Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Questions about health care? Take a number

September 25, 2013

President Barack Obama is on the verge of doing something former President Bill Clinton failed to do during his eight years in the White House: expand health care access to everyone. On Oct....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(78)

Merritt

Oct-09-13 10:01 PM

htt(p)://****businessweek.c0m/articles/2012-11-29/is-concierge-medicine-the-future-of-health-care#p5

0 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-09-13 12:01 AM

AModerate - To clarify, the ACA is designed to eventually create a single-payer system. -- That is the ultimate tax burden in my opinion. The opposite of single-payer would be individual responsibility and that would create the least amount of tax payer burden. I think your concern is that it is too harsh for those who don't have insurance and not because of the tax burden. I can point to social security running out by 2038 and what is going on with disability claims in this country as reason why I have no faith in government run healthcare. I don't know if you caught 20/20 on Sunday, but that was a very eye-opening story. More government leads to more rules and thus more corruption. Healthcare will be no different.

3 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-08-13 11:43 PM

Hartman, genius idea asking for a $5 raise and going on to the exchange. I'm a step ahead of you. I asked, they said no can do. It's a use it or lose it proposition. Why? Not sure. It makes no sense to me either. I'll continue to research and see why this is. I'll save them some money and only make them pay me $5 an hour. I'll take that money and do a little research on concierge medical services. I'm convinced this will lead to a two-tiered medical system and I am willing to work and pay for the best.

2 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-08-13 11:31 PM

I have no idea how this got to guns, immigration reform, or the farm bill. I want you to explain to me how giving 30 million people discounted healthcare will make prices go down and/or not impact the quality of healthcare negatively. AModerate - I don't understand how movement in the opposite direction of a single-payer system (which is exactly what this law is designed to eventually do) creates more of a tax burden. This creates a tax burden. 30 million people are getting discounted health insurance. Who pays for that? The taxpayer through higher premiums and taxes.

3 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Oct-07-13 7:21 PM

I don't see either Obama or Gov. Goofy trotting out those signing up for Obamacare. The cost is shocking for many and of course the system is not working. No one I know has even been able to get on the site.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Oct-07-13 3:08 PM

Liberals: The ACA expands the ability of American people to acquire health care. Costs will inevitably decrease and quality of healthcare will be maintained.

Conservative Response: Forget health care reform, forget immigration reform, forget a farm bill, cut millions of dollars from social programs for the poor, forget job creation and shut down the government putting thousands of workers out of jobs. But hey, we passed legislation to expand gun rights.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Oct-07-13 3:00 PM

Merritt, why don't you check out the healthcare exchange. Your employer is actually buying the health insurance and passing some of the cost on to you. You could probably find a health insurance policy better suited to your needs that is less expensive. Then tell your employer to drop the coverage they provide and ask them to raise your hourly pay by $5.288, which is their cost of your insurance. I'm sure they would be willing to do that for all their employees.

Imagine how much your employer could lower their prices if they didn't pay the portion of their employees health care. Hey wait, that means your company is charging their customers more because of employee health insurance but the level of service is the same. That's a slap in the face to your customers!

BTW Merritt you can thank Republicans and the Heritage Foundation for the mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and health care exchanges. Both were their ideas.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Oct-05-13 8:25 PM

So congress voted to pay the idle workers after this shutdown is over. We had to expect that would happen. This government has a nasty habit of paying people for doing nothing.

2 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-05-13 3:08 AM

I'm not a huge fan of the current healthcare insurance system. I think the cost is too high. I would much rather spend my money on something that made my short life more fun. Unfortunately, there are bad things that happen to our fragile species, and I want my young children to be protected. Therefore, I buy health insurance that costs $15,000 a year between me and my employer. I'd much rather take the $11,000 my employer pays and put it in my pocket, but I'll pay it. My kids deserve the protection. I'm willing to work my *** off to make sure they are protected. I sacrifice for it. They are my priority. To take more money away from me for the same coverage is a slap in the face. I'm not smart, I'm not special. I'm not wealthy. But I work my ass off and my kids deserve more because of it. Thank you Republicans for understanding. Keep up the good fight.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Oct-04-13 7:29 PM

Late today the government announced the health care site will be out of service for most of the weekend.

That should make everyone feel very confident.

Obama hasn't rushed out a bunch of folks that have been able - or willing to sign up. That should tell you something.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AModerate

Oct-04-13 6:29 PM

What I'm taking from these posts is that the Conservatives here like the existing Health Care System and see no reason for change. I disagree as I think the current system is unsustainable. I wish I was smart enough to come up with a better solution than the ACA but I haven't seen one that's viable. Single payer has even more government involvement and movement in the other direction makes irresponsible people a taxpayer burden.

18 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 4:59 PM

It must be confusing to be a liberal because when people are talking about healthcare your mind wanders into gun control for no reason.

Conservative: The ACA expands government and has no meaningful benefit to the American people. Costs will inevitably rise or quality of healthcare will necessarily decrease.

Liberal Response: We need better gun control.

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Oct-04-13 2:37 PM

I think part of the problem, Merrit, is viewing this issue from the Conservative perspective. There is just so much hypocrisy involved. Republicans favor a 3-day waiting period to obtain an abortion but oppose a 5-day waiting period to obtain a gun; they favor drug tests for all welfare recipients but oppose background checks on all gun sales; they (not all, but more than a few) favor requiring every household to own a gun but oppose the mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance; they favor keeping their publicly funded healthcare but oppose publicly funding anyone else’s healthcare. Wow, how confusing all that must be. But you’re right about one thing, we’re right back where we started if we allow Republicans to gut the Affordable Care Act. If they REALLY want to “do things the right way” and help out the millions who are uninsured, then offer some amendments to the ACA. I’m sure there is room for improvement.

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Oct-04-13 1:38 PM

I see the state of MN is receiving negative national press for already letting over 3,000 social security numbers out of the "protected" health system. Another sign of how inept our government services are. Will someone get fired over this - or promoted?

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 12:21 PM

I guess the only difference is my costs are now $1.10 instead of $1.

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 12:16 PM

Okay, so we cap the expense of health insurance. We have a fixed amount of money in our pool and the procedures that people want and need exceed the dollars we have in this pool. What do we do? I guess we’re going to have to determine which cancer patients are the most likely to live and let the others die (AModerate..). But how do we determine who gets what treatment? We’ll have to have someone decide which people are the most likely to live and treat them and let the others die. About that time, the wealthy man comes and says, hold on, let’s see what we can do here. My daughter has cancer and is in the group that you aren’t going to cover? I don’t think so. Here’s $50. Put that in your pocket and get her the treatment she needs. My daughter’s life is more important than money.

We’re right back to where we started.

2 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 12:16 PM

The next problem is that people are going to hit their lifetime out-of-pocket maximums and now are going to contribute no money into the pool. Unfortunately, they are still going to have expenses. To get to our $0.97 of benefit we’re going to start having to pay $1.10. And since we’re catching cancer at a much higher rate (which is a great thing for the individual who is diagnosed) there is going to be an unintended consequence. The number of people needing treatment is going to be much higher also. That will drive the total costs again. So now, we’re paying $1.25 for the average person to get $1.22 in benefits. Now the middle-class is mad. The likely hood I get cancer isn’t worth $1.25 to me. The politicians are going to say, yes, it’s simple math..the middle class can’t afford any more so we’re going to have to put a limit on the costs at $1.10. Plus this higher cost for healthcare is taking away money consumers spend on other things and is hurting our economy.

1 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 12:16 PM

Let’s try to explain it to you guys this way. If currently everyone is paying $1 for insurance, the average person is getting $0.97 of benefit from it. Some get $10 of benefit, some are lucky in terms of their health and only use $0.01. Now, you are going to add a whole bunch of people who can only afford a quarter. If you want to still get $0.97 of benefit for everyone, the people who were paying $1 are now going to have to pay more. OR, since the overall pool of money is lower, we are going to have to expect $0.90 benefit instead of $0.97. Either way, it does not benefit the people doing things the right way.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 11:33 AM

And Hartman, you truly need to get over this idea that everyone's money belongs to the government first and any money that we earn is money that the government allows us to have. Taxes are an expense to an individual. We're paying taxes for the services that government provides and there is a growing number of people who don't like the value we're getting.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-04-13 11:22 AM

“Encourage” – Inspire, hearten, cheer, reassure, boost, embolden, urge, animate, inspire, incite, promote, advance, further. I know liberals love to re-define words to fit their arguments, so you’re going to have to add mandate, require, and force to the list of synonyms for “encourage.”

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Oct-04-13 10:28 AM

Unfortunately Merritt, you won't have affordable healthcare unless everyone contributes and not everyone will contribute unless you "encourage" them. For good or bad, the govt manipulates our behavior through financial means. Low capital gain tax rates are designed to encourage investment. Meanwhile those whose main source of income are capital gains pay diddly squat in taxes. Other tax payers make up the difference. Essentially we subsidize wealthy investors.

The point is, we either create a system where everyone contributes at least something, which the ACA does or we limit quality healthcare to only those who can afford the cost.

16 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Oct-03-13 2:11 PM

Why would a wealthy politician be more worthy of a subsidy than the taxpayers?

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-03-13 1:54 PM

AModerate - I can guarantee you, that in the next few years you are going to find millions of men in their mid-20s that don't buy health insurance and instead pay the fine. They still don't have health insurance, are we going to let them die? Why would anyone purchase coverage when they can pay a $95 fine. What do we worry about? A car crash? By the time you get to the hospital, I'm sure that brain injury is a pre-existing condition. It's not like we're going to let him die.

2 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-03-13 1:41 PM

Especially when mandating healthcare results in the people who are doing things the right way, paying higher taxes and premiums. In the vast majority of cases, you are subsidizing bad choices. We do not have an epidemic of widespread suffering in this country. We have an epidemic of widespread underachieving as a result of people being comfortable with their own situation. When I go out, I see people spending their paychecks at the bar when they don't have health insurance. I have people tell me that they don't look for work in the winter because it would mess up their unemployment benefits. For every story of a person who truly needs our help, there are many more who are getting help because of their choice to underachieve. Don't get mad at me for that. Get mad at them. If things shouldn't be fair for anyone, it should not be the people who are doing things the right way. Just keep people comfortable enough to want more....that's how you win votes.

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Oct-03-13 1:34 PM

What makes you two think that you are responsible for how everyone else wants to live their lives? I'm not letting anyone die. If getting cancer and suffering is a concern of yours, I would recommend purchasing health insurance and doing what you can to prevent it. If people decide that health insurance is not one of their priorities in their own life, they have that RIGHT. Speaking of RIGHTS....which other human right are you mandated to purchase? Healthcare is not a right. Access to healthcare should be. The opportunity to purchase healthcare should be. In this country we do have that option. The problem you have is that you don't like the cost and you're 100% right Hartman. This money will end up in the pockets of CEOs. The CEO that is the highest bidder for your political party. That doesn't make me happy. People suffering doesn't make me happy. I believe purchasing health insurance is a good idea, but mandating it is not the solution.

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 78 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web