Obama Care

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Angry

Do we not have a universal public education system that provides a means for all people to be afforded the same educational opportunities for the masses?

No we do not. Public education is a state/local responsibility (as it should be). Approximately 6% of public school funding comes from the Fed.

I believe that just like public education there must be some form of health care provided for every citizen. This health care should be run by the state and local governments just like public education is. If you can afford better, then by all means go buy yourself something better, but lets not deprive those of a necessity.

If a state wishes to provide free health care for its citizens, by all means go ahead. As long as that state is only taking a minimal percentage of financial support (under 6%) from the Fed to fund this and the program doesn't overlap with programs that already exist (Medicare/Medicaid). Also when the state goes belly up (CA) the Feds don't bail the state out unless the state reduces programs/services and pays the Fed back with interest in under 10 years.

This isn't about access to health care for everyone, there are plenty of avenues for people to get health care. This debate is about expanding the federal government's control into peoples lives. The last two times since 1900 that the left had supermajority control of the federal government we came away with social programs that are threatening to bankrupt the country (FDR - New Deal, L. Johnson - Great Society, Medicare/Medicaid). What Obama and the left in Congress are attempting to jam through (Univ. Health Care, Env Reforms, gov't takeover of GM, etc.) will push the government much closer to insolvency or the need to institute massive tax increases on all Americans. Everything has a price. Either monetarily or with freedoms lost.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my family's access to quality & timely health care or the financial independence of future generations to provide health care under a massive, ineffiecent government bureacracy to under 10% of the population. Why should I make those sacrifices when this 10% currently isn't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to provide health care to themselves or their families. Health care options are readily available in the private sector for those willing to work for them.

P.S. No one supporting Obama Care has provided an effective response to my point about CER, or are folks on the left OK with this?

http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post564312

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

P.S. No one supporting Obama Care has provided an effective response to my point about CER, or are folks on the left OK with this?

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

All the Obama Care has to do too fix this is raise the taxes on the rich some more.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

It will be even tougher when the goverment has to ration care because of cost spiralling out of control.

How long after this do you think we start eating each other? Just curious...

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

How long after this do you think we start eating each other? Just curious...

I have a pretty big garden, know how to fish and hunt so I'm good to go.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Well, using Angry's above scenario, there's no need. If someone prefers an alternative regimen with a low chance of success, they are fully within their rights to pursue it, but at their own expense. How is this a problem? And Healthcare companies may not use the term CER, but they definitely make it very hard for anyone to pursue expensive treatments.

Obviously if someone wants to spend $$$ on a treatment that is expensive and won't work no insurer private or gov't will cover it. And yes, the CER concept is used in private healthcare, but not to deny coverage of normal procedures. If a procedure isn't covered "in-network" on a plan there is the option of going "out-of-network" to get the procedure but with less of a percentage covered. CER boards are used in many countries with socialized medicine to deny certain treatments or to deny treatment to individuals based on age or other factors. I don't want a gov't bureacrat between me and my doctor or other medical professional. When I'm a bit older, I don't want some GS-9 deciding whether I'm able to get an MRI, or heart valve replacement, or other treatment in a timely manner. I just had my gall bladder taken out, not a big deal but over $30K without insurance, cost me about $ 2K. Whenever I ate anything I was in severe pain for 3-4 hours. If I had to wait for this surgery for two weeks or 1 month, that would've been absurd.

Once a government run insurance program is in place with less benefits and no profit motive, it will drive the costs of private insurance up to be unaffordable or will bring service levels way down. Let's say a family of four with both parents working is bringing in $ 80K / yr. They go with the gov't program as the private insurance will likely go to over $ 1K per month. Their child needs a procedure, recommended by their doctor, which the government will not authorize because it doesn't meet the recommendations of the CER board. The procedure costs $ 40K....yeah I've got a problem with that. When currently that same family is paying about $ 300-500 per month for much better and timely coverage that will allow that procedure.

Again, our health care system isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world. Why do people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get procedures done? We need to fix some things but not put another massive government program in place. If you want to provide vouchers or tax credits for low income families that can't afford health insurance that can be discussed, but the Kennedy/Wrangle/Obama vision is flat out wrong and will be extremely destructive to our healthcare system and the federal budget.

EDIT: As a small business owner, if I'm forced to provide health care benefits to my employees (or pay a fine), who will wind up paying for it. My customers will, I'll have to raise prices. That could actually result in a reduction in monthly revenue if people don't want to pay higher prices and force me into the red. Or, I'll have to cut my staff down to an absolute minimum, that will be at least 2-3 jobs lost. Obama can count those in his jobs saved/created numbers. We're a small family owned restaurant, under 20 employees. Other restaurants like mine will be in the same position, some will close and you'll have more of the chain restaurants to visit (oh joy). But Obama is supposed to be for the little guys right?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Obviously if someone wants to spend $$$ on a treatment that is expensive and won't work no insurer private or gov't will cover it. And yes, the CER concept is used in private healthcare, but not to deny coverage of normal procedures. If a procedure isn't covered "in-network" on a plan there is the option of going "out-of-network" to get the procedure but with less of a percentage covered. CER boards are used in many countries with socialized medicine to deny certain treatments or to deny treatment to individuals based on age or other factors. I don't want a gov't bureacrat between me and my doctor or other medical professional. When I'm a bit older, I don't want some GS-9 deciding whether I'm able to get an MRI, or heart valve replacement, or other treatment in a timely manner. I just had my gall bladder taken out, not a big deal but over $30K without insurance, cost me about $ 2K. Whenever I ate anything I was in severe pain for 3-4 hours. If I had to wait for this surgery for two weeks or 1 month, that would've been absurd.

Once a government run insurance program is in place with less benefits and no profit motive, it will drive the costs of private insurance up to be unaffordable or will bring service levels way down. Let's say a family of four with both parents working is bringing in $ 80K / yr. They go with the gov't program as the private insurance will likely go to over $ 1K per month. Their child needs a procedure, recommended by their doctor, which the government will not authorize because it doesn't meet the recommendations of the CER board. The procedure costs $ 40K....yeah I've got a problem with that. When currently that same family is paying about $ 300-500 per month for much better and timely coverage that will allow that procedure.

Again, our health care system isn't perfect, but it's the best in the world. Why do people come here from countries with socialized medicine to get procedures done? We need to fix some things but not put another massive government program in place. If you want to provide vouchers or tax credits for low income families that can't afford health insurance that can be discussed, but the Kennedy/Wrangle/Obama vision is flat out wrong and will be extremely destructive to our healthcare system and the federal budget.

EDIT: As a small business owner, if I'm forced to provide health care benefits to my employees (or pay a fine), who will wind up paying for it. My customers will, I'll have to raise prices. That could actually result in a reduction in monthly revenue if people don't want to pay higher prices and force me into the red. Or, I'll have to cut my staff down to an absolute minimum, that will be at least 2-3 jobs lost. Obama can count those in his jobs saved/created numbers. We're a small family owned restaurant, under 20 employees. Other restaurants like mine will be in the same position, some will close and you'll have more of the chain restaurants to visit (oh joy). But Obama is supposed to be for the little guys right?

Very good post. Admittedly, I'm not very well versed on health care, but your case study helps shed some light for me. I'm fortunate enough to be in perfect health, and I have no problem paying my $160/month premium to Blue Cross/Blue Sheild. It's easy for a 30 year old non-smoker with no history of health issues to find great coverage at an affordable price. I don't have kids yet, and aside from the occasional physical, I have had no reason to visit a doctor pretty much ever.

Of all the major issues, domestic and international, I would say health care is the one I have given the least amount of attention. That's going to change.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No we do not. Public education is a state/local responsibility (as it should be). Approximately 6% of public school funding comes from the Fed.

If a state wishes to provide free health care for its citizens, by all means go ahead. As long as that state is only taking a minimal percentage of financial support (under 6%) from the Fed to fund this and the program doesn't overlap with programs that already exist (Medicare/Medicaid). Also when the state goes belly up (CA) the Feds don't bail the state out unless the state reduces programs/services and pays the Fed back with interest in under 10 years.



http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...tml#post564312

I concur, and that is what I was trying to get at. However I do not think that it should be up to the states to decide. They should have to fund health care just like they have to provide public education. I agree that it shouldn't be overly Federally funded, but it should be Federally mandated.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Angry

I concur, and that is what I was trying to get at. However I do not think that it should be up to the states to decide. They should have to fund health care just like they have to provide public education. I agree that it shouldn't be overly Federally funded, but it should be Federally mandated.

I think we're definitely on the same wave-length, we would just need to hammer out cost details to get to the best cost/value solution. It's funny how within a few posts reasonable people can come to pretty close agreement on most things......maybe the folks inside 1600 PA Ave. and on the Hill should pay attention to this site LOL.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I think we're definitely on the same wave-length, we would just need to hammer out cost details to get to the best cost/value solution. It's funny how within a few posts reasonable people can come to pretty close agreement on most things......maybe the folks inside 1600 PA Ave. and on the Hill should pay attention to this site LOL.

Did you just call me reasonable?...that's a first.