Woman Who Attacked ObamaCare Apologizes After Breast Cancer Diagnosis

misterman said:

True. But we need a solution to the problem. Making people choose between starving and dying of sickness sucks. We can do better than that.

Click to expand...

We do not have a single politician IMO willing to do what is necessary.

Neomalthusian said:

If we disagree on what the problem is, we'll continue disagreeing on the solution.

I think the problem is unfunded entitlements and expensive health care. Therefore I look to solutions that contain costs and abolish unrealistic federal promises. My view is macro.

Click to expand...

I agree. We have to admit that we can not just pay and cover everything and people are going to have to accept that. (Including health care providers).

Neomalthusian said:

If we disagree on what the problem is, we'll continue disagreeing on the solution.

I think the problem is unfunded entitlements and expensive health care. Therefore I look to solutions that contain costs and abolish unrealistic federal promises. My view is macro.

You think the problem is the case example of someone starving in the street without the medical care he needs, so your solution will look to providing greater access and come up with a more intricate funding mechanism.

Your micro solution (while caring) makes my macro problems worse.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think the problem is someone starving on the street without the medical care he needs. That's the outcome, not the problem.

I actually agree that expensive health care is a huge part of the problem, and the one still not fixed.

Neomalthusian said:

I think the problem is unfunded entitlements and expensive health care.

Click to expand...

Costs for things like technology and drugs are projected to go down

1Perry said:

We do not have a single politician IMO willing to do what is necessary.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Solving this problem means you're not getting reelected.

Ya know I have a 100k defibullator / pace maker in my chest. It has gone off twice.

Everyone will die at some point, and medical care can prolong that process. Currently we do not limit this in any meaningful sense. The fact that we don't is what allows prices to climb.

Click to expand...

I agree here.

What's needed then is to separate health insurance (which guards against unlikely risks) from this other thing which sets out to redistribute money to pay for UNIVERSAL INEVITABILITIES by taking from the current workforce to prolong the lives and make comfortable the deaths of the elderly (this is Medicare, the least affordable program in our nation's history).

Click to expand...

I would like to point out the inevitable aging process isn't just the death bed, it's hitting mid-life where you end up paying for things life...heart medication, when you have back problems etc.

Let me just list my rational...I know we have different beliefs regarding Government intervention in anything, I don't care if it works and it seems like you're distrustful from the outset.

Any young person that is healthy has an incentive not to buy insurance. He's young, the likelyhood of needing it is low. Either he doesn't buy or just buys the lowest he possibly can for that extreme case. When he's older, and will need it...is when he buys the more expensive variety. If everyone does this (and it seems to be the case) then your pool of premium payers are just the most expensive individuals..those that need the most healthcare.

If all young individuals buy insurance...even if they don't need it currently (because they will need it in their older age) then the risk is broandened and all cost goes down. Now the individual mandate tries to do this, everybody buys in and the costs for all premiums should decrease because now you have more healthy individuals subsidizing the older population.

I personally would prefer it to go through government...so that it's transportable, there's less administrative costs for both hospitals and the actual insurance company (govt has less administrative costs than private insurance).

That's where i'm coming from. As for those without the means to pay it can be offered. As for any additional insurance you want to buy, well private insurance companies are out there to supplment...just like they do with Medicare.

misterman said:

Just noting that a similar idea is already happening. Which probably means it was a good idea.

Click to expand...

Well, part of my idea came from the implementation in NC. In abiding with Obamacare, they started their own program in lieu of the federal one. It allows me to get health care at a fair, but not absurdly cheap, price. Thanks for pointing out this comparison, as well

misterman said:

I don't think that's a concern, but it's not really the employers banding together. In any event, the insurers don't mind - they want bigger groups so they can spread the costs. That's how insurance works, and stays affordable.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the insurers don't mind having a bigger pool, but I actually think that part of our current cost problem is due to having employers in between the supply and demand. My anti-trust statement was actually in regard to competing over employees rather than competing to fill a demand. These are both based on a personal belief, though, and hard for me to back up, so I won't really argue them.

iliveonramen said:

I agree here.


I would like to point out the inevitable aging process isn't just the death bed, it's hitting mid-life where you end up paying for things life...heart medication, when you have back problems etc.

Let me just list my rational...I know we have different beliefs regarding Government intervention in anything, I don't care if it works and it seems like you're distrustful from the outset.

Any young person that is healthy has an incentive not to buy insurance. He's young, the likelyhood of needing it is low. Either he doesn't buy or just buys the lowest he possibly can for that extreme case. When he's older, and will need it...is when he buys the more expensive variety. If everyone does this (and it seems to be the case) then your pool of premium payers are just the most expensive individuals..those that need the most healthcare.

If all young individuals buy insurance...even if they don't need it currently (because they will need it in their older age) then the risk is broandened and all cost goes down.

Click to expand...

Not all costs. Average cost of an insurance premium goes down, but total US dollars going toward health care doesn't change, and cost of medical care does not necessarily change.

You think you're addressing costs, but you're just advocating spreading it out to more people. Against their will.

I don't want a system that relies on the young and healthy to fund the needs of the sick and elderly. I find it fundamentally flawed and culturally irresponsible to rely on our future generations to provide for our welfare and for things we should do for ourselves. That's what Medicare does and financially it's not working. That's also what SS does and it too needs fixing.

Well there are plus and minuses to anything that has to do with America's healthcare system. Personally I think they should have just gone single payer. They would have been able to do that I think if the economy wasn't a pile of **** when Obama came into office. I got insurance but meh.

JohnWOlin said:

Well there are plus and minuses to anything that has to do with America's healthcare system. Personally I think they should have just gone single payer. They would have been able to do that I think if the economy wasn't a pile of **** when Obama came into office.

Click to expand...

Yeah it's an unfortunate reality that you can't undertake the biggest government entitlement maneuver the same couple years that you experience a once-in-three-generations credit contraction. Darn.

But in a certain sense, you're right that nationalizing the entirety of it would be better than pretending our federal government can mandate that each citizen purchase a product from a private company. THAT is a joke. How TF can ANYBODY defend Obama on those grounds?

Neomalthusian said:

Precisely. Solving this problem means you're not getting reelected.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And who can argue with that? If you don't get re-elected, how can you solve any other problem? And if you don't, does that mean you did something right if the voters reject you? Usually that means you failed.

Neomalthusian said:

You think you're addressing costs, but you're just advocating spreading it out to more people. Against their will.

Click to expand...

Spreading costs addresses cost.

And you can't say it's against everyone's will. Millions don't have insurance because they can't afford it, not because they don't want it. If you subsidize it, that changes.

misterman said:

Okay, how would you do it?

Click to expand...

Basically I would have taken the exisitng Medicare and Medicaid programs and combined, expanded and streamlined them to provide care to those who can't afford insurance. Those who could afford payment would pay a monthly premium based on their finances. I would eliminate the prrescription drug program and establish a new program within Medicaid that wasn't a blanket coverage program for everybody.

Yes, and I have personally seen many impacted by their higher premiums due to Obama care and the overhaul of HSA spending rules.

iliveonramen said:

Everybody will need medical care at some part of their life. As for the not letting people die, yeah, conservatives have seem to become a bloodthirsty bunch

Click to expand...

Oh yes, bloodthirsty. Conservatives want to kill grandma. Heck, that's why they're staunch supporters of the second amendment, it's the quickest and easiest way to get the job done.

Not all costs. Average cost of an insurance premium goes down, but total US dollars going toward health care doesn't change, and cost of medical care does not necessarily change.

Click to expand...

Of course...you would lower risk while also eliminating people that have no insurance but still get care as well. It would be a pretty substantial drop in payments.

I don't want a system that relies on the young and healthy to fund the needs of the sick and elderly. I find it fundamentally flawed and culturally irresponsible to rely on our future generations to provide for our welfare and for things we should do for ourselves. That's what Medicare does and financially it's not working. That's also what SS does and it too needs fixing.

Click to expand...

That system has been around since mankind has been around. If anything industrialization and modern capitalism as well as technology advances have changed things. Granny and Grandpa no longer live with their children and grand children on the farm. Now they get a social security check and Medicare.

The American Capitalists system has changed things. Look no further than countries where typically the elderly were taken care of by younger generations in that fashion (India/China) and the changes due to Modernizing.

dontworrybehappy said:

Oh yes, bloodthirsty. Conservatives want to kill grandma. Heck, that's why they're staunch supporters of the second amendment, it's the quickest and easiest way to get the job done.

Click to expand...

Well....based on some of the policies and reactions of Conservatives lately...that is the case. It wasn't the case thirty years ago (Reagan)...it wasn't even the case with Bush and his "compassionate conservatism". It seems like you guys have rebelled against the "compassionate" part.

TheDemSocialist said:

Woman Who Attacked ObamaCare Apologizes After Breast Cancer Diagnosisaybe if the right who are all against this plan every come in this woman's situation, maybe they might change their minds...

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/FONT][/COLOR]

Click to expand...

I definitely think Obamacare is Constitutional, but even I will say that just because it helped one lady and others with pre-existing conditions doesn't make it good legislation.

jambalaya said:

Basically I would have taken the exisitng Medicare and Medicaid programs and combined, expanded and streamlined them to provide care to those who can't afford insurance. Those who could afford payment would pay a monthly premium based on their finances. I would eliminate the prrescription drug program and establish a new program within Medicaid that wasn't a blanket coverage program for everybody.

Click to expand...

So basic single-payer.

Sounds good to me. It would never pass, but it's probably the best solution.

digsbe said:

Yes, and I have personally seen many impacted by their higher premiums due to Obama care and the overhaul of HSA spending rules.

Click to expand...

And I've been personally impacted by pre-existing condition restrictions (that were incredibly broad), and no, I didn't voluntarily end my coverage.

Tigger said:

Four words for you.....

Better DEAD than RED

I have already informed family and friends that I will NOT accept ANY government medical care, regardless of the reason. It's actually written into my living will. If the only means to pay for a procedure or other medical expense is through government funds, I will not take it. Period. I'd rather die, thank you very much.

Yes, I do understand that means after age 65 I will be without any medical insurance.

Click to expand...

I really hope you don't leave your house. We wouldn't want you stepping on roads built by that dirty government money. As a matter of fact, don't even drink the water coming out of your sink.