From a friend on FB, re ACA

cawacko said:
That's my opportunity cost right? I can rationally lay out a budget with expected odds of certain scenario's that may play out including those beyond my control such as what you mentioned. With that information in hand I can make what I feel is the decision in my best interest. Yes there is still risk but one I feel is worth taking.
Click to expand...

But you see - YOU may feel YOU can take the risk, but in reality you are forcing all of us to take the risk; because if you are hit by a car, go to an ER, turn out to have huge expenses due to the extent of your injuries that go beyond what you've saved - we have to pay it. We can't let you die because you did bad planning.

Just as mortgage holders want you to have insurance because they don't trust you to set enough money aside to repay your loan if the house goes up in flames, we are asking you to have insurance because we don't trust you to have set up enough money to pay for your future health care.
 
tekkychick said:
But you see - YOU may feel YOU can take the risk, but in reality you are forcing all of us to take the risk; because if you are hit by a car, go to an ER, turn out to have huge expenses due to the extent of your injuries that go beyond what you've saved - we have to pay it. We can't let you die because you did bad planning.

Just as mortgage holders want you to have insurance because they don't trust you to set enough money aside to repay your loan if the house goes up in flames, we are asking you to have insurance because we don't trust you to have set up enough money to pay for your future health care.
Click to expand...

If I go to the ER I still have to pay those expenses. Like I said my credit will be f'd if I don't pay. Sure, if you have no money and don't give a crap about your future opportunities regarding your credit then yes by going to the ER the taxpayers will cover you.

If you are talking about me I would still have to pay even if I didn't plan correctly at the time.
 
Rana said:
It is not in my best interest to do so, you know it isn't, just like gambling you won't require major medical care. It is a risk I am not willing to take, specially when I had a young family.
Click to expand...

Yes, people will make different decisions at different points in their life based on their circumstances. To me, leaving your family at risk is irresponsible. When you are young and single you may make a different decision.
 
Rana said:
I have talked with a lot of people that do not understand the law.
Click to expand...

That do not understand that Obama care and the ACA are the same thing? Or that do not understand the law? Two very different things. That said, think how dumb the average person is on these issues. Then realize that half the people are dumber... just sayin
 
tekkychick said:
but but - you said "single payer is Marxist" - they have single payer - therefore you think they are Marxist.

is it only marxist if the US has single payer but not if other countries have it????
Click to expand...

What makes you think their single payer system is better? And yes they're marxists.

Why do their rich come here in a lot of cases to get treatment?
 
Liberty said:
What makes you think their single payer system is better? And yes they're marxists.

Why do their rich come here in a lot of cases to get treatment?
Click to expand...

Their people live longer and spend less on health care.

Yeah, it's better.

Look it up. I know it's been posted on this site before.

Where's your evidence that their rich come here to get treatment in "a lot" of cases?
 
cawacko said:
If I go to the ER I still have to pay those expenses. Like I said my credit will be f'd if I don't pay. Sure, if you have no money and don't give a crap about your future opportunities regarding your credit then yes by going to the ER the taxpayers will cover you.

If you are talking about me I would still have to pay even if I didn't plan correctly at the time.
Click to expand...

Nope, you'll declare bankruptcy and the hospital will have to cover you.

What if (horrors to think about) you have a baby who needs intensive care for six months, a year, years? You can't afford that. Maybe Romney and Bill Gates can. YOU can't.
 
Rana said:
States can still set their own limits. They just have to meet or beat the Afordable Care Acts standards, but you knew this.
Click to expand...

BC/BS of Iowa which had insured 85% of independently purchased insurance is pulling out of Iowa......"but you can keep your old insurance".....
 
tekkychick said:
Their people live longer and spend less on health care.

Yeah, it's better.

Look it up. I know it's been posted on this site before.

Where's your evidence that their rich come here to get treatment in "a lot" of cases?
Click to expand...
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't believe that in a million years. Government creates problems, and limits care, and drives up the cost.
 
tekkychick said:
Nope, you'll declare bankruptcy and the hospital will have to cover you.

What if (horrors to think about) you have a baby who needs intensive care for six months, a year, years? You can't afford that. Maybe Romney and Bill Gates can. YOU can't.
Click to expand...

If I have a baby I'm getting insurance. I didn't have a child, nor was I married or in a serious relationship, when I was 27 and 28 and didn't have insurance.
 
Dungheap said:
Who are "they?"
Click to expand...

The newsies were questioning people who they call "invincibles". "They" are those people whom the newsies interviewed. I'm pretty sure it was obvious in my post, but I have to spell the simplest things out for you.
 
Liberty said:
What makes you think their single payer system is better? And yes they're marxists.

Why do their rich come here in a lot of cases to get treatment?
Click to expand...


and they pay for it out of pocket.


Now we have some great healthcare here IF you can pay for it.


If not you just die.

That is what happened to mother of the boy who got to stand next to Obama when he signed the Affordable healthcare into law.

she got sick


she was too poor to be able to pay for the treatment she needed to live and so his mother DIED for lack of money


your a sociopath for wanting MORE people to die for lack of money.


your fucking evil
 
evince said:
and they pay for it out of pocket.


Now we have some great healthcare here IF you can pay for it.


If not you just die.

That is what happened to mother of the boy who got to stand next to Obama when he signed the Affordable healthcare into law.

she got sick


she was too poor to be able to pay for the treatment she needed to live and so his mother DIED for lack of money


your a sociopath for wanting MORE people to die for lack of money.


your fucking evil
Click to expand...
You need to grow up and learn how to stop using potty mouth insults.

My dad didn't have any money when he got cancer, and got great healthcare, and lived for 7, or 8 years before he died from it.

The truth is, me and others think that this law will produce more death, more poverty, reduce the number of good doctors, do away with liberty, and privacy. I don't want the gov't knowing anything about my health,,,,,,,, unlike you.
 
Liberty said:
Nothing personal, but I wouldn't believe that in a million years. Government creates problems, and limits care, and drives up the cost.
Click to expand...

but you're wrong.

I told you to look it up. Did you? or are you continuing to be ignorant.

I searched: health care us vs europe

I got just to start:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.

When compared with people in other countries, the French live longer and healthier lives. Rodwin says that's because good care starts at birth. There are months of paid job leave for mothers who work. New mothers get a child allowance. There are neighborhood health clinics for new mothers and their babies, home visits from nurses and subsidized day care.

The Cost Of Care

It's expensive to provide this kind of health care and social support. France's health care system is one of the most expensive in the world.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.

To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)

Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.
Click to expand...



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html
How much is good health care worth to you? $8,233 per year? That's how much the U.S. spends per person.

Worth it?

That figure is more than two-and-a-half times more than most developed nations in the world, including relatively rich European countries like France, Sweden and the United Kingdom. On a more global scale, it means U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP.

A sizable slice of Americans -- including some top-ranking politicians -- say the cost may be unfortunate but the U.S. has "the best health care in the world."

But let's consider what 17 cents of every U.S. dollar is purchasing. According to the most recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) -- an international economic group comprised of 34 member nations -- it's not as much as many Americans expect.

In the United States:

There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people -- well below below the OECD average of 3.1.

The number of hospital beds in the U.S. was 2.6 per 1,000 population in 2009, lower than the OECD average of 3.4 beds.

Life expectancy at birth increased by almost nine years between 1960 and 2010, but that's less than the increase of over 15 years in Japan and over 11 years on average in OECD countries. The average American now lives 78.7 years in 2010, more than one year below the average of 79.8 years.

The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

The U.S. is a very rich country, but even so, it devotes far more of its economy -- 17.6 percent of GDP in 2010 -- to health than any other country. The Netherlands is the next highest, at 12 percent of GDP, and the average among OECD countries was almost half that of the U.S., at 9.5 percent of GDP.

NewsHour: Are there particular areas the U.S. is doing poorly compared to other OECD countries?

Overall, the life expectancy of a U.S. citizen, at 78.2 years, is shorter than the average among OECD countries of 79.5 years and there are a number of specific areas where U.S. health care is weak when compared with other countries.
Click to expand...


http://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/
So overall, our spending is out of proportion to our income, our population is younger than most of Europe, and we have fewer hospital stays with only typical technology use. This leaves us with the theory that higher drug and imaging prices, along with higher physicians’ fees and income are driving our healthcare costs.

Do we get more in return?

The results of this hefty spending on the same drugs and (perhaps better) doctors doesn’t seem to clearly correlate into better outcomes. Mortality rates in U.S. hospitals after admission for a heart attack, for example, are just average—at 4.3% as compared to just 2.3% in Denmark. Similarly depressing results are available for respiratory diseases, cancers, and surgical or medical mistakes. And overall we have the highest rate of death that would be amenable to healthcare intervention (deaths among people less than 75 years old that are from heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and bacterial infections); the U.S. has 96 such deaths per 100,000 people as compared to France’s 55 deaths.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top