(September 26, 2013 at 7:54 pm)Manowar Wrote: On the news they went over several states and costs which varied several hundred dollars. One case I think he said if a woman is making $60.000 a year she would pay Just under $800.00 a month that's just under $10,000.00 a year. That's a lot of F%^$^ money. Now I am hearing rumors that Obamacare could lead to mandatory vaccinations, it's just a rumor but you gotta wonder

manowar

Well if you're already offered healthcare by your employer and you are earning $60,000 per year, then whatever your current rate is will either be better or stay similar...

Obamacare isn't going to be raising prices from what I understood.

If you're making $60,000 per year and are self-employed or without healthcare, then you have cheaper options to choose from which would normally cost you a lot more (under current conditions, buying healthcare as an individual is almost impossible)

Obviously the whole benefit of an employer offering healthcare is that they can get group rates, if you don't have that group rate you're screwed currently.

Obamacare offers a group rate for all of America so that no one is left out, or at least that is the plan as I understood it explained by Obama today on live tv.

I like the idea, I think it will have a lot of rough edges and some people will be hurt by it, but it is one of those "for the greater good" scenarios, the benefit of many for the sacrifice of few.

We'll see. I imagine that Obamacare will either be hated and give conservatives ground, or it will be plausible enough to give liberals ground and they can perhaps convince conservatives (who realize they're gaining zero ground by opposing Obamacare) to let off of their fearmongering and perhaps Obamacare 2.0 will be even better.

Whatever Obamacare ends up being, it is less and worse than it would have been if the Republicans didn't oppose it so strongly... It was Romney's platform to cut down Obamacare, and he failed along with his party, but not without causing massive damage first.

My thoughts, anyways.

I'm not really against mandatory vaccinations. I'm so sick of these dumbfuck new-agers going "VACCINATIONS CAUSE AUTISM WAAHHH!" Fucking idiots. They hear the uninformed twits at their alternative-medicine store spewing this bullshit and they think that the high-school dropout behind the counter has any fucking clue what he's talking about...

(September 26, 2013 at 8:06 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I'm not really against mandatory vaccinations. I'm so sick of these dumbfuck new-agers going "VACCINATIONS CAUSE AUTISM WAAHHH!" Fucking idiots. They hear the uninformed twits at their alternative-medicine store spewing this bullshit and they think that the high-school dropout behind the counter has any fucking clue what he's talking about...

I don't bite the conspiracy theorists' bait.

And that is exactly what I think those sorts of ideas are, conspiracy theories.

Actually, a lot of the AHCA is directed at cutting the costs of health care. One of the biggest provisions that has already gone into effect is the one that holds health care insurance companies' profits and administrative costs to 20%. Believe me, they have thrown a shitload of money at fighting this plan -- and that's why. If you follow the money, you'll understand why the costs of health care have risen so precipitously. It's actually for very few reasons, and the AHCA addresses them all. Not as well as if a public option had been included, but it's a damn good start.

1. Health care industry profits were in excess of 40% at the time the AHCA went into effect. So instantly, those profits were cut in half. And they're not done. The law imposes more restrictions every year. Is it any wonder these corporations hate Obamacare so much?

2. Duplication of effort/records was another huge cost factor. This is why automation requirements are part of the AHCA. You'll hear a lot of small providers bitching and complaining about having to purchase and implement new records-keeping software to comply. I understand their pain, but the idea behind it is to eliminate duplication of procedures and create availability of records to all physicians at all times. So now, if your primary care physician sends you for an MRI and then refers you to a specialist, the specialist doesn't refer you for a second MRI -- he has access to the information gleaned from the first one.

3. The amount of money spent for end-of-life care is hugely disproportionate to the funds spent throughout a lifetime for regular prudent care. Here's where the discussion of "death panels" comes in. SOMEONE has to be responsible for determining what is reasonable and prudent care as opposed to extraordinary care to extend someone's life as they approach a natural death. Right now, it's insurance companies -- with a profit motive. This duty is now shifted to the government, which has no profit motive. No different than standards that have been established for many years in European countries and others. And nothing precludes someone from expending their own private means to whatever extent they wish to keep on keepin' on.

4. Remember that old saw, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? The AHCA addresses that, too. That's why all preventive treatments are now to be made available at virtually no cost to the patient. It's much less costly to remove a bad little mole than to treat melanoma for a few years.

If people actually understood all the good things the AHCA does for them, they'd be thrilled about it. But change is hard and scary, so... here we are.

Thank you for the breath of fresh air Raeven. +rep

Well written.

Gosh, thanks. I mean that sincerely!

That actually helped shed some light on this a bit further than I'd had before. Thanks, dude.

I don't doubt that there is good in the AHCA. Far from it. My biggest complaints are that a) it is unclear what the cost will be to any particular individual or family (a solvable problem) and that b) it doesn't go far enough to give access to low income families and individuals. The act was a compromise, and not the best we could have done.

I have health care, and have for pretty much all of my adult life. My life will be little changed with or without Obamacare. I may pay a little more, or a little less, but that is largely inconsequential to me personally. I would not mind paying more if it meant that those who go without would not have to.

I'm more concerned about those who have gone without, and for whom even a modest expense represents the difference between eating or not. We can do better for them.

My wife and I went over her health insurance plan and the likely AHCA replacements earlier tonight. It appears we can shed $200-250 monthly! from our expenses. She's doing the happy dance, but I'm being my usual dour self. I guess when open enrollment comes around I'll have a better feel for it. Right now I'm cautiously apprehensive.

(September 26, 2013 at 5:20 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(September 26, 2013 at 5:15 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Sooner or later, you will accept the better European model.

I was just about to make the comment that it is not a full universal healthcare plan most likely because of the whiny Republicunts.

Well, it's not about being whiny. Those people have their own reasons for opposing it, one being that the US is a capitalist country.

However this new system is a "hybrid" system, most probably. Having both national and private healthcare systems in a country makes healthcare on the private point very expensive, while on the national side, low on quality. I know this from my own country. We have nationalized healthcare and hospitals, yet there are also a number of private enterprise clinics.

Now speaking of national healthcare here, I'd say its crowded, and its not of the quality one would get in a private clinic. So most people who are of middle class or higher generally choose the private clinics, since they have to wait less, that's it.

But is it really a good thing? NO! Private healthcare is too expensive, and I mean really. Just to get yourself checked for a sore throat, you have to pay like 60+ dollars(over 120 TL).
But if you go to a national hospital instead, you have to wait like about two or more hours until the doc can get a look at you.
In two ways, healthcare is crap in a system where private and national enterprises co-exist.

It should either be fully nationalized, or fully privatized.
I go with a fully nationalized healthcare model since I trust my government more than I trust people who view healthcare as a business, and my personal political ideology supports this.
However some might not be as I am, and might not want to pay for the healthcare of other people. I respect those. However the State won't if it's authoritarian