2012 Election

[executioner]

Good post Daniel; people need to take pride in their lives and do it the right way. Like I said before 70% of the people that are on welfare have been on it for 5 yrs or more and the majority of them can work and provide for themselves and family, but they are just LAZY.
Welfare was created as a temp solution for someone that was down and out and was suppose to be a limited assistance for no more then one calender year.
I have 2 relatives that have been getting full assistance in the form of welfare for over 30 yrs. Both are physically and mentally able to hold a job and provide for themselves but choose not too and are lazy. I know there are plenty more out there with the same storyline, and frankly I'm sick of it.

[CatNamedManny]

Sometimes I really think the posts that support this president are from welfare receivers who are abusing the system.

Sometimes I really think Christians need to show more love and respect to their brothers in Christ.

[Muleya]

The rest should be worked for, it shouldn't be a wealthy persons fault if someone is lazy, doesn't want to work to earn their own damn health care.

Govt. and health need to stay the heck away from each other! I lived in Australia for years under that system, it is a failure.

Maybe if some Americans were not waisting money on ipads, iphones, imacs,Android phones and 140" LED TV's they could pay for health care them-self.

I'm not necessarily in favor of Government run healthcare, but the private sector hasn't done an exceptional job by any means, either.

My eyes were opened to some realities this spring when my 8-yr old daughter broke her femur. She required an ambulance trip to a larger hospital where a pediatric surgeon could set the bone and put pins in. She only spent one night in the hospital, but by the time it was all said and done the total bill was around $30,000! Thankfully our deductible was only about $1800.

We are a middle class family doing okay. We make enough to pay the bills, and even save a little...and we are fortunate to have good health insurance through our employers. So we're fine. And if we didn't have insurance, between savings and available credit, we would have been able to cover it. But that would not have been the case a few years ago. And I can easily see how something like this would easily drive folks into bankruptcy! Many would have trouble meeting even the deductible.

That's just wrong. Medical care for these kinds of things should not endanger anyone's financial well being!!! And if people do end up in bankruptcy or other financial disasters because of something like this, they should not be blamed.

Personally, I blame all the lawsuit-happy Americans...another huge group of people trying to get something for nothing and will sue health service people and companies at the drop of the hat, requiring everyone in health services to have sky-high malpratice insurance and charge exhoribant fees to cover the premiums.

One last note here...many people don't seem to realize this, but whether our tax dollars go to fund govt. healthcare or not, those of us who pay our bills pay for those who don't, anyway. Health-care prices are set in such a way that they factor in the expected rate of non-payment. Ironically, if everyone was able to pay their healthcare bills, healthcare would cost a lot less!

[CatNamedManny]

We certainly could have helped those who truly can't meet their responsibility to pay for their healthcare, without affecting what's already in place, and affecting everyone else.

That's kind of what we did. The employer-based insurance system — despite the fact that it's hopelessly broken, discourages entrepreneurship and job movement, and has led to stagnant wages for a decade — remains essentially unchanged. Do you object to the creation of exchanges where consumers can see for the first time a menu of private insurance options, complete with costs and benefits? Do you object to the government setting minimum standards for health insurance, like it does for car insurance and every other good and service in the United States in an effort to protect human life? I'm not interested in "extrapolations and speculation." I'm interested in the real facts of how the ACA means the government is now running health care despite the fact that there was no public option, no single payer, no government-run doctors or hospitals.

I've posted this here before, but I'll post it again because it doesn't seem like anyone read it. From the nonpartisan (which cannot be said for the American Spectator) PolitiFact:

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.

It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.

Romney care looks like a bust, and Obamacare will turn into the same if we don't get rid of it.

This is a stock right-wing talking point, but it doesn't seem to be backed up by anything but wishful thinking. 96 percent of Massachusetts residents are insured now, and given that was the goal of the bill, it seems to be successful. Three-fourths of Massachusetts residents are happy with the way the bill has turned out, which is an overwhelming majority, far greater than the typical red/blue divide in a state that actually elected a Republican senator who opposed the ACA as recently as 2009. True, it hasn't held down health care costs, but then it wasn't designed to. Many of the complaints that have been brought against it (longer wait times comes immediately to mind) are based on trends that had existed before Romneycare went into effect.

Like I said before 70% of the people that are on welfare have been on it for 5 yrs or more and the majority of them can work and provide for themselves and family, but they are just LAZY.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it more true. Welfare reform in 1996 limited the total time in which people can receive welfare benefits to five years. So it's impossible to be on welfare for "five years or more." Whatever numbers you're using are 15 years out of date.

Before welfare reform in 1996, this is what the system looked like: Half of welfare recipients left the system within one year, 70 percent within two years, and 90 percent within five years. (Source)

The govt. now has a muppet who wants a system that has failed in other countries, you will see.

Seriously, people. It's not hard to be respectful of the president of the United States. The Bible, never mind common courtesy, pretty much demands it; maybe we should try it out. I seem to recall a lot of requests for it when George W. Bush's trouble with public speaking became a running punchline.

At any rate, the United States spends twice as much on health care as most other developed nations without receiving better results. I would say that ours is the failed system, not theirs.

In 2007, the United States overall (not just the government) spent 16 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, which was nearly double the average of the OECD. We spent more than $7,000 per capita on health care, more than two and one-half times the OECD average. This despite the fact that the U.S. government directly provides health care for far fewer people than most other OECD countries, and the fact that just 45 percent of our country's overall health care spending is by the government — the lowest percentage in the OECD. The amount we as a country (not just the government) spend on health care would be enough to provide universal coverage to citizens of every other OECD nation.



Employer-subsidized health insurance premiums have grown at a rate triple that of wages since 2000. In 2008, the average family health insurance plan cost more than $12,000 — nearly as much as the full annual earnings of an employee on minimum wage.

So what are we getting for all that money? Lower life expectancy than Canada, Japan, Switzerland or Australia. Infant mortality rates higher than the OECD average.




Again: We are spending more money than any other developed nation on health care, and we are achieving below average results. Their systems are not the ones failing. And the results of that failure are shown in Daniel's chart, which shows that our welfare expenditures have actually been pretty stable over the past 30 years, except in one key area: medical care.

But the chart is clearly misleading because it does not appear to either adjust for inflation nor for the fact that our economy since 1960 has grown much faster than the rate of inflation. As a percentage of GDP, welfare spending is incredibly stable and sustainable:

[CatNamedManny]

Muleya, I agree with your post completely, except for this part:

Personally, I blame all the lawsuit-happy Americans...another huge group of people trying to get something for nothing and will sue health service people and companies at the drop of the hat, requiring everyone in health services to have sky-high malpratice insurance and charge exhoribant fees to cover the premiums.

There is no evidence that malpractice lawsuits have led to any increase in health care costs, either directly or because of "defensive medicine, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accounting Office. (Source) One economist says malpractice lawsuits add $12 per person per year to the nation's health care costs. Even health insurance companies say malpractice reform would not reduce insurance premiums. (Source) Most places I've seen agree medical malpractice awards and insurance account for between 1-2 percent of all health care spending.

Finally, the number of medical malpractice claims has stayed level since the late 1980s, while health care costs have doubled in that span and overall contacts between doctors and patients have risen. That means the rate of lawsuits is actually going down while health care costs are going up. (Source)

[gman]

Do you object to the creation of exchanges where consumers can see for the first time a menu of private insurance options, complete with costs and benefits? Do you object to the government setting minimum standards for health insurance, like it does for car insurance and every other good and service in the United States.

Yes. Personally, I'm for less insurance, not more or different. I'd like to see us move toward health savings accounts paired with cheaper, catastrophic insurance. The big Gov't crowd seems firmly set against such an idea. One reason insurance is so costly is that it is used to cover just about everything. The more it is used and the more it covers, the more expensive it is. Insurance companies must take in more revenue than what they pay out in claims. That is the way insurance works. The more they are forced to cover, the higher the cost. At some point it becomes unsustainable. The cost is too high for consumers, or claims exceed revenue.

I'm interested in the real facts of how the ACA means the government is now running health care despite the fact that there was no public option, no single payer, no government-run doctors or hospitals.

Listen to President Obama's words. He said outright he is in favor of doing away with employer based healthcare and replacing it with a single payer universal healthcare system. He recognized that it could take as long as 15 to 20 years; that it couldn't be done all at once. He knew going into this bill that he wouldn't get everything. One thing about the left in particular is that they say about things like drilling for oil, that you can't do it because it would take too long to get any benefit, but they don't say the same when it comes to something like universal healthcare. They keep pluggin away at it, bill by bill.

I will do some research and see if employer based healthcare is hopelessly broken, or if that is a talking point. One thing about it is that we lose perspective. We lose sight of the basic premise that people have a responsibility to pay for the services they use. People without insurance should be advised to save some money to pay for their healthcare. They might say that someone with insurance doesn't have to, but in reality the person with insurace does pay for their care. They are giving money to an insurance company, and the insurance company is writing the check. Even if their employer pays a large chunk to the insurance company, it's really the employees money. Their paycheck is just smaller.
The gov't does a good job of fostering the false notion that people with insurance are having their healthcare costs unfairly paid for by someone else.
I'm rambling a bit, at least my brain is, so I'll quit.

[gman]

By the way, I'm convinced that some people like Gov't controlling this, that, or the other no matter what. One could make a rock solid, in your face case that Gov't run healthcare is a disaster, and the people who like Gov't control would still fight tooth and nail for it.
To be fair, I prefer freedom and little Gov't control. One could make a rock solid case that Gov't run healthcare is utopia, and I would still oppose it.

[Muleya]

There is no evidence that malpractice lawsuits have led to any increase in health care costs, either directly or because of "defensive medicine, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accounting Office. (Source) One economist says malpractice lawsuits add $12 per person per year to the nation's health care costs. Even health insurance companies say malpractice reform would not reduce insurance premiums. (Source) Most places I've seen agree medical malpractice awards and insurance account for between 1-2 percent of all health care spending.

Finally, the number of medical malpractice claims has stayed level since the late 1980s, while health care costs have doubled in that span and overall contacts between doctors and patients have risen. That means the rate of lawsuits is actually going down while health care costs are going up. (Source)

Well that's too bad...I liked feeling smug towards the lawsuit-happy segment of the American population!

[executioner]

The main reason the insurance premiums and noninsured doctor bills have sky rocketed is because of the current welfare system; Who do think has to pay for all the ones on welfare? Also another problem I have found are the insurance companies and doctors are basically gouging each other too death with high premiums and rates and we are the ones to pay.

I will give you an example 3 years ago we were pregnant with our 3 child and the pregnancy had some problems with folic acid and such which in turn required for my wife to inject herself everyday in the womb with a drug called Lovenox(it helps bring nutrients to the fetus) well even with insurance it was costing us $200 per month and without $500+, so in turn we were having to get sonograms biweekly instead the normal 4 times throughout the pregnancy, Well after the 6th month the insurance company stop paying for the sonograms and we have to start paying for them. We were both shocked when we saw our doctor bill and it was $2300 for a 10 minute sonogram. I questioned the doctor about this and was promptly told I needed to sit down with the office manager. When I questioned the office manager I was told that is a normal rate for use of the sonogram and If we couldn't pay we would have to seek another doctor. I was floored that a doctor( A christian that was attending our church) would put someone's life on the line because of the money factor. Needless to say we had to find another doctor which is impossible this late in the pregnancy.
I found out later that the costs of a sonogram is no where near what we were being charged, and this doctor knew going in that this type of money was not going to be able to come out of our pocket.
What I'm trying to say is all the insurance companies and majority of doctors are in this for one thing and one thing only and that is too become rich off of someone else's misgivings. Yes our healthcare system is broke, but Obamacare and the government is just going to make it worse. Everything these guys do has to do with self interest groups and everything they do now is either broke or sadly misguided.
We are not only broke but we as a country are flat broke and can't even pay off the interest on our loans from China, and Obama just wants to add more and more government? Who is he kidding? If anyone falls for it they are a FOOL!!!!!

[gman]

Yet another reason I'm for getting insurance out. You look at what an insurance company ultimately pays for a given treatment versus what someone without insurance is charged, and it's ridiculous. Get insurance out, have everybody pay their own way, make the playing field level and force providers to compete for dollars. I don't have any stats on this, but I'd be interested to see if there is a correlated rise in physician usage with an increased availability of insurance.

[executioner]

Quote:
Like I said before 70% of the people that are on welfare have been on it for 5 yrs or more and the majority of them can work and provide for themselves and family, but they are just LAZY.


Saying it over and over again doesn't make it more true. Welfare reform in 1996 limited the total time in which people can receive welfare benefits to five years. So it's impossible to be on welfare for "five years or more." Whatever numbers you're using are 15 years out of date.

Before welfare reform in 1996, this is what the system looked like: Half of welfare recipients left the system within one year, 70 percent within two years, and 90 percent within five years. (Source)

They might have changed the law, but so many(including my aunt) have fallen through the cracks. She is now 50+ yrs old and the last day she worked was sometime in the late 70's. She has no major health concerns, never been married, has no income whatsoever coming in except for what she gets from welfare. My father says he thinks she gets around $2200 a month in welfare + all her food items are paid for through the food stamp program. She tells my dad all the time all she has ever had to do was reapply for food stamps every 3 months and welfare every 6 months and she has never been denied and no one ever ask anything about her health or her ability to work, and one other thing over the years she has been able to save up enough money to put a signifant down payment on a home which she has owned now 12+ years. It's funny but she is somewhat proud that she has been able to get away with for all these years.
It's sad that if a 50 yr old lady with no college education can fool the government all these years just think on how many others are doing it also. So yes its SAD but TRUE!!!

[executioner]

Yet another reason I'm for getting insurance out. You look at what an insurance company ultimately pays for a given treatment versus what someone without insurance is charged, and it's ridiculous. Get insurance out, have everybody pay their own way, make the playing field level and force providers to compete for dollars. I don't have any stats on this, but I'd be interested to see if there is a correlated rise in physician usage with an increased availability of insurance.

I say set up a health savings account somewhat llike their 401k and everyone pays into that fund and it can only be used for medical issues(minor and major)and go with it from there.
I saw where alot of doctor's are now just accepting patients without insurance and are making their patients pay a lesser amount type fee to be seen and everyone pays a flat rate for their medical care. They are saying its affordable for anyone and the doctors are really liking it because no more red tape.

[gman]

Yet another reason I'm for getting insurance out. You look at what an insurance company ultimately pays for a given treatment versus what someone without insurance is charged, and it's ridiculous. Get insurance out, have everybody pay their own way, make the playing field level and force providers to compete for dollars. I don't have any stats on this, but I'd be interested to see if there is a correlated rise in physician usage with an increased availability of insurance.

I say set up a health savings account somewhat llike their 401k and everyone pays into that fund and it can only be used for medical issues(minor and major)and go with it from there.
I saw where alot of doctor's are now just accepting patients without insurance and are making their patients pay a lesser amount type fee to be seen and everyone pays a flat rate for their medical care. They are saying its affordable for anyone and the doctors are really liking it because no more red tape.

There was a news story awhile back about a doctor in NYC who was trying to do this. He was charging $70 a month, and they could come as often as they needed to. The Gov't came after him hard.

[executioner]

My sister and family are in some type of program like that in Tennessee and they love it. No insurances or medicad is accepted; its totally free of all third party businesses. The one drawback from this is you still need insurance for major medical reasons, but there a lot of those type plans out there that are cost effective. I'm sure these doctors can be found in most metro areas.

[Muleya]

I heard about something on NPR a while back that I really liked...they were health cooperatives. I work at at credit union (financial cooperative), so I believe in the power of cooperatives. It's been a while and I don't remember all the details, but the basic premise is that people join a health cooperative with a fairly minimal membership fee..they basically become part owners of the not-for-profit cooperative. They elect their own board, hire their own staff and get quality services at affordable prices.

There are some around that are working out very well. I sure don't know all the finer points, but it really interests me as a model for quality, affordable, non-govt. health care. I suppose one of the biggest hurdles is that it takes a lot of people to make something like this work.