Gee if Liberals are so in bed with insurance companies how come you Conservatives keep claiming that the real liberal goal is single payer. You can pick one Conservative stupidity or the other but you can't have both.
I'm sure there are many people similar to me, so to best serve ALL, we need an option to opt out. Hence the need for elimination of the Obamacare mandate. That's one level of thought, but it goes much deeper. Much much deeper and that's where most people who oppose Trump's plan have not gone yet or may not be capable of going. See, that's another flaw in your thinking process. First I will acknowledge what you are saying because I have certainly thought about all that you say above. For 20+ years, I took the risk by going without health insurance and it changed me. I drove more carefully, I ate more healthily, I took less risks and live a very guarded life. My reward, approximately $100,000 in income that was not needed for insurance premiums. But let's talk about other people. Low income people who can't afford $600 or higher monthly health insurance premiums. Have you ever considered that a low income person could have life savings of $50,000 or more? Money slated for retirement but also on hand for a health emergency? I'm sure there are many such people. See this is what you have NOT thought about. This is the flaw in your thinking. Now you need to re-think your quoted statement above. Ok, so with this new insight in mind, here's what we need. We need more choices of kinds of health insurance plans. For me and the millions like me, we simply need catastrophic healthcare coverage and the premiums must be very low because our chances of ever needing them are so low. And to go one step further, we should be able to opt out of certain services to get our premiums even lower. For example, I want a plan that does NOT INCLUDE such things as "Hookup to life sustaining equipment, Organ transplants, Reattachment of severed limbs, and similar high tech options). For this, the premiums must be even lower. If you want all the latest technology & outrageously priced services, that's fine. You pay the high premiums, you be a slave to the system, but don't force others to be in some universal socialist system just to pay for you. Right now, people are already suffering & dying because they can't afford the high deductibles of the Obamacare system. Ok, now with all that's been said to this point, lets think deeper. If there was a healthcare system with more pre-packaged plans and options that would allow an individual to choose access to STATE OF THE ART service (best) or OLD SCHOOL services (better), or LIMITED services (good), this would have the effect of decreasing demand, especially for the most expensive services. The effect of this decreased demand, would be lower prices for the actual products & services. But it goes even deeper than this and that's why Trump's plan comes in stages. Government needs to loosen restrictions and allow for more low cost services. For example, if I can diagnose myself or get a good diagnosis from an online system or a certified practitioner who provides services at a fraction for what mainstream doctors charge, then I'd need to be allowed by law to order a prescription of certain kinds of generic drugs such as antibiotics or other relatively safe and non-addicting drugs. Once this happens, millions of people could serve themselves and unburden the mainstream healthcare system and that would drive the overall costs of healthcare down dramatically. And it goes even deeper. And that's what Trump is aiming to do. Unfortunately, most people can't get past the first level deep in their thinking, so they can't comprehend it. --pete--
Judge Rosemary Collyer, a federal judge, declared the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money to subsidize health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress. The Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage. “Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” she wrote. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.” http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-court-ruling-20160512-snap-story.html --- I do not see how this can be ambiguous. Congress must appropriate the money, for it to be Constitutional.
The option to "opt out" is wonderful until you are suddenly diagnosed with a debilitating illness, now what do you do if you cannot afford medical care? You were willing to take the risk and so far it's paid off for you, however a good example you give is your driving; you happen to be a very careful driver, you are accident free and no moving violations. Then one day while driving your car, another driver (who is at fault) T bones you and you end up in the hospital on a ventilator for a month or even longer; that 100k was burned up in the first 10 days; now your stuck with a bill for close to a half million dollars if your in the hospital for 30 or more days. There goes your retirement and whatever monies you had put aside for health related issues. Now while I consider myself a very good driver with no accidents or moving violations, it's the other drivers out there that I worry about; they may not be as good drivers as I might be; hence the importance of having insurance. Under ACA you had 3 or 4 different types of plans available and depending on your choice the price tag attached was based on your needs. Catastriophic healthcare is rolling the dice with your health; you may have a 60k deductible before they will pay out and any excuse the insurance companies can come up with to avoid payment, they'll exercise their rights not to pay. if you look at life objectively, we are in essence, a slave to our body. It doesn't matter whether you get your healthcare from some universal socialist system or a money hungry capitalistic system (Martin Shkreli comes to mind), the body only knows the physical aspect of it. Those who cannot afford healthcare and can prove it are entitled to subsidies from the government. Then it comes down to selection of who gets to live; if you have money, don't sweat it, you can afford it, on the other hand if you are not so luck, you don't get the best care because the value of human life is based on your financial abilities to pay for it. Last I heard we lived in a civilized society and not some third world country where health is rationed. If you get what you think is a good diagnosis from an online system or certified practitioner and it ends up being a horrible misdiagnosis, then what happens? If you are going to have open heart surgery, do you want it performed by a board certified surgeon or Earl Shieb?? I can understand people trusting in what Trump claims he'll do; without getting into all of the politics, many people don't trust what he says based on his current track record. For what it's worth Pete, everything you've said thus far is based on a best case scenario but in the real world, as a rule it's anything but a best case scenario. This is why I think your thinking--while the best intentions on your part--is flawed.
You die. It happens to people every day. Right, but that's what courts are for. You sue the guy at fault. If he has no insurance, or no means to pay, then I'm screwed big time. Again that's life. Here's what puzzles me. You are arguing your point to a means that will only drive up YOUR OWN PREMIUMS. In other words, in your scenario above, I'm arguing for myself to have limited coverage & low premiums or opting out all together with the end result of me being dead for lack of services or financially ruined and you are arguing that I not opt-out, and pay my premiums which might amount to a measly $12,000 over 20 years. Remember, I'm low income so I get subsidized (by you, the taxpayer) and I only pay $50/month for my heath insurance. The money has to come from somewhere and that would be YOUR POCKET. Are you sure this is the socialist plan you really want? If so, be prepared to spend a very large percentage of your income to pay for my subsidies and then worse case, if I ever have a catastrophic accident as in the scenario you give above. Your premiums will be needed to pay my bills. Dude, you are not thinking this thing out. The money has to come from somewhere and if you happen to have middle class income it's coming out of YOUR OWN pocket because low income folks don't have the means to pay for the outrageous costs of healthcare. The only real solution is to lower the costs of heathcare. Consider that both me and Trump are thinking about changes that will drive down the costs of healthcare and create more low cost options so that we all have a means to care for a ourselves. Life is not fair and the wealthy will always fare better when extremely expensive procedures are involved. That's how it should be. That's what motivates people to better themselves. I fully understand the points you have made, but where we differ is in what people are entitled to. I say, give me freedom of choice, offer me options from dirt cheap to the most expensive and hold me responsible for my own choices and decisions. This is the direction that the Trump plan takes us and hopefully it will drive down the costs of healthcare products & services which is actually the root cause of our failing healthcare system. Obamacare takes us in the opposite direction where everyone is entitled to top shelf healthcare and they take from the rich to give to the poor. The poor will naturally take advantage and with no motivation to better themselves. The costs of healthcare products & services will continue to skyrocket. Slowly but surely, the entire system collapses under it's own weight. I hope you can see the self-defeating and destructive nature of the arguments you make for Obamacare. Enough for now. --pete--
Pete, I understand fully where you are coming from; we are just of two different mindsets when it comes to healthcare. I just think I tend to be on the more charitable side i believe since I'm thinking of working for the betterment of all mankind as opposed for just myself. But obviously your viewpoint works for you so I say god bless you.
Thank you. So let's agree to work towards a common goal... To lower the costs of healthcare products & services and put a stop to greed and corruption within the healthcare system. Good talking to you. --pete--
Yeah but so what? If the court has found that the payment's were not constitutional, why make them, or worse, have to defend them in court? Isn't the most constitutional and legal path to suspend the payments and wait for a legislative solution?
No you don't die if you don't have the insurance coverage or the cash to handle a major medical issue. You get the care, stiff the doctors snd the hospital and then the rest of America picks up the tab. And neither Trump nor you has provided any plan that will lower the overall cost of healthcare. Just shifting around wh pays for what has no impact on the overall cost.
Sorry but you really don't understand the system or how insurance actually works. You don't use as much as your insurance costs but others use more than their insurance costs. That is how insurance works. To put is simply some use more and some use less. It is how homeowners insurance works. It is how auto insurance works. And claiming insurance is socialism is just ignorant.
heath insurance in America is crony capitalist or more accurately crony socialist with govt paying money to insurance companies.This is something liberals hate above all else except when they love it above all else. Capitalism is when govt and business are separate, crony capitalism or socialism is when liberals combine them like in Obamacare.
actually capitalism would lower cost by 80%. Under socialism prices are very high, nobody can afford anything, and in the case of USSR and Red China for example 120 million slowly starved to death. This is kindergarten stuff to Republicans but inexplicable rocket science to liberals who generally lack IQ to understand these basics.
Lol, “socialism” known as single payer, is vastly superior to our system. They get better care for a fraction of the cost that we pay.
does the liberal think our system is not socialist? Did he even know the Medicare and Medicaid are not the names of private companies?
look at difference between East and West Germany or Cuba and Florida. Now do you understand the very very obvious
they are by definition separate under capitalism and by definition combined under socialism or crony capitalism like in Obamacare wherein libsocialist govt makes payments to business
Where did you get that nonsense that by definition business and government are separate. Business doesn't donate to political campaigns? Government doesn't award contracts to business? And business leaders don't move in and out of government jobs. Nobody can be as clueless as you apparently are. Try looking at the Trump cabinet just for a start.
what liberal? and no, our system is not socialist. Do you understand that the vast majority of people are not covered under medicare or Medicaid? they should be. Medicare for all would be superior to our current system.
