HEALTH CARE MADE SIMPLE
I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to the day when Obamacare kicks in.
What could go wrong?
Related posts:
Date: July 28, 2010
Categories: Politics
Leave a comment
Comments RSS TrackBack 46 comments
-
Mario4Prez
in July 28th, 2010 @ 15:51John:
You do realize that we are not adopting Canada’s single-payer system, right? Nobody will be forced to accept governenment health care. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that everyone has access to medical care. Show me a reliable source (read: not a website with “Republican” in the title) that says differently, and maybe I’ll rethink my position.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 16:25That’s what the Canadians thought in the beginning. Obamacare will slowly drive priavte insuane compniesou of business. Obama want single payer. This is the first step.
-
Mason
in July 28th, 2010 @ 17:25Mario, you do understand that everyone in this country has access to health care today?!?! It was made law many years ago that NO ONE can be turned away for medical care.
It has 100% to do with total government control of the populace. Dems philosophy is simply that if they give 51% of the population something free (free since the same people do not pay taxes), that they will never lose an election.
-
Adam
in July 28th, 2010 @ 18:32And whats to stop my employer from dropping coverage and me not having any choice beside the govt option??
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:40The system makes the govt plan look more appealing to your employer. That’s the trick. That’s what will put insurance companies out of business.
-
Steve
in July 28th, 2010 @ 16:10Nothing to get excited about here; nothing new, interesting, educational or enlightening. Just more partisan bullshit by the respective staff’ of Brownback and Bailey. In fact, it’s quite possible (trust me here) that the latter and former didn’t even see the thing until it reached the media.
Identical manifestations of a system badly in need of repair emanate from the other side of the aisle with equal alacrity.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 16:24Badly in need of LESS government.
-
John
in July 28th, 2010 @ 17:31Steigy, it might be time for you to stick to sports brother. As the elections get closer, you rely less and less on facts and comment less and less on real issues. Rather, you prattle on with partisan buzz phrases and vitriol, and try to drum up some interesting debate by posting a stupid graphic right-wing GOPers drummed up to scare the Tea Pots even more.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:42That, of course, is your opinion. I couldn’t disagree more.
-
Mary Dennis
in July 28th, 2010 @ 16:37I love the source of the article: the Republicans. When it comes to either side, I don’t think we should trust what they have to say when trying to make the other side look bad.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:58Did you look at the chart?
-
Mario4Prez
in July 28th, 2010 @ 16:43The healthcare industry is in need of less governenment about as much as Wall Street needs less regulation.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:53Call someone in Canada and ask how long it takes to get an MRI and how long it takes to find a family doctor.
-
John
in July 29th, 2010 @ 06:43Call one of the 35 million people without health care or the millions more with uncoverable preexisting conditions and ask how long it takes them to see a doctor.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 06:52Should I include the 12 million illegal aliens, the young people who choose a nicer car or a bigger apartment over getting insurance and the morons who already have government insurance available to them and are too stupid to know it, none of whom can lawfully be turned away if they need medical care? How about you give me 10 cents for everyt person who leaves their country to come here for medical treatment and I give you 10 dollars for every person who leaves here to go to one of those countries with “free” health care? You forgot to tell me who’s going to make all those cheap drugs that you’re going to import from Canada.
-
Federalist10
in July 29th, 2010 @ 10:45Provide proof that there are 35 million people without health care. I have never seen any substantiation of that number to begin with. Then prove that they are trying to get health care but are unable – not that they can’t afford it, but they are actually denied. Then, provide proof of the millions with uncoverable pre-existing conditions (also provide evidence that it’s not for the first year of the policy only).
-
John
in July 29th, 2010 @ 17:51I can admit when I am wrong. Actually, according to the U.S. Census bureau, there are actually roughly
46 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE.
This must be Obama-lead distortion, right. Nope, the number comes from GWB’s gov’t figures from 2006. I imagine that, given the worsening economic problems over the last 2 years of his Presidency and the slow recovery we’re experiencing, that number has probably grown.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 19:06How many are illegal aliens? How many are young people who choose to buy something else other than insurance and how many are stupid people who don’t know that there is insurance available to them.
-
John
in July 30th, 2010 @ 14:22The figures cited by the census bureau include less than 5 million illegal aliens who would not be covered under Obamacare. So we’re left with roughly 40 million uninsured. According to a report by the Kaiser Foundation 70 percent (28 million) of those uninsured are from working families who have tried or are trying to get insurance but are unable.
Also, 14 percent of all adult American’s are underinsured. This is defined as having annual medical costs equaling 10% of their income in addition paying for insurance and the costs which insurance then picks up. Adding the two totals, 75 million Americans don’t have adequate insurance and over 50 million of those who don’t have adequate access to medical care either pay for insufficient insurance or can’t get/afford insurance.
These totals don’t include the large number of Americans (of which I am one) who forgo care or pay exorbiant out of pocket costs because they have pre-existing conditions which are not covered by their insurance.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 30th, 2010 @ 14:33There is no way I’m buying that number. There is no way that 1 in 4 people walking around in America has inadequate insurance. You didn’t subtract the stupid people who don’t know enought to take advantage of existing government insurance.
At whom are all those ads by insurance companies aimed. What do you mean they can’t get insurance and do you think fire insurance should be sold to someone whose house has already burned down? Insuring someone who has cancer after theuy get cancer isn’t insurance. It’s welfare. If that’s what you want, fine. Just don’t call it insurance.
-
oksteelerfan
in July 28th, 2010 @ 17:27This isn’t about Obama Care. But if you have about 30 minutes to watch three videos you can witness how we’re becoming a police state with or without Obama.
I’m going to have to start rethinking my stance on guns which has always been some regulations were fine and no one needs assault rifles. If the cops aren’t going to play by the rules, I might need assault rifles to protect my home and property.http://pjboosinger.viviti.com/entries/general/behind-the-scenes
-
oksteelerfan
in July 28th, 2010 @ 17:30BTW I agree with the blogger that it should become a federal law that every cop should have to have a video camera with a voice recorder.
Also how in the world that public defender recommended pleading no contest to anything with that kind of evidence boggles the mind.
-
Mason
in July 28th, 2010 @ 17:29It will be interesting to see if the people that are currently in favor of government control of things like health care, will feel the same way when republicans are in charge of everything.
I would like the liberal Obama supporters to think for a minute how they would feel if Sarah Palin (I only use her since she is so despised by the left) were to become president. Would they still be in favor of government control? Or will they then turn against it?
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:52That’s exactly the point. The people who were running around saying that Bush was a moron or Hitler, want more and more government power. They apparently don’t consider the possibility that another “Hitler” could be given all that power some day. It just shouldn’t matter all that much who is president.
-
Federalist10
in July 29th, 2010 @ 10:47Practically speaking, if they get what they want they’re convinced they will never have that issue as they are attempting to build an indefatigable majority, or they intend to keep it by hook or by crook – or maybe by Cook County style politics. Notice most of the areas they really sink their teeth into, they never lose. (NOTHING else could explain Mayor Ravenstahl).
-
Karl Marx
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:05There is no chance of a single payer healthcare system anytime soon. There is too much money at stake. There are too many big insurance company’s in bed with the left and right, it will never happen. (although I wish it would) I am all in favor of less government. I would love to see less police, fewer prisons and the legalization of drugs. For the first time in our history 1 in every 100 of our citizens are currently serving time in prison. It costs the taxpayers approx 40,000 per year per inmate not to mention the millions it costs to build prisons. If we could save the money it costs us to house pety drug offenders we could pay for the UK, US and Canada’s healthcare and have money left over. By the way people in prison have healthcare why shouldn’t Joe public have it.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:39I’m with you on the drugs but the Deems finally learned a few years ago that the way to get what they want it to get it incrementally and that’s what they’re doing with healthcare. It will only never happen if the liberals are bounced out of power and kept out for the next 30 years.
-
oksteelerfan
in July 28th, 2010 @ 20:57I agree we need less police and less government and fewer prisons. But we’re headed for more police and more police abuse because stupid judges play politics from the stand(both sides) instead of applying the law. Then the judges that do follow law have their hands tied because we continue making more laws that send people to prison. I was reading my local court report the other day, we have a guy facing animal cruelty charges up to 5 years in prison, we have a 18 year old kid facing intent to distribute facing 1 – 3 years in prison. Many other lesser things such as traffic fines.
I found newspaper reports about the first two, the pet store owner was accused by the animal control officer that some of his reptiles were dehydrated and his guinea pigs were in poop and urine. You have got to be kidding me, a guy could go to prison on felony charges for 5 years because of a damn lizard and rat?
The kid was stopped and had in his possession a ziploc bag of pot. The article didn’t say the amount, but really we’re going to send a kid to prison for that?
The animal abuse is known as a liberal law and the drugs is known as a conservative law.
How long before setting a mouse trap gets you sent to jail? How long before just being suspected of smoking a joint gets you sent to jail?
-
Matt
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:48It’s a good thing they simplified it.
-
Mario4Prez
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:54Adam:
Your argument really makes no sense at all. If your employer drops your insurance now, you will either have to pay for your own, or go without. The govt. healthcare was passed for just such people. If anything, it will drive private healthcare prices down by providing a much cheaper option to employers. It’s really a win-win, unless you make over a quarter of a million dollars a year, in which case your taxes will go up (although if these folks own businesses, the drop in healthcare costs could make up for this loss).
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 28th, 2010 @ 19:56Utopia is a wonderful thing. Of course, in a perfect world, there would be no need for Utopia.
-
Chad Farthouse
in July 28th, 2010 @ 21:34John,
Let me ask you this: Do you think Obama, Dems, and liberals hate America and secretly want to destroy it (this is what I’ve heard many tea-baggers claim), or do you think that they are just misguided and/or not as smart as you are?
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 02:02I think Obama looks at America as a deeply flawed country. He has said that the founders missed the boat when they made the Bill of Rights only about what the government COULDN’T DO. That shows either an unbelievably naive interpretation of why America is exceptional or a dangerous philosophy about how he envisions what the country should be. I know that he belonged to a church led by a pastor who has an obvious dislike for America and a belief that blacks should get some form of reparations. He came to Chicago as a free agent and could have picked any church. He looked around and settled on one that is based on Marxism. I don’t think he and others who are as radical as he is want to destroy America but I do believe that if they stay in power long enough and are able to implement their policies they will destroy the America that was intended by the founders.
-
Adam
in July 29th, 2010 @ 17:40No mario the point is I don’t want he gov’t option nor do I want everyone else to have to pay for me. If I want insurance that bad I will find away to afford it. Do you not understand that drinving down prices as much as you think it will will put insurance companies out of business because they can’t afford those prices.
Oh and by the way if the Bush tax cuts don’t get renewed my taxes and most everyone else’s are going up and I sure as hell don’t make 250,000 a year
-
Mario4Prez
in July 28th, 2010 @ 20:25How is this a utopian view? It is simple economics that cheaper competion drives prices down across the board. I would actually prefer a single-payer system with drugs imported from Canada, but if this is the best we’re going to get, I’ll take it.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 02:14Who will make those drugs that are imported from Canada? Do you actually think that the drug companies would continue to sell drugs to Canada and watch Americans import them without raising the prices? Do you think drug companies are interested in operating as a charity? I want the drug companies to be driven by he desire to make a PROFIT. That’s how we get new and better drugs. Here’s my idea of competition: Instead of taxing everyone at 12% for Medicare and Medicaid, let people keep their money and put it in a medical savings account. If I had put $5,000 a year into a medical savings account every year for 30 years, with compound interest and the fact that I hve been healthy, I would have a half million dollars set aside to pay for any catastrophic illness. I could buy an insurance policy with a 50-100,000 dollar deductible. My kids, who are in their 30s and have also been healthy, would have enough in their accounts to have a 10 to 20,000 dollar deductible policy. If one of their kids breaks an arm, they could pay cash. Here’s where the competition comes in. Doctors would know that patients are coming to see them with the ability to pay out of pocket and they would ask the one question that I never asked before any of my knee surgeries: How much is it going to cost? There would be no more $50 aspirins. Imagine how much food would cost if a third party was paying for it and nobody ever asked “How much?”
-
Tim
in July 29th, 2010 @ 08:15we get taxed at 3% for Medicare and Medicaid. Not 12%. That’s Social Security.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 08:54You have to add the employee contribution. Even at 3%, if we put that money in an account with compound interests we could all eventually have huge deductible policies. Also, that pile of money could be passed on to our heirs so that they could have a huge medical savings account. How much do you think things would change if doctors and hospitals were aware that we all had the ability to pay cash for non-catastrophic care and would be asking “How much?”
-
Tim
in July 29th, 2010 @ 09:22I did that. employee contributes 1.45% and employer contributes 1.45%. 2.9% total of your salary.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 09:40Fine. Three percent of $100,000 (two people making $50,000) is $3,000 a year. IN five years, you would have enough to buy a $15,000 deductible policy. Take $12,000 more that they would pay (including employer contribution) into their own retirement account and NOT INCLUDING INTEREST they would have $51,000. That would allow them to buy a $50,000 deductible policy. If they stayed healthy for 10 years, with no major medical expenses, they could easily have $150,000 in a combined health and retirement account instead of having NOTHING to show for it now except a promise that they’ll get taken care of when they’re 65 with a check for $3,000 a month and medicare which would also need to be supplemented by private insurance. Keep in mind, too, that, if they remain healthy into old age (like my wife and I and my parents) that money could be passed on to their kids. Whatever is left of the account when they die could be passed on and the heirs would have a big head start on their health/retirement account.
-
Ochotexto
in July 29th, 2010 @ 13:34Insurance companies need reigned in., their scamming is causing much of the problems right now. I need an MRI for my shoulder but my doctor says I need to get another Xray before they’ll agree to pay for the MRI. I’ve already had the f’n Xray. I’d say its gouging. Also the MDs oft prescribe the pills of only certain pharmaceutical companies. These comcerns yinz all have are present now. Enough is never enough. Greed !
-
Adam
in July 29th, 2010 @ 17:42You do realize the reason they do that now is to cover their ass over lawsuits because this country is sue-happy, not exactly stupid on their part, sure it sucks and costs money but is cheaper in the long run for them
-
Ochotexto
in July 29th, 2010 @ 19:56I don’t think its the ONLY reason Adam., just one aspect. They are lining their pockets big time., especially the ones up top. Either way reform is needed. And if we keep feeding the kids jelly donuts it will get worse.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 29th, 2010 @ 20:17And the more the govt. has come to our rescue the worse the situation has gotten,
-
Paul
in July 30th, 2010 @ 09:56Back when Social Security was being debated, I am willing to bet that practically the same arguments were being made about how wonderful it will be and how it will benefit future generations.
See what it is now. This is the same thing that government run healthcare will become. What has the government ever done that gives people faith that this will work? Of course, it won’t work, anyone who pauses a moment and keeps their knee from jerking should be able to recognize this.
It’s not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a government vs. the people issue. I’d like them out of my life as much as possible. Too bad I and others won’t be able to opt out of their programs. I’d gladly do that, but according to Obamacare, I could go to the slammer.
Guess I’d be taking the place of those freed drug dealers.
-
JohnSteigerwald
in July 30th, 2010 @ 09:59Social security was supposed to be TEMPORARY.