Obamacare is a Tax on the Middle Class to give to the Poor

RepubliCON Care Is A Blood Tax On The Poor


Harvard study finds nearly 45,000 excess deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
Lack of health insurance now more lethal


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php



Poor people die from this blood tax and RepubliCONs celebrate.

 

Sorry but where are you getting this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from? Calling people lazy on the basis of their political beliefs isn't what this country was founded on, its not like your political views get you a special tax break, so how exactly do you see this happening?

 

Personally don't believe the Harvard Study and I have been in Health Care Administration for over 35+ years in various settings and capacities. Plus I don't trust any Harvard Studies without them being vetted as they are one of the most Liberal educational institutions in this Country.
And..... ObamaCare doesn't lower the cost of those currently insured as instead of our premiums increasing to pay for uninsured medical treatment, we will now be paying for their health insurance premiums, in total or in part. And...... those lower income families will not be required to purchase health insurance or pay the penalty that the rest of us will be subject to. So, in other words, they can still circumvent the system and seek emergency room care for which the hospital must legally provide, regardless if they are U.S. Citizens or not.

So the Individual Mandate doesn't apply to a large majority of those that are currently uninsured. You call that fair? You think that will lower or increase our current premiums? The only way to lower Health Insurance Premiums to is to start using Insurance for what it was intended for. Auto insurance doesn't cover new tires or oil changes. Homeowners insurance doesn't pay for a new roof to replace a worn out one. Health Insurance should cover surgery, inpatient care and cost of treating medical conditions; not preventative care, office visits and routine care. Unless, you want to pay for that all-inclusive coverage because providing coverage for everything including costly pre-existing conditions is what will increase premiums accross the board. The alternative, Universal Coverage and the downfall of the current highly sought U.S. healthcare system and the shortage of professionals to offer health care services. Why do you think Physicians move to the U.S. to practice medicine? Why should doctors fees be controlled by the Federal Government while Lawyers, Accountants, Plumbers and others providing a service are free to charge whatever they want?
Might as well allow the Government to set the fees that anyone providing a service can charge, regardless of whether that fee covers their overhead and compensates them for their education, training and experience. What do you say to that?





Poor people die from this blood tax and RepubliCONs celebrate.[/QUOTE]

 

The costs for "Obamacare" come from the requirement to subsidize private health insurance for low income individuals and families and to provide private health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Mitt Romney, in addressing the "Issues" proposes these identical subsidies so the cost exists regardless of whether we look at Rpmney or Obama with the only difference being that "Obamacare" has initiated a tax to fund the expendatures and Romney hasn't said how he would find them. Either Romney is going to have to initiate a tax or deficit spend to pay for the identical expendatures. Those are the only two choices.

There isn't a difference between "Romneycare" and "Obamacare" if a person actually looks at what is involved. These expendatures don't simply pay for themself.

 

It was cooked up in AEI and the Heritage Foundation so no, you must be wrong: http://www.politicalforum.com/healt...ed-up-aei-heritage-foundation-right-wing.html

It's a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the insurance industry. It's tyrannical legislation.

 

That's where most healthcare costs come from.

And besides, you WANT to cover preventative care, because preventative care PREVENTS sickness, and thus pays for itself.

 

actually, doctors fees are a small fraction of healthcare costs. I'm a doctor, so of course i'd like them to be higher. But that has nothing to do with the healthcare debate.

 

While you can think what you want about this, this is really missing the main point. Cost effective preventative care is only a small fraction of health care cost compared to everything else. If Obamacare was just requiring people to buy insurance specifically only for preventative care, it would not be so bad.

Like I have been saying several times in this thread, the problem is neither preventative care, nor the really big emergencies. The problem is that ObamaCare is going to force everyone to buy insurance coverage for everything else "in the middle" that people should be paying out-of-pocket for. If people are forced to buy insurance for these things, costs are just going to go up.

 

There is an argument on both sides of this but here is a key. Paying for services with insurance costs more than paying cash for services. There is inherent billing costs included with insurance that does not exist in cash for services which adds to the cost. I've asked the clinic that I go to and they have told me that if I pay cash for services at the time they are provided then the clinic automatically discount the bill by 20% because of the savings they have related to billing. That's a 20% savings.

Since preventive care is generally affordable and would cost 20% less if paid for in cash at the time the services are provided then it is logical to not have it paid for with insurance. Insurance should pay for unexpected and large medical financial obligations.

 

One problem is all the poverty now, especially from all the second generation children of immigrants. They simply cannot even afford to see a doctor when their children even get an ear infection. So they put it off, until the problem gets worse and worse.

The pay-for-service model would be the best form of healthcare, IF it was not for the fact that there are so many poor people now. I have been saying this for many years and no one has been listening: the more poor people we have, the more problems there will be in society, and the more the government will have to raise taxes, take away more of our freedoms, and force us into social systems we otherwise would not want to be under.

 

Preventive care is information. The government has been in the business of that for many years to the point of propaganda. There is no need to indoctrinate that as a tax (i.e. Affordable Care Act in the USA for the poor and stupid). From the journal articles that I have read, I am pretty convinced that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables and exercise will prevent 80+% of maladies. If a healthcare program was directed at covering accidents(car crashes, gun shots, knife wounds, etc.) and tragedies (heart attacks, stroke, appendicitis, etc.), I would be an advocate of universal healthcare. The USA is so corrupt that I am convinced that it will never get the concept. The Manchurian candidates (i.e. those that regurgitate bile without assessing the content of the bile) will continue to regurgitate and healthcare costs will just go up and up. Just like clown boys plan. There was never an interest in health, just in sticking the middle class to cover the poor instead of the rich.

 

Under the ACA (which I don't support) and under Mitt Romney's proposal for federal health care low income workers will have their health insurance subsidized so they don't pay for anything. The don't pay a "tax" nor are they required to pay for the insurance.

The best form of health insurance program for the individual, especially low income individuals, is a combined "Major Medical Insurance" plan with a "Healthcare Savings Account" (HSA) but both of these have to be used and not just one. The premiums for a Major Medical Insurance plan are very low averaging less than $100/mo but they have a high deductable (usually about $5,000/yr) and the HSA is required to cover that deductable as well as routine office visits. The HSA builds assets over time which provided the money necessary but these plans must be initiated when a person is young and healthy so that the assets in the HSA accummulate over time.

By way of example, if a person took out a major medical policy for $100/mo and also contributed $100/mo when they were 20 and very healthy they would have over $46,000 (at a low 6% ROI for the HSA) in the HSA account by the time they were 40 and most individuals won't have any serious medical issues before they are 40. This can be compared to paying $450/mo for a comprehensive health insurance policy. Yes, they would have to pay for normal office visits that they might experience but this would probably be less than once a year (I probably went to the doctor five times between age 20-40) at a cost of about $100/visit (or less than $10/mo) and they would receive the 20% discount by paying cash for services. They could also submit the bill, once paid, to their HSA and be reimbursed if necessary.

Not a perfect solution for those that want someone else to pay for their healthcare needs but it is the personally responsible way to deal with a person's healthcare needs that is affordable. A few less 6-packs of beer a month pays for it all.

 

It's not just a tax on the lower middle class, but also a tax on the young trying to get their first step on the career ladder.

[video=youtube;LlblduvPeCs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlblduvPeCs[/video]

 

It is a tax on anyone who owes Federal Ordinary Income Taxes and small businesses and those families earning an adjusted gross income of $250,000.00 and up. The very people that likely already have group of individual insurance coverage, that owe federal income tax on their ordinary income, that don't qualify for many of the tax credits that lower income earners do and who already pay 40 to 50% of the total revenue the Federal Government collects from ordinary income taxes. It does not increase tax revenue paid/owed by the lower middle class or does it collect revenue in the form of penalties for those in the lower income brackets that will still fail to purchase health insurance. Those very people that now seek emergency care will likely still seek emergency care as they are exempt from the individual mandate and any penalties for not purchasing insurance even through the exchanges or when they fail to apply for premium assistance.

 

When you threaten to tax people if they do not buy a certain type of expensive product that may not be best suited to their needs, that is taxation.
Guess what else? Those low-income subsidies to help the poor who cannot afford to buy this mandatory insurance, they are unfunded. The rest of the ObamaCare package is not giving these people healthcare.

Imagine if we could solve starvation by just forcing the poor to buy food ! The whole idea seems senseless to me.
Not only that, but telling the poor what type of food they have to buy with their limited means.

Progressives in America think they can solve problems by just forcing people to do things, and spending more money.

So, just have the government pay for cheap cost-effective preventative treatments. The rest of the whole ObamaCare package has nothing to do with this.

 

You need to educate yourself on the history of Health Insurance. What is Insurance? tell me your thoughts. And, while preventative care may in the long run prevent or provide early diagnosis; these tests aren't that costly and should not be paid for 100% by insurance unless you want to pay higher premiums to cover it. And mandating private insurance companies cover individuals with pre-existing conditions seeking to purchase individual/family; non-group coverage at the same premium offered to others without pre-existing conditions is fine as long as the company can charge these insureds a higher premium.. But, that won't work in the long run. These people should be offered insurance similar to Medicare but at a higher premium. And, illegals seeking emergency room care should be required to pay cash at the time the present for care and if they cannot pay their costs should be paid by the Federal Government that requires Hospitals provide free treatment to these people. I know of no other business or professional that is required to offer "free services" to those unable to pay for their services. And, at the very least if you require them to do so they should be able to tax deduct their fees from their Ordinary Income. Right? Doctors and Hospitals and other health care providers are the only professionals that the Government has control over what they can charge for their services.

When they say Health Care Costs are the biggest driver of our debt; they mean that Medicare and Medicare are the biggest drivers of our debt. Not private health insurance as the Federal Government and Taxpayers don't pay for private health insurance.

 

lack of preventative care is an issue here with our UHC...the healthcare authorities encourage everyone to get tested regularly and it's free so why not, but still many people resist... people who never get tested and screened are a burden to UHC...catching colon cancer early is much, much less expensive than in later stages, which is why my MD keeps hounding me to sign up for a colonoscopy even though pre-screening tests show no indication of cancer...

 

Think of it this way people - taxation takes away the exclusive property right to assets, a mandate does the same thing.

 

Any one who thinks ObamaCare is going to reduce premiums is extremely ignorant of health care economics. Insurance premium WILL significantly increase. Also, service levels are going significantly decrease. I already wait almost an hour to see a doctor now, it is only going to get worse. You can't add tens of millions of people into the healthcare system and not expect a physician shortage. This shortage will give physicians the bargaining power necessary to increase their rates, which will be passed on to the consumer. The elimination of pre-existing conditions will also have a huge impact on cost. I was in favor of the government providing a one-time amnesty for people currently have pre-existing conditions. After that, the rule should be, once you have insurance then you can never be denied. But you have to stay insured. Why would anyone currently uninsured buy a $2,000 a year policy when they could just pay a small penalty. When you get sick you can buy insurance then. Once your better, go back to paying the penalty again. Who do you think is going to pay for this? Like always, it will be the responsible people paying for the irresponsible people.

 

Its sad but where were the Republicans and others joining in doing a law when it was being considered, they could have had a say and made meaningful additions to the law but decided to fight it. Well the Democrats had the votes so rammed what they had through while they could I don't blame them they had no choice the ACA was a long sought part of the social safety net. And used REPUBLICAN ideas like the mandate. You do understand states have a part to play they license medical professionals, oversee insurance providers and practices of medicine they can add to the ACA with laws to help move things along.

But the law is here to stand, the repeal side lost the debate with the Democratic solid win the debate of the law being law of the land is over.

And yes there are taxes but I don't consider as a low income person someone lucky enough to have incomes at or over $200k a year to be middle class they are lower upper class they made it. If they have to pay some taxes now on their wealth for health care for everyone to bad. The poor and working classes vote and they won with other groups the Republicans alienated for to long and that ended the debate the ACA is going to kick in.

I suggest if the other issues the poster over me mentioned is an issue get the states to do reforms to add providers and reduce insurance rates and do other things they can and should be doing.

 

In theory these subsidies are funded by the taxes imposed on those that don't have health insurance, on enterprises with over 50 employees that don't provide insurance, and by the increase in the Medicare portion of FICA taxes for high income individuals. I don't believe that will be enough funding but that is yet to be seen because we don't have the insurance exchanges set-up, we don't know the cost of the insurance they will provide, or what the subsidies will actually cost in dollars.

But to state that there were no funding provisions is a blatant lie. Inadequate perhaps but the funding provisions did exist.

 

The failure of individuals to seek preventative health care was never an issue requiring government funding. Everyone can afford to go to the doctor for annual check-ups and they can take numerouls preventative health care measures on their own that cost absolutely nothing. Simply eating well and exercising is the best "preventative health care" in the world.

 

what government funding UHC is paid for with my taxes...UHC is an health insurance program...annual check with an MD don't include things like mammograms and colonoscopys...

 

You are correct...and don't forget the shortage will be made even worse by all the providers who will elect to see NO more medicaid patients because of the new and increased regulations and decrease in reimbursement, and those who will retire early to avoid the problem altogether. As a mid-level provider ACA ensures my job will be secure thats for sure...but the conditions will be horrible for providers and patients. I already have so much redundant ridiculous paperwork, and am required to see such high numbers of patients, that I dont even get to just look at my patients anymore, because I have to have a computer in front of me trying to chart, and listen and examine and diagnose and order tests all at the same time, just to try to keep up. So as nice as job security is....for the greater good of everyone...I vehemently opposed the ACA. But hey, the next time you come to see me..and I look frazzled and exhausted...and you have to wait 3 hours to see me...Im in the room for 6 mins with a computer stuck in my face..and then it takes 4 months to get the tests you need...you voted for it. Thats what you wanted. Enjoy.

 

STATES regulate and license medical providers and set the rules to practice. Just do this to hold any medical license you must take 3% of your case hours Medicaid patient who cannot sue you, we will then order malpractice insurers to adjust their rates down 5% and for every additional 3% you choose to add from Medicaid patients you get another added 5% cut up to a 50% reduction [30% Medicaid patients]. If you opt to only take Medicaid patients you will get a state backed free malpractice policy and we will add 2% to reimbursements. Then open licensing to properly trained English proficient foreign medical doctors to do gateway medical care with modest paperwork to add more providers. I think you could get enough providers in states to fill the need that did this and many might opt for the Medicaid only practices if it was a good enough deal.