ObamaCare...coming soon

User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 11:19am.

dbapig wrote:

Doesn't it sound familiar? Hospitals (ERs) making up their loss from (uninsured) ER patients by billing higher amt to their insured patients?

Same problem, totally different solution. The government doesn't offer a public option for auto insurance... Why? If your argument is uninsured people are the caused of spiraling health care cost, then why not force everyone to buy health insurance, like auto insurance. If you don't, you'll be fined.

Submitted by afx114 on July 28, 2009 - 11:24am.

AN wrote:
The government doesn't offer a public option for auto insurance... Why?

Because auto insurance costs aren't bleeding families, small businesses, and corporations to death? I reckon that if they were we'd be hearing about a public option for auto insurance as well.

Also, you are "forced" to have auto insurance not to protect yourself, but to protect the other drivers that you will have an effect on if you crash into them.

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 11:24am.

afx114 wrote:
AN wrote:
The government doesn't offer a public option for auto insurance... Why?

Because auto insurance costs aren't bleeding families, small businesses, and corporations to death?


But it would supposed to lower insurance if everyone is insure, right? Isn't that the argument?

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 11:26am.

AN wrote:
dbapig wrote:

Doesn't it sound familiar? Hospitals (ERs) making up their loss from (uninsured) ER patients by billing higher amt to their insured patients?

Same problem, totally different solution. The government doesn't offer a public option for auto insurance... Why? If your argument is uninsured people are the caused of spiraling health care cost, then why not force everyone to buy health insurance, like auto insurance. If you don't, you'll be fined.

I didn't say uninsured people is the only reason of spiraling health care cost. It is one of the reasons, don't ya agree?

My understanding is (since nothing in firmed up yet) that if you don't have insurance through employer-based one, than you have to participate in non-profit and/or govt sponsored one.

The fine is an incentive to make sure everyone shares paying for the cost for providing basic health coverage for most americans. I don't think you need to be scared by the word 'fine'.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 11:28am.

I just find it unbelievable that a country like South Korea can provide reasonable national health care for its citizens AND people of Korean ancestry holding foreign citizenships.

And US can't.

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 11:32am.

dbapig wrote:

I didn't say uninsured people is the only reason of spiraling health care cost. It is one of the reasons, don't ya agree?

Yes, I totally agree with this. It's definitely one of the causes. Why else are hospital below the 8 bleeding cash while hospital above the 8 tend to have profit.

dbapig wrote:
My understanding is (since nothing in firmed up yet) that if you don't have insurance through employer-based one, than you have to participate in non-profit and/or govt sponsored one.

The fine is an incentive to make sure everyone shares paying for the cost for providing basic health coverage for most americans. I don't think you need to be scared by the word 'fine'.


I personally don't think we NEED a non-profit and/or govt sponsored option. Have you tried to go to the DMV lately? I've never seen private businesses that offer customer service, work so slow. I had to wait almost 2 hours just to tell them I need a new driver license, pay, then get a printed paper temp license.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 28, 2009 - 11:40am.

I personally don't think we NEED a non-profit and/or govt sponsored option. Have you tried to go to the DMV lately? I've never seen private businesses that offer customer service, work so slow. I had to wait almost 2 hours just to tell them I need a new driver license, pay, then get a printed paper temp license.

AN, did you have an appointment? I am asking because my wife has an appointment there tomorrow. The last time I went there with an appointment, I was in and out pretty quick. But if you don't have one it takes a looooong time.

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 11:44am.

CONCHO wrote:
I personally don't think we NEED a non-profit and/or govt sponsored option. Have you tried to go to the DMV lately? I've never seen private businesses that offer customer service, work so slow. I had to wait almost 2 hours just to tell them I need a new driver license, pay, then get a printed paper temp license.

AN, did you have an appointment? I am asking because my wife has an appointment there tomorrow. The last time I went there with an appointment, I was in and out pretty quick. But if you don't have one it takes a looooong time.


Unfortunately, we didn't. We didn't know that we can make an appointment, until we saw the sign. I don't think 95% of the people there know about it either, since everybody was in line and very few people went to the appointment window. I definitely will use next time. However, I do noticed there's a huge difference between the different DMV too. O-side DMV wasn't as crowded as the Clairemont one. I think Poway one wouldn't be as bad either. I wasn't thinking, so I went to the Clairemont one, w/out an appointment. But it really should be as simple as calling up the DMV and asking them to send us another license and pay. Kind of like what you do when you lose your credit card. Just call them, and they'll send you another one to the same address on file.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 11:53am.

AN wrote:

I personally don't think we NEED a non-profit and/or govt sponsored option. Have you tried to go to the DMV lately?

Do you sleep with a gun in your bed? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive around with an armored car, which many middle class people in Brazil do? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive on dirt roads for everyday normal driving? No, because we have Caltran, managed by the govt.

Do you worry about your country being invaded and conquered by foreign army, like Iraqis before US conquered it? (Never mind the consequences). No, because we have the armed forces, managed by the govt.

Operations by govt have their issues, no doubt. But current health insurance/care is far worse than what govt can do.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 28, 2009 - 11:54am.

dbapig the autoinsurance example fails. You have to pay autoinsurance because when you drive you can kill someone and damage thier property. You must have autoinsurance to be able to drive. You should not be forced to pay health insurance to live. Come on now lets at least argue in a fair manner.

As far as ramming it through, you don't ram something through that has alot of inherent problems just because you have tried to do it 12 years ago and failed. The dems have control for another 18 months.

Really now, with so much at stake, and I mean ALOT IS AT STAKE here, why can't this be done with care and analysis. To say something that sucks is better then nothing becuase nothing REALLY sucks is something I don't agree with.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 12:06pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
dbapig the autoinsurance example fails. You have to pay autoinsurance because when you drive you can kill someone and damage thier property. You must have autoinsurance to be able to drive. You should not be forced to pay health insurance to live. Come on now lets at least argue in a fair manner.

As far as ramming it through, you don't ram something through that has alot of inherent problems just because you have tried to do it 12 years ago and failed. The dems have control for another 18 months.

Really now, with so much at stake, and I mean ALOT IS AT STAKE here, why can't this be done with care and analysis. To say something that sucks is better then nothing becuase nothing REALLY sucks is something I don't agree with.

Auto insurance example. In a perfect world you'd have a guarantee that you won't get sick or injured so that you aren't forced to pay health insurance to live. But no one has such guarantee. And if that uninsured person somehow gets sick (because of lack of preventative care), all of us end up paying more, when it could've been prevented if he/she was insured. I'd say that's a pretty fair argument.

I don't like it being rammed through. My point is that the democrats want it done and they know it probably won't get done if not done now. It's not my preference either.

I want it done with care/analysis too. But Dems seem to think the longer it drags on the less likely it will get done.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 28, 2009 - 12:09pm.

dbapig the autoinsurance example fails. You have to pay autoinsurance because when you drive you can kill someone and damage thier property. You must have autoinsurance to be able to drive. You should not be forced to pay health insurance to live. Come on now lets at least argue in a fair manner.

FAIL. A person walking down the street with drug-resistant TB can infect you and you can die. An unmedicated schizophrenic can stab you. A food worker with undiagnosed hepatitis can infect and sicken dozens.

Having a basic level of health maintenance for everyone occupying the same space guards the health of all.

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 12:11pm.

dbapig wrote:

Do you sleep with a gun in your bed? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive around with an armored car, which many middle class people in Brazil do? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive on dirt roads for everyday normal driving? No, because we have Caltran, managed by the govt.

Do you worry about your country being invaded and conquered by foreign army, like Iraqis before US conquered it? (Never mind the consequences). No, because we have the armed forces, managed by the govt.

Operations by govt have their issues, no doubt. But current health insurance/care is far worse than what govt can do.


Lets be clear, I have no issue with government run certain things. I just don't expect great services for the money. Don't even get me started about Caltran. They're almost just as bad as the DMV. I love and respect our military. Like I said, government has its role/place. I'm not for total anarchy here.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 12:25pm.

AN wrote:
dbapig wrote:

Do you sleep with a gun in your bed? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive around with an armored car, which many middle class people in Brazil do? No, because we have police, managed by the govt.

Do you drive on dirt roads for everyday normal driving? No, because we have Caltran, managed by the govt.

Do you worry about your country being invaded and conquered by foreign army, like Iraqis before US conquered it? (Never mind the consequences). No, because we have the armed forces, managed by the govt.

Operations by govt have their issues, no doubt. But current health insurance/care is far worse than what govt can do.


Lets be clear, I have no issue with government run certain things. I just don't expect great services for the money. Don't even get me started about Caltran. They're almost just as bad as the DMV. I love and respect our military. Like I said, government has its role/place. I'm not for total anarchy here.

And wouldn't you agree that current health care system in US is a total anarchy? Paying more and more for less care, and it seems like many who paid insurance companies for years are kicked out when they really need it.

I prefer dealing with private companies/organizations when possible. Yes, getting a replacement credit card is pretty painless. Lose your driver's license and it's hassle to get it replaced.

But what alternative does the current private health insurance industry offer to fix the 'anarchy' they've put us into?

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 12:29pm.

dbapig wrote:

And wouldn't you agree that current health care system in US is a total anarchy? Paying more and more for less care, and it seems like many who paid insurance companies aren't reimbursed when they really need it.

I prefer dealing with private companies/organizations when possible. Yes, getting a replacement credit card is pretty painless. Lose your driver's license and it's hassle to get it replaced. But what alternative does the current private health insurance industry offer to the 'anarchy' we are experiencing in US?


No, I don't think we have total anarchy for health care. I never really looked into how much my company pay for me, but the premium I'm responsible for is about the same and my care is about the same as well. Some company made me pay more and some company cover ALL of my premium, so I didn't have to pay ANYTHING for one of the best coverage I have to date.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 12:36pm.

AN wrote:
dbapig wrote:

And wouldn't you agree that current health care system in US is a total anarchy? Paying more and more for less care, and it seems like many who paid insurance companies aren't reimbursed when they really need it.

I prefer dealing with private companies/organizations when possible. Yes, getting a replacement credit card is pretty painless. Lose your driver's license and it's hassle to get it replaced. But what alternative does the current private health insurance industry offer to the 'anarchy' we are experiencing in US?


No, I don't think we have total anarchy for health care. I never really looked into how much my company pay for me, but the premium I'm responsible for is about the same and my care is about the same as well. Some company made me pay more and some company cover ALL of my premium, so I didn't have to pay ANYTHING for one of the best coverage I have to date.

That's great for you.

And what happens in the unfortunate scenario where you lose your job?

One of the reasons GM failed was huge cost of providing health care to retirees, no? Economic anarchy?

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 12:47pm.

dbapig wrote:

That's great for you.

And what happens in the unfortunate scenario where you lose your job?

One of the reasons GM failed was huge cost of providing health care to retirees, no? Economic anarchy?


I'm under my wife's insurance, which is much better than what my company provides. We're a small company, yet, what my company provide is on par with what I was offered to by a different company 6 years ago with similar premium. So, if we both lose our job, we can always get Cobra. If that runs out and both me and my wife can't find a job, well, I guess we're SOL. But then again, in this scenario, under the current laws, I don't have to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Talking about kicking a man when he's down.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 12:51pm.

AN wrote:
dbapig wrote:

That's great for you.

And what happens in the unfortunate scenario where you lose your job?

One of the reasons GM failed was huge cost of providing health care to retirees, no? Economic anarchy?


I'm under my wife's insurance, which is much better than what my company provides. We're a small company, yet, what my company provide is on par with what I was offered to by a different company 6 years ago with similar premium. So, if we both lose our job, we can always get Cobra. If that runs out and both me and my wife can't find a job, well, I guess we're SOL. But then again, in this scenario, under the current laws, I don't have to pay a fine for not having health insurance. Talking about kicking a man when he's down.

And that's when you can sign up for govt sponsored insurance (if that happens). wink wink. the private insurance industry doesn't want competition from govt sponsored one because it will be TOO affordable end users.

btw, Cobra is very very expensive. You probably shouldn't plan on using it for more than a month or so...

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 12:56pm.

dbapig wrote:

And that's when you can sign up for govt sponsored insurance (if that happens). wink wink. the private insurance industry doesn't want competition from govt sponsored one because it will be TOO affordable end users.

btw, Cobra is very very expensive. You probably shouldn't plan on using it for more than a month or so...


If I'm already broke w/ no job, how can I buy govt. sponsored insurance? IIRC, the insurance company actually like Obama's plan. At least AARP does for sure.

I know people who were on Cobra recently and it wasn't that much more expensive than before. I think there were new law that got put into place to greatly reduce Cobra cost.

Submitted by Dukehorn on July 28, 2009 - 1:44pm.

COBRA is very expensive. Don't plan on using it when you're umemployed for long.

As for this "debate", I always wonder why people arguing against universial healthcare always manage to ignore the children.

Is it your contention that kids should be punished for the "crime" that their parents are poor or unemployed? Remember that kid that died from his cavities in DC (two years ago) because his mom couldn't afford dental care. Is that what we're saying "tough luck"?

How is this scenario any different than saying to the child of a sexual predator "tough luck kid, you're born to a sexual deviant and deserved to be abused".

Right? The logic is as follows "tough luck kid, you're born to parents without health insurance and deserve what you get".

Compassionate my arse......

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 2:40pm.

Dukehorn wrote:
COBRA is very expensive. Don't plan on using it when you're umemployed for long.

As for this "debate", I always wonder why people arguing against universial healthcare always manage to ignore the children.

Is it your contention that kids should be punished for the "crime" that their parents are poor or unemployed? Remember that kid that died from his cavities in DC (two years ago) because his mom couldn't afford dental care. Is that what we're saying "tough luck"?

How is this scenario any different than saying to the child of a sexual predator "tough luck kid, you're born to a sexual deviant and deserved to be abused".

Right? The logic is as follows "tough luck kid, you're born to parents without health insurance and deserve what you get".

Compassionate my arse......

well said.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 28, 2009 - 3:01pm.

Dukehorn wrote:
COBRA is very expensive.

COBRA costs what insurance costs. Whatever the employer paid for the insurance is what the employee pays for the insurance, plus a maximum of 2%. If the employer had an expensive plan, then continuing with COBRA is expensive. If the employer had a cheap plan, the it's not so much.

Submitted by Veritas on July 28, 2009 - 3:10pm.

This will be COBRA on steroids, very expensive for the middle class, who will be carrying the people who cannot afford it. As for sleeping with a gun. Check out response times to calls for service. Maybe a lot more people take care of their safety than you would like to admit. As for roads, good grief. All the deferred maintenance the local governments have robbed the road repair funds and put it into pensions. Yeah. The government is going to make health care affordable. Right. You are delusional if you believe this brand of government is any better than eight years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton. Why don't you study the issues posted by flu and understand that what few liberties remain will be eroded by this dangerous piece of legislation.

Submitted by dbapig on July 28, 2009 - 4:41pm.

Veritas wrote:
This will be COBRA on steroids, very expensive for the middle class, who will be carrying the people who cannot afford it. As for sleeping with a gun. Check out response times to calls for service. Maybe a lot more people take care of their safety than you would like to admit. As for roads, good grief. All the deferred maintenance the local governments have robbed the road repair funds and put it into pensions. Yeah. The government is going to make health care affordable. Right. You are delusional if you believe this brand of government is any better than eight years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton. Why don't you study the issues posted by flu and understand that what few liberties remain will be eroded by this dangerous piece of legislation.

OK ok. So tell me something. What is South Korea doing that we can't do?

South Korea is the least wealthy of developed or semi-developed nations (Western Europe/Japan/Canada/South Korea) that are providing national health care.

Last I checked COBRA for family of 4 was something like $1000/month. Which part of the plan will add $1000/month to a 4-member family's budget?

As for gun/police response time, I don't see any middle class people driving around in armored cars here like they do in Brazil. Have you driven on 'roads' in Tijuana?

I don't want to be enslaved to the tyranny of fear of living with no affordable health care. Yes, I want my liberty, from the tyranny of private health insurance industry.

Submitted by afx114 on July 28, 2009 - 4:41pm.

As long as they don't tax my World of Warcraft Mountain Dew, it's all good.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 28, 2009 - 10:46pm.

Concho and DBA the premise that you guys bring to the table is simply not realistic. It is not. Is every person who has aids going to get treated? Is every person who has drug resistant tb going to get treated as well? So in this perfect world of health maintenance provided by our government everyone will be in perfect health?

I guess I am in the minority by not being afraid to go out in public for fear of catching TB from a guy at a stoplight. I better wait until universal health care comes to go outside... whew, thanks for telling me.

I mean really now, come on guys.

When I argued cap and trade one of the brilliant points taken up by the opposition was that we should lead and countries like India and China will follow. Oh and by the way we will develop all this technology that they will buy to keep thier own development clean. Hmmm, I think I read recently that India just said go to hell with that idea.

So lets see. This healthcare system will prevent the guy on the corner from coughing on me so I will not get TB. We will live in this perfect world where all the newly developing countries will not saw SCREW YOU and they will immediately implement measures to cap and trade on thier own industry as well. Furthermore they will buy our technology to clean themselves up. Furthemore, even though the healthcare reform (IN WHICH I AM AGREEING WITH YOU THAT SOMETHING BETTER IS NEEDED) should be rammed through as soon as possible without diligent thought and examination. It HAS TO GO THROUGH NOW because if it is thoroughly examined then it may not go through even though the party pushing it HAS MAJORITY IN ALL BRANCHES.

I just want to make sure I understand the argument here because it sounds perfectly insane to me.

Submitted by rocket science on July 28, 2009 - 10:55pm.

This is a huge thread so sorry in advance if this was already covered.
As much as I usually disagree w/ Stein:

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/...

Where will it end....

Submitted by an on July 28, 2009 - 11:24pm.

Interesting new data/article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/news/eco...

Taxing the fat in your food
Based on this article, "More than 25% of the increase in medical costs between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to obesity and obesity-related conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, according to a new report from the non-partisan Urban Institute."

"Come 2015, it is estimated that 40% of American adults will be obese, which is more than double the rate 40 years ago."

So, how many % of the increase in medical cost between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to the uninsured?

Submitted by CA renter on July 29, 2009 - 12:05am.

AN wrote:
Interesting new data/article:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/28/news/eco...

Taxing the fat in your food
Based on this article, "More than 25% of the increase in medical costs between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to obesity and obesity-related conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, according to a new report from the non-partisan Urban Institute."

"Come 2015, it is estimated that 40% of American adults will be obese, which is more than double the rate 40 years ago."

So, how many % of the increase in medical cost between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to the uninsured?

Contrary to what many seem to think, I remember American families eating more poorly in the 70s than they do today. Back then, we ate bologna and cheese sandwiches with mayo on Wonder white bread. We washed that down with a Hawaian Punch, and finished off with some M&Ms.

Though poor diets are very common in low-income areas, they've always been like this -- I don't think there have been any significant diet changes in that demographic.

These days, among the middle and upper-class families, many parents try to have produce with every meal, and rarely give their kids soda or the "juice products" that are mostly sugar water. I actually think we have a healthier diet today in this demographic.

I think our "obesity problem" is due to the change in lifestyle, more than a poor diet. Like Allan and I were discussing earlier, kids played outside **all the time** riding bikes, playing sports, swimming, etc. We didn't have computers or cable TV to suck up our lives. We were allowed to **live** life instead of watch someone else's life on TV. As a general rule, it seems most of my friends were allowed to watch a maximum of one hour per day, many of us were restricted to less.

As many people who have kids know, if we don't sign our kids up for "organized" activities, kids don't get nearly the same level of physical activity these days.

BTW, all of this applies to us adults, too. How many of us watch TV or use computers more than our parents ever did? (raises hand)

Submitted by an on July 29, 2009 - 12:18am.

CA renter wrote:

Contrary to what many seem to think, I remember American families eating more poorly in the 70s than they do today. Back then, we ate bologna and cheese sandwiches with mayo on Wonder white bread. We washed that down with a Hawaian Punch, and finished off with some M&Ms.

Though poor diets are very common in low-income areas, they've always been like this -- I don't think there have been any significant diet changes in that demographic.

These days, among the middle and upper-class families, many parents try to have produce with every meal, and rarely give their kids soda or the "juice products" that are mostly sugar water. I actually think we have a healthier diet today in this demographic.

I think our "obesity problem" is due to the change in lifestyle, more than a poor diet. Like Allan and I were discussing earlier, kids played outside **all the time** riding bikes, playing sports, swimming, etc. We didn't have computers or cable TV to suck up our lives. We were allowed to **live** life instead of watch someone else's life on TV. As a general rule, it seems most of my friends were allowed to watch a maximum of one hour per day, many of us were restricted to less.

As many people who have kids know, if we don't sign our kids up for "organized" activities, kids don't get nearly the same level of physical activity these days.

BTW, all of this applies to us adults, too. How many of us watch TV or use computers more than our parents ever did? (raises hand)


I'll raise my hand too. I have no objection with the fact that our activity level is very different than the 70s. However, I have a suspicion that our portion size today is much larger than what it used to be back then. Bad food in moderation, I think is still better than, huge portion of food that's slightly better.

One other factor is, there tends to be a lot more dual income family today than it used to be in the 70s/80s. When both parents work, many times, fast food/eating out is the only option. Home cooked meal will, most of the time, be better for you than fast food/eating out.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.