Summary Of ObamaCare:Reduced Access For The Poorest Patients

[FaninAma]

http://www.npri.org/publications/expanding-medicaid-would-harm-current-enrollees

The poorest of the poor are going to be badly hurt by spreading resources even thinner.

The federal deficit will increase by a significant amount when the subsidies kick in especially since the government will not be verifying income claims on applications.

The reaction of even Democrats who supported this monstrosity will be fun to watch as they realize what a train wreck this thing it is.

BTW, the reimbursement for Medicare visits will be reduced so seniors won't be escaping the effects of this thing, either.

[yermom]

how would you have changed health care?

[Turd_Ferguson]

how would you have changed health care?

You'd have to pass it to find out...

[FaninAma]

how would you have changed health care?

Nut up and put in a one payer system so everybody including the very poor would have at least mediocre care and costs could be controlled through rationing.

[salth2o]

how would you have changed health care?

Leave it the F**K alone! The gubbament is going to reduce the greatest medical care in the world to a pile of rubble. You want health insurance/care...get a damn job.

[soonercruiser]

For the lowest tier patients...yes their insurance premium "MAY" go down....BUT...they will have a minimum of a $6,000 deductible!
:dejection:

And, not likely a full time job to pay any co-pays!

[yermom]

Leave it the F**K alone! The gubbament is going to reduce the greatest medical care in the world to a pile of rubble. You want health insurance/care...get a damn job.

if it was as simple as that, there wouldn't be a problem

[SCOUT]

if it was as simple as that, there wouldn't be a problem

You can show a problem in almost anything. The responsible question is whether or not the solution is significantly better than the current state. Significantly being the operative word.

[REDREX]

You can show a problem in almost anything. The responsible question is whether or not the solution is significantly better than the current state. Significantly being the operative word.---And what is the answer?----This entire mess was supposed to reduce costs----The bill tries to expand coverage----What were they trying to accomplish?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

"we have to pass the legislation in order to know what is in the legislation..." Leftist, commie Pelosi

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Headline today...

"Life expectancy in the U.S. will go down because of Obamacare..."

[FaninAma]

I have insurance through my employer and we aren't sure whether it will be taxed as a cadillac plan yet. Last year I paid for my own and my family's insurance. It had a $2500 deductible and paid 80% afterwards with a prescription benefit. It cost $675 a month. On the Kaiser website I used their calculator for a similiar plan under the exchanges and the plan it spit out would cost $1100 a month and only pay 70% with similiar deductibles.

if you are on Medicare you damned better make sure you have a supplemental insurance plan because reimbursements to physicians are expected to be reduced by 15-20% meaning more and more doctors will be limiting or not accepting medicare.

[Curly Bill]

ObammyCare is part of the bread in the "bread and circus" intended to appease the have-nots in this country. In other words: donks playing to their base.

[SCOUT]

---And what is the answer?----This entire mess was supposed to reduce costs----The bill tries to expand coverage----What were they trying to accomplish?
I will start with the intention. The intent of the current law is to move our healthcare system to a single payer system similar to the UK. It has many components designed to create an environment where free market insurance providers could not exist. So that is my answer to your question about intent.

The answer to our problems is oddly enough ,with actual choice. Insurance was never intended to be a positive return on investment. It was intended to be there in case something crazy happened. Insurance is pooled resources for those individuals who had something out of the ordinary. I am sure you are familiar with the term "Catastrophic Coverage."

Insurance isn't meant to cover you for the time you have the sniffles. It is intended to INSURE you against the time you lost a leg. To elicit this view of insurance (again, since it was apparently lost) we should look to high deductible health care plans. Going to the Doctor costs what it costs. As an aside, ask yourself, what does my doctor charge?
The average is about $110 per visit.

An HDHC (High Deductible Health Care Plan) makes you use cost as part of your decision making. Consumer awareness ALWAYS drives costs down. When you have to pay out of pocket to see a doctor cause your feeling tired, you suddenly have to decide if it is worth $110. Since a HDHC has a large up front cost, it deters people from taking advantage of "free" healthcare. It does, however, still provide people with coverage against the large cost possibilities.

So, the answer is to have catastrophic coverage. I would be OK with it being provided by the Government. For example, anything that costs more that $200,000 would apply to the catastrophic coverage. Anything else is up to the individual. Private coverage could be purchased, without the government, to cover more mundane costs.

Health savings accounts would allow people to have tax free dollars for the day to day things and even save them for things that fall in between.

The bottom line is that people would shop for care, which would drive costs way down. This would ultimately reduce the costs through competition and lower health care costs. All the while having the protection against the bankruptcy demon that everyone is afraid of.

[soonercruiser]

Harry Reid even said that Scout's assessment is correct!
"Single Payer" is the goal.
But, they must ruin the insurance industry first!

[SCOUT]

Harry Reid even said that Scout's assessment is correct!
"Single Payer" is the goal.
But, they must ruin the insurance industry first!
True story.

I do believe that there is an alternative to this crap. Individualized accounts are the way to go.

[SCOUT]

I am sorry if I broke the forum. I was just stating my opinion. In fact, it was question asked and answered.

I am open to debate...I honestly am!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

how would you have changed health care?
Leave it as is. Better than this **** sandwich and **** president...

[yermom]

Hey, you got yours, right?

[FaninAma]

ObammyCare is part of the bread in the "bread and circus" intended to appease the have-nots in this country. In other words: donks playing to their base.
But it will be the insurance companies who profit the most. Watch as they raise rates every year. And remember, obama has already caved by agreeing to wave the caps on out of pocket expenses......a big concession big insurance.

[FaninAma]

Scout, in a perfect world where people actually are responsible and plan ahead the MSA's would be the perfect solution. But we live in a society where purchasing the next version of the I-phone for the kids or buying that 2nd big screen TV is more important than providing insurance for your family.

[SCOUT]

Scout, in a perfect world where people actually are responsible and plan ahead the MSA's would be the perfect solution. But we live in a society where purchasing the next version of the I-phone for the kids or buying that 2nd big screen TV is more important than providing insurance for your family.

Touche

[yermom]

Scout, in a perfect world where people actually are responsible and plan ahead the MSA's would be the perfect solution. But we live in a society where purchasing the next version of the I-phone for the kids or buying that 2nd big screen TV is more important than providing insurance for your family.

and where does someone procure such a plan on their own?

[SCOUT]

and where does someone procure such a plan on their own?

Any insurance provider. We use BCBS for he high deductible medical insurance plan and Optum for the HSA.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

and where does someone procure such a plan on their own?
**** them. Consequences baby...The Leftist wants too as he does not want to negotiate and shut down cancer treatment for kids.

[FaninAma]

and where does someone procure such a plan on their own?
Go down to your local bank and open up a tax free MSA. I did it last year and I am still contributing even though I am covered with insurance by my employer.....i just can't contribute as much.

[KantoSooner]

Frankly, I had avoided even opening this thread for fear that it would simply be more of the same bellowing. Fanin and Scout in particular (though others deserve notice as well), I thank you for reasoned comments.
Scout, I'd add to your initial entry that employer health insurance in this country originated as a tax avoidance scheme. So, it absolutely produced precisely the result you outline, almost by design: it was supposed to be supplemental income rather than true insurance against catastrophic events.
On the other hand, I'm with Fanin on the signle payer dealie. I'm not sure the pre ACA 'system' can be salvaged and it certainly wasn't/isn't working. With costs accelerating at the pace they are, private insurance had perhaps another ten years to run. At most. Single payer may be the only workable solution left. And it certainly works, and works well in any number of countries (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, all of Scandanavia, UK, Canada, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, etc, etc)

[FaninAma]

I do not oppose a single payer system. It is certainly better than the ACA monstrosity in which the insurance companies now have the authority of the Fed government backing them up in whatever they decide to do with rates. If the Federal government opposes rate increases the insurance companies simply drop off the exchanges and the whole system collapses.

Health care may be a right but it is a finite resource and some type of restrictions will have to be put in place in a single payer system whic will of course bring about some degree of rationing and delay in care for some patients.

[soonercruiser]

Fine!
"I do not oppose socialism!"
:dog:

[KantoSooner]

Health care may be a right but it is a finite resource and some type of restrictions will have to be put in place in a single payer system whic will of course bring about some degree of rationing and delay in care for some patients.

That's part of the nub of this issue for me. I don't view health care so much as a 'right' as a 'necessity'. I wish the debate had been pitched as such. We aren't going to allow people to die in the streets, so we'll cart 'em off to ER's; and, if they can't pay, then WE will pick up the tab. Our current system for lots of reasons we need not list here, is producing ever higher costs. This is unsustainable over even the mid-term. Finally, everything about society, from having pleasant streets to walk down to having a productive workforce, is supported and enhanced by having a health population.

So, the question should be framed, in my view, not so much as one of how we fulfill everyone's 'right' to something but as how we maximize everyone's self interested interest in a healthy community.

Viewed that way, I think a rational plan or system can be arrived at.

Unfortunately, I don't think very many, if any, of our elected representatives had the slightest interest in that discussion.

[FaninAma]

Fine!
"I do not oppose socialism!"
:dog:
Actually it would work like the current K through 12 education system. Everybody pays into the system and has access to a decent education(as long as parents stay involved) but if you want to go outside the system and pay more to send your kids to a private school you can.

In a single payer system everybody will have a certain level of benefits paid for. If you want to go outside the system and pay for more benefits you should be allowed to do so.

This system will have the downside of leading to a 2 tier system but that is the case in every other western society....even Canada. Right now Canadian's have to use the government provided healthcare system without any opt-out option but those who have the money come to the US for so-called elective procedures if they don't want to wait for months to have the procedure done.

[KantoSooner]

do what the Aussies do and key what you pay for the basic to what you earn. Everybody pays the same percentage. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it gets the basic job done without doing too much violence to a 'free' market (to the extent that health care is ever going to be a 'free' market what with licenses, FDA approvals, etc etc.)

but, again, we never had this very simple discussion because neither one of our parties had the least interest in solving a problem. It was all about beating the other guy over the head.

[FaninAma]

do what the Aussies do and key what you pay for the basic to what you earn. Everybody pays the same percentage. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it gets the basic job done without doing too much violence to a 'free' market (to the extent that health care is ever going to be a 'free' market what with licenses, FDA approvals, etc etc.)

but, again, we never had this very simple discussion because neither one of our parties had the least interest in solving a problem. It was all about beating the other guy over the head.

Both the Aussies and Kiwis have better systems and spend 1/3 of what we do on healthcare costs.

The problem we face now is that the ACA is such a god-awful program it will scare a lot of people away from even considering allowing the government to try taking more control of medicine. In fact, I think the insurance companies are hell bent on making the ACA a miserable failure so it will be a long time before the citizens trust the government to enact a one payer system.

Health insurance companies are, by and large, pure evil.

[diverdog]

Scout, in a perfect world where people actually are responsible and plan ahead the MSA's would be the perfect solution. But we live in a society where purchasing the next version of the I-phone for the kids or buying that 2nd big screen TV is more important than providing insurance for your family.

Faonin:

My company went to an HSA last year and everyone hates it. I have staff members that were really hurt by this change.

Explain to me how you would be able to fund an HSA with a family income of $50000 per year in a place like Trenton NJ?

[FaninAma]

Faonin:

My company went to an HSA last year and everyone hates it. I have staff members that were really hurt by this change.

Explain to me how you would be able to fund an HSA with a family income of $50000 per year in a place like Trenton NJ?
You can't fund it by paying into it for a couple of years. It's like an IRA. You need to start funding it when you are younger. As your balance increases you can choose cheaper insurance options with higher deductibles and copays. Last year I had a catastrophic health insurance plan that covered me, my wife and 3 kids with a $5000 deductible. It cost $550 a month. The MSA would have helped offset the deductibles and copays. If I had been contributing just a thousand dollars a year for 10 years I would have pretty good coverage. And I don't have a problem with tax credits contributing to MSA's. People need to take responsibility for their own healthcare.

The problem is nobody in this country ever looks ahead for what they will need later in life. Less than 15% of people have saved enough to retire comfortably so I guess that means we need to double Social Security payments to individuals who didn't plan ahead.

[8timechamps]

But it will be the insurance companies who profit the most. Watch as they raise rates every year. And remember, obama has already caved by agreeing to wave the caps on out of pocket expenses......a big concession big insurance.

It's good to see I'm not alone in thinking about big insurance. They've quietly gone unmentioned in this whole mess, yet they are the ones in control of costs.

I don't think it's a stretch to think big insurance has bought and paid for their representation on Capitol Hill, and will make no concessions where the bottom line is concerned.

[diverdog]

You can't fund it by paying into it for a couple of years. It's like an IRA. You need to start funding it when you are younger. As your balance increases you can choose cheaper insurance options with higher deductibles and copays. Last year I had a catastrophic health insurance plan that covered me, my wife and 3 kids with a $5000 deductible. It cost $550 a month. The MSA would have helped offset the deductibles and copays. If I had been contributing just a thousand dollars a year for 10 years I would have pretty good coverage. And I don't have a problem with tax credits contributing to MSA's. People need to take responsibility for their own healthcare.

The problem is nobody in this country ever looks ahead for what they will need later in life. Less than 15% of people have saved enough to retire comfortably so I guess that means we need to double Social Security payments to individuals who didn't plan ahead.

The problem is that most of the younger folks are not working in high paying jobs. They live pay check to pay check. The ones who have gotten toasted in our HSA were the younger workers...especially those with kids. It is an awful system and is doom to fail just like 401 k's.

[FaninAma]

The problem is that most of the younger folks are not working in high paying jobs. They live pay check to pay check. The ones who have gotten toasted in our HSA were the younger workers...especially those with kids. It is an awful system and is doom to fail just like 401 k's.
401k's fail because individuals aren't disciplined enough to contribute faithfully to them when they are younger. Then they get into their late 40's and 50's and realize they screwed up.

[soonercruiser]

Actually it would work like the current K through 12 education system. Everybody pays into the system and has access to a decent education(as long as parents stay involved) but if you want to go outside the system and pay more to send your kids to a private school you can.

In a single payer system everybody will have a certain level of benefits paid for. If you want to go outside the system and pay for more benefits you should be allowed to do so.

This system will have the downside of leading to a 2 tier system but that is the case in every other western society....even Canada. Right now Canadian's have to use the government provided healthcare system without any opt-out option but those who have the money come to the US for so-called elective procedures if they don't want to wait for months to have the procedure done.

First of all, I am personally very tired of the comparisons to other countries.
This is the main reason that we fought the War for Independence.
And, the USA is still the country to come to for state-of-the art healthcare.

Secondly, you make the assumption that a typical public education is of great value.
Look at the statistics, test scores, comparison to other countries, since some like to do that.

[soonercruiser]

For those who want some freedom and real "choice" in healthcare, and are not afraid to be identified as part of a religious group, there are now "Christian Health Sharing Medical Plans".

Medi-Share is just one of those.
For instance, unlike the ACA, because of your religious affiliation you do not have to buy certain coverages....like abortion, contraceptives, cosmetic surgery, sex change, etc.
Therefore the plans are very affordable. They are popping up everywhere.

[FaninAma]

First of all, I am personally very tired of the comparisons to other countries.
This is the main reason that we fought the War for Independence.
And, the USA is still the country to come to for state-of-the art healthcare.

Secondly, you make the assumption that a typical public education is of great value.
Look at the statistics, test scores, comparison to other countries, since some like to do that.
I am not arguing with you about public education. Some public schools are great, others suck. It all depends on how involved the parents of the students are.

My point was that the key to a good haeltcare system, just like having a good public school system, starts with individuals assuming more responsibility over their own healthcare choices and personal efforts to make good choices and be involved.

The one thing about our healthcare system you need to understand is that we spend about 3 times per capita as what other western countries do. That is unsustainable. I would estimate about 1/3( a low estimate) of our healthcare costs go towards the insurance industry profits and their cost of acting like a middleman for payments. Reducing that cost will be a start on reigning in expenses.

50% of healthacare expenses occur in a patients last 6 months of life. This is a very difficult issue to deal with but I do think we could make smarter decisions about appropriations of our resources.

[yermom]

First of all, I am personally very tired of the comparisons to other countries.
This is the main reason that we fought the War for Independence.
And, the USA is still the country to come to for state-of-the art healthcare.

Secondly, you make the assumption that a typical public education is of great value.
Look at the statistics, test scores, comparison to other countries, since some like to do that.

which test scores are those?

how about these?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-adults-score-below-average-worldwide-test-090114407.html

[FaninAma]

which test scores are those?

how about these?

http://news.yahoo.com/us-adults-score-below-average-worldwide-test-090114407.html

Again, what do the top 5 countries in those rankings have in common?

[yermom]

socialized medicine?

[FaninAma]

socialized medicine?
Yeah, socialized medicine is why they score higher in academic achievement tests.

[Curly Bill]

yermom's most treasured possession is a signed copy of the Communist Manifesto. He told me that in a PM. I know you other guys will be shocked.

[KantoSooner]

It's good to see I'm not alone in thinking about big insurance. They've quietly gone unmentioned in this whole mess, yet they are the ones in control of costs.

I don't think it's a stretch to think big insurance has bought and paid for their representation on Capitol Hill, and will make no concessions where the bottom line is concerned.

Read Brill's piece in last February's Time, 'Bitter Pill'. The amount spent on political lobbying by the health industy outweighs the amount spent by the petrochemical industry (oil, coal, all of it), all military contracters and Wall Street. Combined. Mind blowing amounts of money. And then you have folks like Mitch McConnell whose family fortune is 100% derived from HMO's if I'm not mistaken.

[KantoSooner]

First of all, I am personally very tired of the comparisons to other countries.
This is the main reason that we fought the War for Independence.
And, the USA is still the country to come to for state-of-the art healthcare.

Secondly, you make the assumption that a typical public education is of great value.
Look at the statistics, test scores, comparison to other countries, since some like to do that.

Why not? If someone else is doing something that works well and I ignore that, then I'm an idiot. That's what Detroit did for more than a generation before they finally woke up and discovered that they were making Edsels and the Japanese were making inexpensive cars that lasted forever, took no maintenance and only rarely required gasoline. It's called idiocy.

As to our 'state of the art' healthcare, let me quote an Aussie buddy of mine. "If I were to find myself beset by a never before seen brain condition caused by energy waves from outer space, by God! I'd want to be in America. If, on the other hand, my kid broke her arm playing soccer and needed it set, there's a list of about 25 other countries I'd rather be in." This from a guy who's personally lived in five different countries with family and who works for a US corp who offered him 'American Health Insurance' (he opted for Aussie National Health). A major problem with our 'system' is the focus on the highest end and most expensive procedures; when often mundane, cheap solutions will get the job done.

[SCOUT]

The problem is that most of the younger folks are not working in high paying jobs. They live pay check to pay check. The ones who have gotten toasted in our HSA were the younger workers...especially those with kids. It is an awful system and is doom to fail just like 401 k's.

I would venture to guess that younger workers have generally worked paycheck to paycheck. Heaven knows I did.

HSA's are only available when people have a qualifying high deductible health care plan. Those plans, while they do have high deductibles, still have out of pocket maximums. While these younger workers may have paid out of pocket, they did not face near the risk of not having insurance.

[yermom]

Yeah, socialized medicine is why they score higher in academic achievement tests.

i'm not the one making that correlation. not sure where Cruiser is coming from now or ever

[diverdog]

I would venture to guess that younger workers have generally worked paycheck to paycheck. Heaven knows I did.

HSA's are only available when people have a qualifying high deductible health care plan. Those plans, while they do have high deductibles, still have out of pocket maximums. While these younger workers may have paid out of pocket, they did not face near the risk of not having insurance.

I believe ours is $3000/$6000 on our high deductible. HSA were supposed to be like 401k where the company paid in to it. Most don't and what you end with is workers taking a de facto pay cut. At the same time the company reaps the benefit of moving cost of their bottom line.

For the lower income folks the deductibles are high enough that they may not seek health care when they need it.

[SCOUT]

I believe ours is $3000/$6000 on our high deductible. HSA were supposed to be like 401k where the company paid in to it. Most don't and what you end with is workers taking a de facto pay cut. At the same time the company reaps the benefit of moving cost of their bottom line.

For the lower income folks the deductibles are high enough that they may not seek health care when they need it.
HSA's are supposed to be savings accounts that you can contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Any employer contribution is solely up to each employer. I can meet your anecdote with my own. My company has increased the amount it pays to employee insurance cost every year for 13 consecutive years. In addition, they do contribute to HSA's.

The savings account is intended to pay for those deductibles with pre-tax dollars. The fact that you can accumulate it year over year is one of the bigger benefits. Of course, as Fan pointed out, it is also dependent on looking ahead and saving money over time for those, hopefully rare, instances that you have high cost medical care.

[diverdog]

HSA's are supposed to be savings accounts that you can contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Any employer contribution is solely up to each employer. I can meet your anecdote with my own. My company has increased the amount it pays to employee insurance cost every year for 13 consecutive years. In addition, they do contribute to HSA's.

The savings account is intended to pay for those deductibles with pre-tax dollars. The fact that you can accumulate it year over year is one of the bigger benefits. Of course, as Fan pointed out, it is also dependent on looking ahead and saving money over time for those, hopefully rare, instances that you have high cost medical care.

Good for you because you work for a decent employer. is the contributions you get based on part of the premium savings to the employer?

Where I sit (refering companies to our HSA specialist is part of my goals) I do not see many folks who like them other than the business owners. It beats not having insurance but it is not the cure all for our runaway medical cost. HSA do nothing to address the very high cost of medicine in the US.

[SCOUT]

Good for you because you work for a decent employer. is the contributions you get based on part of the premium savings to the employer?

Where I sit (refering companies to our HSA specialist is part of my goals) I do not see many folks who like them other than the business owners. It beats not having insurance but it is not the cure all for our runaway medical cost. HSA do nothing to address the very high cost of medicine in the US.
No. The increase in insurance cost increased 7% for 2014. My employer is only passing on 3% of that. As an aside, I don't think it is a coincidence that our ACA employer tax rate came in at 3.8%.

I respectfully disagree with you regarding HSA's and medical cost control. If you have to pay out of pocket for things you will be a more diligent consumer. I am hopeful we don't have to debate that. High deductible plans, and their associated HSA's, allow medical care to be treated more like consumer product. I am not referring to catastrophic costs, that is what the actual insurance is for, but rather for the more mundane. In other words, if the doctor two doors down in your local medical complex charged $25 less for a sick visit, wouldn't you go there if you were paying out of pocket?

[diverdog]

No. The increase in insurance cost increased 7% for 2014. My employer is only passing on 3% of that. As an aside, I don't think it is a coincidence that our ACA employer tax rate came in at 3.8%.

I respectfully disagree with you regarding HSA's and medical cost control. If you have to pay out of pocket for things you will be a more diligent consumer. I am hopeful we don't have to debate that. High deductible plans, and their associated HSA's, allow medical care to be treated more like consumer product. I am not referring to catastrophic costs, that is what the actual insurance is for, but rather for the more mundane. In other words, if the doctor two doors down in your local medical complex charged $25 less for a sick visit, wouldn't you go there if you were paying out of pocket?

Scout;

In my area there are only so many family practices and most of them are not taking patients. So the option of changing is not realistic. Now it might be different for specialized medicine.

The other problem is that our health insurance and I would say most health insurance companies have both in network doctors and out of network doctors. So that limits the pool.

Finally, I work from 7:30 am until 6:00 pm during the week and a lot of Saturdays. I doubt my employer would be pleased if I spent half a day rate shopping for medical care. Lets be honest and admit there is not a market solution to medical cost and that someday we will have a single payer plan like every other nation. So in my mind we trash ACA and build something better like what the Swiss or the Aussies use,

[SCOUT]

Scout;

In my area there are only so many family practices and most of them are not taking patients. So the option of changing is not realistic. Now it might be different for specialized medicine.

The other problem is that our health insurance and I would say most health insurance companies have both in network doctors and out of network doctors. So that limits the pool.

Finally, I work from 7:30 am until 6:00 pm during the week and a lot of Saturdays. I doubt my employer would be pleased if I spent half a day rate shopping for medical care. Lets be honest and admit there is not a market solution to medical cost and that someday we will have a single payer plan like every other nation. So in my mind we trash ACA and build something better like what the Swiss or the Aussies use,

First, the availability of doctors in your area is independent of HSA's.

Second, network doctors are only there to ensure a negotiated rate. This is a positive feature available today that will soon be eliminated due to the ACA.

While your work schedule sounds hectic, I am not sure healthcare reform should be predicated on your unique situation.

I don't agree with your summation and would submit that you are wrong on most fronts. I appreciate your courtesy, but I honestly believe that you are wrong.

[soonercruiser]

I am not arguing with you about public education. Some public schools are great, others suck. It all depends on how involved the parents of the students are.

My point was that the key to a good haeltcare system, just like having a good public school system, starts with individuals assuming more responsibility over their own healthcare choices and personal efforts to make good choices and be involved.

The one thing about our healthcare system you need to understand is that we spend about 3 times per capita as what other western countries do. That is unsustainable. I would estimate about 1/3( a low estimate) of our healthcare costs go towards the insurance industry profits and their cost of acting like a middleman for payments. Reducing that cost will be a start on reigning in expenses.

50% of healthacare expenses occur in a patients last 6 months of life. This is a very difficult issue to deal with but I do think we could make smarter decisions about appropriations of our resources.

A great argument for "Death Panels", it would seem.

[SCOUT]

A great argument for "Death Panels", it would seem.

Decisive healthcare isn't really new. Government lackeys making those vital decisions is a bit of a new development.

[okiewaker]

I pissed off A lot of ppl today. I wore my "Mitt Romney" T at the grocery store. The looks I got were priceless. Highly suggestive!!!

[cleller]

Even in Chicago there are journalists willing to sound the alarm on Obamacare. And this IS alarming. Get ready to pay out the nose:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-13/business/ct-biz-1013-obamacare-deductibles-20131013_1_health-care-overhaul-health-insurance-health-coverage

[FaninAma]

Early analysis indicates most of the few who have signed up for Obamacare are those that qualify for Medicaid under the expanded eligibility rules or have pre-existing conditions. For example, Oregon has had the most sign up of any state but the majority, 56,000 , are new Medicaid enrollees. But I am sure the healthcare costs for all of the new Medicaid patients won't increase federal deficits at all.