Hmm You want me to pay for what?

It's not often that I agree with you but in this case I do. The only thing I'd point out is that the fight over a nationalized system would probably be worse than the ACA fight.

namelessfly wrote:What I am angry about is the fact that Obama and the House Democrats lacked the integrity to simply offer a bill that established nationalized healthcare rather than this abortion of mandated health insurance from "private" companies. I lost the insurance that I's had for years and was unable to secure new insurance through the dysfunctional National and State Obamacare exchanges.

The point is that the US already had an extremely effective healthcare system based on employer financed insurance with Medicaire to insure the high risk elderly and Medicaid to fund the indigent. I myself was enrolled in a government organized high risk insurance pool. Itcost me $1,000 per month for a high deductible, but I had insurance.

Withfew exceptions, the only people who had no insurance at all were illegal aliens. That could have been remedied by a card check system with enhanced penalties for employers combined with a liberalized work visa system. If Pedro has no job, Pedro deports himself. Problem solved.

Obama and the Democrats deceitfully promoted a dysfunctional healthcare system then executed it with extreme, gratuitous incompetence. Millions of people are getting screwed financially because of this FUBAR and thousands are dying uneccesarily from the disruption in medical care. Screwing up themedicap sector of the economy which is about 1/5 of the GDP risks new recession. The justification will be that they needed to destroy the US healthcare system to justify their real goal of a single payer system. Such deceit is inexcusable because the consequences are so severe.

Donnachaidh wrote:It's not often that I agree with you but in this case I do. The only thing I'd point out is that the fight over a nationalized system would probably be worse than the ACA fight.

namelessfly wrote:What I am angry about is the fact that Obama and the House Democrats lacked the integrity to simply offer a bill that established nationalized healthcare rather than this abortion of mandated health insurance from "private" companies. I lost the insurance that I's had for years and was unable to secure new insurance through the dysfunctional National and State Obamacare exchanges.

Regarding

"The point is that the US already had an extremely effective healthcare system based on employer financed insurance with Medicaire to insure the high risk elderly and Medicaid to fund the indigent. I myself was enrolled in a government organized high risk insurance pool. Itcost me $1,000 per month for a high deductible, but I had insurance."

my top level family insurance costs me $250 AUD a month.
This pays for everything that may come up except for the first $300 per year hospital and $6 a pop for prescription drugs.

Statistically the old US system seemed to be very expensive compared to those in other developed countries. Unfortunately it appears that the new one will be similar in ineffectiveness.

I was a bit puzzled on a response earlier that indicated the problem was related to the price of drugs, as I can't see how that would vary between countries.

That could be a whole new topic anyway, on the ethics of drug company executives charging thousands on drugs that cost tens to produce simply because they can regardless of how many unnecessary deaths such practices incur. I don't buy the recouping of research costs argument either, as they continue prohibitive pricing long after recouping those costs.

namelessfly wrote:Withfew exceptions, the only people who had no insurance at all were illegal aliens. That could have been remedied by a card check system with enhanced penalties for employers combined with a liberalized work visa system. If Pedro has no job, Pedro deports himself. Problem solved.

Do you have a cite for this? Because based on the statistics I've seen, this doesn't seem to be the case.

For example, this site places the number of uninsured at 49 million, and the number of illegal immigrants at about 11 million. That leaves 38 million US citizens without insurance, over 10% of your population.

In addition, according to [url=http://kff.org/report-section/the-uninsured-a-primer-2013-tables-and-data-notes/[/url]this source), noncitizens (it doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) comprise only about 20% of the uninsured.

Furthermore, while a [url=http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/7451-09-figure-8.png]breakdown of the percentage of people without coverage by state[/url] does indeed show the southern states have high uninsured rates, there are also high rates in states which I wouldn't expect to have a significant illegal immigrant population (e.g. Wyoming or Alaska).

These figures do not include the uninsured, or else people who had to make drastic choices to be able to afford medical care (e.g. bankruptcy or divorce*)

*I can't find the article right now, but I remember reading accounts of people who were forced to divorce in order to qualify for public health insurance when a child got sick.

Daryl wrote:my top level family insurance costs me $250 AUD a month.
This pays for everything that may come up except for the first $300 per year hospital and $6 a pop for prescription drugs.

Statistically the old US system seemed to be very expensive compared to those in other developed countries. Unfortunately it appears that the new one will be similar in ineffectiveness.

For another comparison point, you can get top level insurance for ~90 NIS/adult (about $25) per month, which includes hospitalization, although it still includes (~$6) co-pays for specialists (the total co-pay per family is capped quarterly, though); many drugs are subsidized, although the out-of-pocket-cost varies.

If you want really top-flight insurance, you can get it for maybe 2-300 USD, IINM (unless you need insurance for extreme sports or the like, which is more expensive).

The number of uninsured was and remains a subject of contention.

Here is one source:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... 5-year-low

Note that the major accomplishment of Obamacare was to reverse the loss of healthcare coverage resulting from Obama's prolonged recession.

Various sources confirm that a disproportionate number of uninsured were Hispanics, many of whom were illegal.

Another large group of uninsured were younger Americans who CHOSE to not have insurance because their risks were low. A key feature of Obamacare is that it COMPELS young people to buy insurance at prices far above what their risk warrants to subsidize older Americans.

The bottom line is that the US had a very effective healthcare system that kept 80% to 90% of Americans effectively insured. Obamacare has resulted in a very marginal net decrease in the percentage of uninsured at the cost of much turmoil and reduction of healthcare quality for the majority who were already insured. Once government imposed "management" (aka "rationing" or "death panels") asserts itself, healthcare will become a lot worse for most Americans. Doctors are already fleeing the profession, so it will get a lot worse.

Eyal wrote:

namelessfly wrote:Withfew exceptions, the only people who had no insurance at all were illegal aliens. That could have been remedied by a card check system with enhanced penalties for employers combined with a liberalized work visa system. If Pedro has no job, Pedro deports himself. Problem solved.

Do you have a cite for this? Because based on the statistics I've seen, this doesn't seem to be the case.

For example, this site places the number of uninsured at 49 million, and the number of illegal immigrants at about 11 million. That leaves 38 million US citizens without insurance, over 10% of your population.

In addition, according to [url=http://kff.org/report-section/the-uninsured-a-primer-2013-tables-and-data-notes/[/url]this source), noncitizens (it doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) comprise only about 20% of the uninsured.

Furthermore, while a [url=http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/7451-09-figure-8.png]breakdown of the percentage of people without coverage by state[/url] does indeed show the southern states have high uninsured rates, there are also high rates in states which I wouldn't expect to have a significant illegal immigrant population (e.g. Wyoming or Alaska).

These figures do not include the uninsured, or else people who had to make drastic choices to be able to afford medical care (e.g. bankruptcy or divorce*)

*I can't find the article right now, but I remember reading accounts of people who were forced to divorce in order to qualify for public health insurance when a child got sick.

Daryl wrote:my top level family insurance costs me $250 AUD a month.
This pays for everything that may come up except for the first $300 per year hospital and $6 a pop for prescription drugs.

Statistically the old US system seemed to be very expensive compared to those in other developed countries. Unfortunately it appears that the new one will be similar in ineffectiveness.

For another comparison point, you can get top level insurance for ~90 NIS/adult (about $25) per month, which includes hospitalization, although it still includes (~$6) co-pays for specialists (the total co-pay per family is capped quarterly, though); many drugs are subsidized, although the out-of-pocket-cost varies.

If you want really top-flight insurance, you can get it for maybe 2-300 USD, IINM (unless you need insurance for extreme sports or the like, which is more expensive).

1. It's not Obama's recession, it started under Bush and it certainly hasn't been help by the partisan BS where neither major party is willing to do anything that looks like working with, let alone compromising with the other side.

2. In attempting to refute Eyal you contradicted your earlier claim that almost every uninsured person was an illegal. So which one is it? Not only that but the way you phrased your claim about illegal immigrants shows (once again) your bigotry.

3. If you think the US healthcare INDUSTRY was working then clearly you know very little about it. I grew up with many members of my family working within it. They know better than anyone how broken that system was. It's still broken, the only thing that will really fix it would be to go to a single payer system. I've done a fair amount of research and going to a system like Australia or Japan seems like the best option. The fact is before the Affordable Care Act the US was spending several times what both of those countries were per capita on healthcare and both of them have similar or better results.

namelessfly wrote:The number of uninsured was and remains a subject of contention.

Here is one source:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... 5-year-low

Note that the major accomplishment of Obamacare was to reverse the loss of healthcare coverage resulting from Obama's prolonged recession.

Various sources confirm that a disproportionate number of uninsured were Hispanics, many of whom were illegal.

Another large group of uninsured were younger Americans who CHOSE to not have insurance because their risks were low. A key feature of Obamacare is that it COMPELS young people to buy insurance at prices far above what their risk warrants to subsidize older Americans.

The bottom line is that the US had a very effective healthcare system that kept 80% to 90% of Americans effectively insured. Obamacare has resulted in a very marginal net decrease in the percentage of uninsured at the cost of much turmoil and reduction of healthcare quality for the majority who were already insured. Once government imposed "management" (aka "rationing" or "death panels") asserts itself, healthcare will become a lot worse for most Americans. Doctors are already fleeing the profession, so it will get a lot worse.

Eyal wrote:Do you have a cite for this? Because based on the statistics I've seen, this doesn't seem to be the case.

For example, this site places the number of uninsured at 49 million, and the number of illegal immigrants at about 11 million. That leaves 38 million US citizens without insurance, over 10% of your population.

In addition, according to [url=http://kff.org/report-section/the-uninsured-a-primer-2013-tables-and-data-notes/[/url]this source), noncitizens (it doesn't distinguish between legal and illegal residents) comprise only about 20% of the uninsured.

Furthermore, while a [url=http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/7451-09-figure-8.png]breakdown of the percentage of people without coverage by state[/url] does indeed show the southern states have high uninsured rates, there are also high rates in states which I wouldn't expect to have a significant illegal immigrant population (e.g. Wyoming or Alaska).

These figures do not include the uninsured, or else people who had to make drastic choices to be able to afford medical care (e.g. bankruptcy or divorce*)

*I can't find the article right now, but I remember reading accounts of people who were forced to divorce in order to qualify for public health insurance when a child got sick.

For another comparison point, you can get top level insurance for ~90 NIS/adult (about $25) per month, which includes hospitalization, although it still includes (~$6) co-pays for specialists (the total co-pay per family is capped quarterly, though); many drugs are subsidized, although the out-of-pocket-cost varies.

If you want really top-flight insurance, you can get it for maybe 2-300 USD, IINM (unless you need insurance for extreme sports or the like, which is more expensive).

I don't get the US Healthcare-System.
Why do corporations have any say in what is included and what not?

I'm from Germany. Every citizen has an obligation to have an health insurance.

I can choose my insurer from a wide range (their are maybe 1000 health insurance companies out their). There are two types: "State" insurance companies and private insurances companys. These companies don't get tax money or pay money to the government. They work only for the purpose of their members, if they make to much money, they have to pay it back to people wo they insurance, if they make not enough money they have to raise the 'fee'. For example I got 160€ back at the beginning of the year because my insurer made more money than he needed.
They have the obligation to take everybody.

It is paid nearly half half by the employee and employer. 8% of your income goes to health insurance, your employer has to pay 7%.
If you are unemployed you get an health insurance by the welfare-system, so you will never be without insurance.

Why is that so?
Because in Germany you will get your operation, even without insurance. We won't let somebody die, because he is not insured.
But this would burden the society, so everybody needs to be insured so he is covered, when something happens.
This system works quite well and no employer has any say in what is coverd and what not, because, actually, it is not his buisness. What is coverd and what not you can decide by which insurance company you choose (the state insurer have all nearly the same package, where you can get by paying extra money, bonuses, while the private insurers have a wide varity of insurances.
For example, contraception is free for Non-Adults. For Adults they have to pay a little (its subsidized, but not completly free).

The same reason is, why we have a mandatory state pension, you have to pay in (like ~9% of your income) and unemployment insurance (~2% of your income).

Because if you don't have a pension when you are old, the state would have to pay for you with tax money, because we don't let old people die, because they have no pension (or not enough).

You need mandatory insurances when you have a society that won't let people die, because they can't afford the treatment or don't have enough money, when they are old.

And that is I think the main difference between the US and Europe.

In the US the right to freedom includes the freedom to endure the consequences of your actions and
circumstances including becoming homeless, ill or even death.

In most european countries we save people from the worst consequences (homelessness, illness, death) of their actions or circumstances. But for that to work we need an insurance-system, that burdens everybody. When you want to be able to save everybody, everybody has to carry a little of the burden.

I think that is also one of the main difference between Democrats and Republicans.
But I agree, that Obamcare looks like some kind of abomination, the worst of socialism and capitalism in one insurance system.

In germany we had a welfare-reform that is an equal abomination.
In 2001 their was a reform, that was quite simple:

The welfare-stystem was allowed to force people to work by cutting their welfare-money to zero, when they don't accept the work they were offered.
At the same time their was no regulation on what work was allowed and what not.
So a company could go to the welfare-state and said, I need 10 workers, but I can only pay 50cent/h. Than the state would pressure the people who were on welfare to work for 50cent/h for this company.

You can't live for 50cent/h so the state would pay the rest of the money so the worker could live.

So in the end, the state forced people to work for private companys and paid the salaries, therby increasing the profit of this privat companies and destroying normal salaries because this companies stood in competition with componies who paid normal salaries.
The worst of capitalism and communism in one.

13 years later (5 days ago) a minimum wage was instituted by the state, because it become necessary because of this welfare-reform, which destroyed the wages in the low wage sector.

I was a bit puzzled on a response earlier that indicated the problem was related to the price of drugs, as I can't see how that would vary between countries.

That could be a whole new topic anyway, on the ethics of drug company executives charging thousands on drugs that cost tens to produce simply because they can regardless of how many unnecessary deaths such practices incur.

Each new drug costs a billion dollars in R&D and usually takes about 15 years to develop. The US bears the bulk of the burden for worldwide development costs. The socialized medicine countries basically negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies at gunpoint. The CEOs have already spent the billion $ so they take what they can get from them (usually production costs and a small profit, not anywhere near enough to pay for R&D), knowing that they can recoup their cost plus get the profits their investors demand from the US. And for the large number of drugs that fail in phase 3, that money has already been spent and the return on investment is zero. The money people who invest in pharmaceuticals demand a substantial return on their investment commensurate with this risk. And these money people demand to be paid otherwise they'll just invest in the next hot software company instead. It would be nice if there was no need for these people to invest, but as much as I hate them we need them unless the governments of the world want to start spending $200 billion annually on pharmaceutical R&D.

I don't buy the recouping of research costs argument either, as they continue prohibitive pricing long after recouping those costs.

They've got to give those greedy money people the return on investment they demand or they'll invest in something much less risky. And unless you can get $200 billion per year from somewhere else, we're stuck with them.

Natas, in essence most healthcare in America is provided by the employer, who seeks a bulk coverage from the insurance companies. A one size fits all emoployees as it were. So the employer has a huge say in what's covered.

Annachie wrote:Natas, in essence most healthcare in America is provided by the employer, who seeks a bulk coverage from the insurance companies. A one size fits all emoployees as it were. So the employer has a huge say in what's covered.

So, in my socialist opinion , the US Government (or the state govnerments) gave up responsibility (or never had it) for the health care system and made it a problem of the employer?