both to try and take care of my debt.

 

[Cat]

In a wholly free market, the market would decide who lives and who dies. That’s not better, IMO.

In a wholly free market, everyone who wants one would have a job that pays a living wage, and then they would be able to afford health care insurance and other basic living expenses.

 

[DarkLight]

In a wholly free market, everyone who wants one would have a job that pays a living wage, and then they would be able to afford health care insurance and other basic living expenses.

What would happen to those of us who can’t work and don’t have families paying the bills?

 

[phillylawyer]

Well you don’t get the subsidies till you file your tax return and have to put the money upfront. Sorry I can’t afford 300 a month plus for insurance and housing and eat too. My house isn’t selling so most likely I’m on the road to bankruptcy as well. I guess I should quit my second job and not work and claim medicaid or something and not both to try and take care of my debt.

That stinks. I’m sorry you are going through all that. I will offer up a prayer for you on way home from work tonight.

 

[EasterJoy]

In a wholly free market, everyone who wants one would have a job that pays a living wage, and then they would be able to afford health care insurance and other basic living expenses.

Most economists do not think that a free-market capitalist system will usually result in full employment. It will certainly not result in full employment all of the time, since part of the model is that less-competently-run concerns will fail to remain viable in a competitive marketplace. It never assumes that no able-bodied person or their dependents will ever need to have provided health care because they will always be sufficiently employed to provide it for themselves. That is by no means implied by our current free-market capitalist system. The opposite is almost guaranteed, in fact.

We should instead assume that everyone needs some level of health care and that some people will (whether by good fortune, the fruit of work, or both) have the means to buy more extravagant health care than others. To collectively obtain the minimum level for everyone, relieving employers of the need to provide it, with the option for more affluent people to buy additional care, is one way to provide for that situation. It is not the only ethical way to do it, however, and so this is a question about which equally-ethical people might rightly differ.

 

[on_the_hill]

In a wholly free market, everyone who wants one would have a job that pays a living wage, and then they would be able to afford health care insurance and other basic living expenses.

What do you base that theory on? I’ve never heard it before.

 

[Listener]

Well you don’t get the subsidies till you file your tax return and have to put the money upfront. Sorry I can’t afford 300 a month plus for insurance and housing and eat too. My house isn’t selling so most likely I’m on the road to bankruptcy as well. I guess I should quit my second job and not work and claim medicaid or something and not both to try and take care of my debt.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the subsidy money was paid by the government directly to the insurance company. Then at tax time, you would have to pay some of the subsidy money back if your income was actually more than you thought it would be.

I don’t have any personal experience with Obamacare because we are on traditional Medicare, which I suppose would be a little like a national health insurance plan. It is certainly far from free, but I have always been happy with it. The billing works, and they never seem to deny any bills. Another great advantage is that we can go to any doctor who accepts Medicare.

I have heard that traditional Part B Medicare actually costs the government less than the Medicare Advantage plans, which are administered by private insurance, much like Obamacare.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the subsidy money was paid by the government directly to the insurance company. Then at tax time, you would have to pay some of the subsidy money back if your income was actually more than you thought it would be.

I don’t have any personal experience with Obamacare because we are on traditional Medicare, which I suppose would be a little like a national health insurance plan. It is certainly far from free, but I have always been happy with it. The billing works, and they never seem to deny any bills. Another great advantage is that we can go to any doctor who accepts Medicare.

I have heard that traditional Part B Medicare actually costs the government less than the Medicare Advantage plans, which are administered by private insurance, much like Obamacare.

Yes advocates for single payer often describe it as Medicare for all. You’re not alone. Many Medicare recipients are happy with Medicare. I have had and have family members who have been very pleased. I used to care for a parent and have experience with it. My experience was similar as yours. I even have a couple conservative family members on Medicare who now think it’s the best thing invented since white bread!

 

[Luvz2travel]

That stinks. I’m sorry you are going through all that. I will offer up a prayer for you on way home from work tonight.

Thanks for much prayers always appreciated.

 

[Luvz2travel]

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the subsidy money was paid by the government directly to the insurance company. Then at tax time, you would have to pay some of the subsidy money back if your income was actually more than you thought it would be.

I don’t have any personal experience with Obamacare because we are on traditional Medicare, which I suppose would be a little like a national health insurance plan. It is certainly far from free, but I have always been happy with it. The billing works, and they never seem to deny any bills. Another great advantage is that we can go to any doctor who accepts Medicare.

I have heard that traditional Part B Medicare actually costs the government less than the Medicare Advantage plans, which are administered by private insurance, much like Obamacare.

At tax time last year I clarified with my CPA that you have to put the money upfront and you get a certain amount back at the end of the year which is supposed to cover the subsidy. This fact isn’t advertised or disclosed by the media or government. What do you do if you live paychech to paycheck and don’t have that money upfront??? Just saying. Also you have a big deductible in most cases $5,000 and up with the cheaper plan that has to be utilitized before coverage kicks in. I’m still on my own blue cross plan with such a dectible but it’s vastly cheaper than Obamacare. I’ve already been told next year it will be discontinued. For the record I never even use it for fear of driving up the cost and also not having money to cover the deductible.