Jump to content

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

ken barber

Recommended Posts

Good Morning everyone,


I am just wondering if anyone has any personal stories about the effects of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Has the Law impacted you in a bad way?

Has the Law impacted you in a goodway?


I know I am asking for personal stories here and this has the potential to get very heated so please try to remember the rules for this forum if you respond. 


I am just very curious as so far everyone I know has had positive results with the changes to the Healthcare system.  I have the same Insurance as I had before the Act so it has not impacted me at all. 


I keep hearing horror stories from the Media but have not met a single person that has been impacted negatively.


Ken Barber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am disabled and currently on Medicare and Medicaid. I've not seen much impact from the act other than a few letters about minor policy change.


I've not seen anything negative come out of it as of yet either. Except for the obvious trouble at the beginning with registrations. That was quite the technical blunder.


I too look forward to hearing from our community. I have heard terrible things from the media but so far have seen no one else complaining.

Edited by techmanjoy
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I will not get into too many personal details, but i will say this much.  Obamacare FUCKED me hard.  I had a, what was often refereed to as a 'Cadillac plan'.  which was great for me, since i have many medical issues.  once Obamacare became more then just rumor, my healthcare was dropped to a much lower plan, and then dropped entirely when Obamacame became law.  Since that time i have seen my healthcare cost go way up, and the quality go way down.  i was just told that obamacare may not cover a surgery on my ears because it is 'elective.'  I guess being able to hear is elective these days. 


Frankly, the entire BS that is obamacare was simply a way to mandate that the people who have jobs, and have money are forced to pay more for those that do not have money.... not to mention a way for the insurance companies to make even more money. 


**sigh** i could go on for a lot longer on this topic, but i think i better stop before i say too much.  lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a topic that can get some individuals riled up; thus I ask that everyone please be mindful of your tone and language when discussing this topic and interacting with other members. If past threads are an indicator, you all will respond and act respectfully and that is awesome and appreciated.


First I want to say that I do not think the Affordable Care Act should be referred to as Obamacare. Obamacare is merely a meme by which the Right Wing and Tea Party groups attack the President and to scare those who, for whatever reason, hate the President and do not want anything that has his name on it.


It is interesting that in Kentucky, when enrollment began and people started checking out the state exchanges (The Program in Kentucky is called Kynect) people were saying things like these programs are great and better than anything in "Obamacare". For the record, Kynect is a result of the ACA and are the same thing. The only difference is that Kynect is a state administered exchange, rather than a federally administered one.


It has seemed to me that the areas that have the biggest issues with the ACA appears to be in states with Republican Governors who either botched their state exchanges, and or did not accept the Medicaid expansion.


Tennessee did not except the expansion. My mother went through the process and through the state exchange it would cost her 372 dollars a month for health insurance. She cannot afford this, as that would wipe out her food for the entire month. Ironically, if Tennessee had accepted the Medicaid expansion, she would of qualified and have insurance right now. Currently she does not have any insurance and would face a fine for not having it, but she is exempt from the fine because she does not make enough money.


​The ACA, is a good program, but like any government created program it has flaws or issues that need to be addressed. Recent polling by various news outlets shows that the public, while still not over joyed about the ACA, no longer want it repealed, but want to see it improved.


The ACA, I suspect, will go down in history much like Social Security when it was first created. Interestingly if you go back and research Social Security roll out and the ACA roll out, the nay sayers were all saying about the same thing. The main difference thus far, it seems, is that back then, Republicans and Democrats worked to improve Social Security, where as the Republicans simply keep voting to repeal it.


Is the ACA perfect? No. Does it need to be improved? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to heat this up any more, but I live in NY, which has seen a republican party with any strength for a long time.  Thanks to NYC, we are a bastion of liberal policy.  which means one thing.  those that actually work hard of their money get most of it taken away to give to those who either can not, or will not work.  I have absolutely no issue with helping out those that can not work, but i have a LARGE issue with those that simply refuse to work.  mainly because they can get more money by not. 


as far as the ACA versus Obamacare... remember even Obama uses that term... it is his 'crowning achievement'... does it have it's good points?  yes, of course it does.  but the bad simply out weight the good, and it's fundamentally broken at the core.  It is designed to make sure that everyone has health care, which is a good thing, however the way it goes about it is to force everyone to become more reliant on the government.  in my humble opinion, ANYTHING that makes us more reliant on the government is a bad thing. 


This country used to stand for fighting for what you want to get, working hard, and putting in long hard days of work to do it.  but then came this craze where people decided that the government has to support us, and those that are rich have a DUTY to support those of us that are not.  Frankly that is an utter crock of bullshit.  again, i have no problem helping someone, but by god, they better be doing everything they can to NOT need help. 


See, in my opinion, things like this, have done what happens all the time.  it was a good idea in concept, but it is impossible to implement, and then it gets taken way too far, since, frankly, many of the politicians simply want to do things to 'help' their voters... so they get re-elected.  however, that normally means, giving them something that they have not earned.  that is the "Entitlement Culture" that is currently crippling our country, and destroying the very thing that made this country great... the simple refusal to allow other people to do our thinking for us.  well that's almost dead.  save for a very few politicians, many of whom identify as the Tea Party.  (gets ready to run into the bomb shelter, since i know that is going to get my ass into trouble!  LOL)


keep in mind though, not everyone believes what the loudest and most idiotic of a group does.  those are the ones that get reported on... not the people that are actually sane.  and yes, there are the whack jobs on both sides... for everyone that someone can mention in the Tea Party, I can name one on the Liberal side of things... The worst trap we can fall into is stereotyping every member of a group byt the loudest most outrages of it's members.


Now, since i am sure i have stirred up enough shit with this one... i will stop here, and wait for the dust to settle, and see how many people take me to task for my opinions!


Remember one rule we have here.  we can disagree without being disagreeable.  I don't mind swearing, or things like that, but i will not tolerate personal attacks on other members... everyone is entitled to their opinion, and their ability to express it.  I don't care if people agree or disagree with me, but we will keep it civil, and if not, the people that can not keep their civility will be asked to leave.  as with all families, we do not have to agree, but we have to be nice... at least in public :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I will not "Take you to Task" for your opinions. I will disagree with your opinions but as the old saying goes "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one...." Just teasing there. I know I started this about "Obamacare" (Zack many of the supporters of the ACA use this title and are proud of it.) However I would like to go off on a side note.


Roland you mentioned the Tea party, I am very much in the camp that a large majority of the Tea Party Leaders are "Crack pots" not all but a large majority. Too many times I have heard them inaccurately quote, The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence" The Bible, History books.  One Glaring example (Not to pick on any one Politician but just giving an example) One Tea Party Leader made the following statement after a major United States Supreme Court decision. "Just Because the Supreme Courts Says something is Constitutional, Doesn't make it Constitutional." No I will remind you that this is a US Senator. Allow me to explain for anyone reading that does not know the purpose of the Supreme Court. This is quoted from www.uscourts.gov. Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.


So my point is its very difficult for us to take a group seriously that has someone so obviously wrong at its head. A US Senator should know this. Tangent about the Tea Party over


I strongly believe that the issue with our country is the fringe groups (On both sides) are not willing to compromise on anything. So you end up with one party ramrodding a law through when they get the rare chance, with absolutely no input or support from the other party. As in the ACA it was the Democrats baby and had both sides been willing to compromise a little more we may have ended up with a better bill. Its astounding how gridlocked this country is. The ACA is a republican bill it was modeled after a Republican Governor's plan that worked. 


The Political division in our government has grown to a point that our form of government no longer works. Now this is going to get my ass in trouble. The Experiment we call Democracy does not work in its current form or size. I am a US Army Veteran and a Patriot. I love my country but its no longer my country. Its not the country our founding fathers envisioned, it has been manipulated, twisted and corrupted into an oligarchy. Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off going back to a Monarchy. At least then there is only one dickhead to blame. I fear that as we grow further and further apart things will only get worse until the country falls apart. And I don't mean hundreds of years down the road i see it in our childrens future.


I am a supporter of the ACA It seems it has done more good than bad. (Roland I am very sorry about your situation.) However I think it could have been better if our elected leaders would take off their Donkey and Elephant Masks and act like adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is a great idea, with many important points, and some fundamentally flawed executions.


One thing that hasn't been mentioned directly it's actually dropping most people's insurance rates.  Yes, this is an average, but in the end, averages are what matters.  If we're afraid to help the ninety-and-nine for fear of harming the one (those few who, due to state stupidity, are getting charged more), we'll never get anything done.  The reason it's dropping insurance rates is twofold.  First, 'healthy' people are now required to sign up for insurance, which helps subsidize those who have chronic issues (who also, in fact, can no longer be charged more for their care).  Second, ER trips have always been a (much abused!) right.  Many of the people who weren't on health insurance merely used ER visits to get state subsidized care anyway.


We could also get sidetracked into a discussion of how recent events have proven that the government has no fricken' clue how to organize a large scale IT project, but, well, that would be redundant -- most of the time it doesn't have a clue, period.  And this is a component of the fact that our system of government, and associated social contracts, are -- as Ken Barber points out -- beginning to collapse.


I am a supporter of the ACA It seems it has done more good than bad. (Roland I am very sorry about your situation.) However I think it could have been better if our elected leaders would take off their Donkey and Elephant Masks and act like adults.


I'm sorry, but however much I may agree with your basic premise...  the idea of the left or the right actually acknowledging that the other might have a point is so absurd I have to laugh.  If they were to ever cease demonizing each other, the parties would fall apart and re-align completely differently -- and heaven only knows how.  We could even wind up with a single, dominant party!  (*Cough* RU's Moderate Republicans, anyone? *Cough*)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem i have, besides how much it screwed me personally, is this.  Anything that is a 'Government Mandate', is by it's very essence taking freedom away.  it takes away the choice of those who may, for what ever stupid reason they do it, decide NOT to get healthcare. 


I also have a problem with forcing me to pay for people to get healthcare when they could do it themselves by working.  Yes, you will probably say... well they go to the ER, and must be helped there, and then you have to pay for it anyways... and i would say... if they truly are not able to work, i am happy to pay for them.  however, if they are simply living off the system, then excuse me, but let them suffer... it is by their own choice. 


Harsh?  you're damned straight it is!  but you know what.  if we start forcing people to be responsible for themselves, instead of making it everyone elses job, then maybe they would actually learn to provide for themselves.... i know.. i must be demented or something.  The simple fact is, there are way to many people living of Government handouts that do not need to be, and the ACA only increases that.  so, in my humble opinion, what ever it may do that is good... is trumped by that simple fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few of you will already know some of the things I'm about to say. To others, who don't know me, take this with however many grains of salt you think you need.


I am an admin on another board. This other board is about firearms. That means, everything on this other board has to deal with some aspect of firearms or firearms ownership... except, our Law and Civil Rights subforum. That is the only subforum where the topic does not have to be, um, guns.


I have been running that particular section since 2004. In 2008, there was a case that went before the Supreme Court entitled, District of Columbia vs. Heller. On the last day of the session in June of 2008, the Court rendered a decision in that case. For the First time in over 200 years, the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) found the the right to keep and bear arms was an individually held right, not connected to the militia (or any military duty). A mere 2 years later, this same Court found that the second amendment (2A) applied to the 50 States and Territories through incorporation via the 14th amendment. For those who don't know, this is light speed plus, for our judicial system.


In the ensuing 5 and a half years, I have been tracking 2A cases that have been filed in federal courts. Currently, that list is close to 100 cases. Through the public access system (PACER), I have read all of the filings and all of the decisions. Cases have gone all the way up through the circuits and to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has not granted certiorari (a latin word that literally means certified; but in this context means they have agreed - or not - to take the case) on any other case. So Far.


So while I am not an attorney, I am well versed in constitutional law. Call me an amatuer scholar, if you will.


All of this to establish what Ken Barber says is exactly true. If the SCOTUS says it is a constitutional power of the Congress to force people into commerce, via the commerce clause, then it is Constitutional. Period. Full Stop!


At least until such a time as the Court decides to backtrack on the issue (which they have done in the past and most certainly will in the future) or an amemndment to the Constitution is ratified.


Do I think that the ACA is good law? No, I do not.


Do I think the SCOTUS was correct in NFIB vs. Sebelius? No, I do not.


The reasons for those two answers have nothing in common. The first answer is to the heart of the legislation itself. I simply do not think the legislation is sound.


The second however, hinges on the Courts ever broadening Commerce Clause litigation.


That is, the Court now accepts almost no limits to the power of the Congress to regulate Commerce. Here, in the instant case, the Court has said that the power to regulate also includes the power to demand you, a private citizen, engage in commerce, whether or not you want to. That power is now so broad as to have no boundaries whatsoever.


So for myself, as a watcher of the Court and things Constitutional, the ACA takes a far back seat to the decision in Sebelius, which grants the Federal Government unheard of power. With that decision, we no longer have a government of limited by Constitutional means.


And that should scare each and everyone of you, that are Americans.


"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think I have a unique perspective about all of this, because I am not American and I do not life on the United States.
We where raised whit a different set of laws and social concepts.
I do not know much about your laws and costumes, the only thing I have is what I read and see on the news, so the only think I can do it is to show you what we have here on Portugal.
This is what we have on our constitution about social security and healthcare:
Social rights and duties
Article 63.
Social security and solidarity
1 . Everyone has the right to social security .
2 . Incumbent on the State to organize , coordinate and support a unified and decentralized social security system , with the participation of trade unions , other representative organizations and associations representing other beneficiaries .
3 . Social security system protects citizens in sickness , old age, disability , widows and orphans , as well as unemployment and in all other situations of lack or decline of livelihood or work ability .
4 . Entire working time contributes , under the law , for the calculation of old-age pensions and disability , regardless of the activity in which you have been given sector .
5 . The State supports and supervises , under the law , the activity and functioning of private institutions of social solidarity and other recognized public interest non-profit in nature , in pursuit of charitable objectives enshrined in particular in this article , Article 67 in paragraph b ) of paragraph . 2 . , article 69 . thereof, in e) n . , Article 70 . 1 and articles 71 . º and 72 . º .
Article 64 . º
1 . Everyone has the right to health protection and the duty to defend and promote.
2 . The right to health protection is performed:
a) Through a national universal service and overall health and taking into account the economic and social conditions of citizens require;
b ) The creation of economic , social , cultural and environmental conditions ensuring, inter alia, the protection of children , youth and old age, and the systematic improvement of the conditions of life and work , as well as the promotion of physical culture and sport , academic and popular, and even the development of health education of the people and practices of healthy living .
3 . To ensure the right to health protection , has a primary duty to the State :
a) Ensure access for all citizens , regardless of their economic condition , care of preventive , curative and rehabilitative medicine;
b ) ensure a rational and efficient coverage nationwide in human resources and health facilities;
c ) Target action for the socialization of the costs of medical care and medicines ;
d ) To regulate and supervise the business and private forms of medicine , linking them to the national health service in order to ensure , in the public and private health institutions , adequate standards of efficiency and quality ;
e) To regulate and control the production , distribution , sale and use of chemical, biological and pharmaceutical and other means of treatment and diagnosis ;
f ) Establish policies for the prevention and treatment of drug dependence .
4 . The national health service is decentralized and participatory management.
So every month 11% of our income it is taken for social security, yes it is not a perfect system and some persons that advantage of it, one of the examples that I can give it is the gipsy’s, mind you not all of them are tat bad, but some take advantage of the system do not work have all the bills payed get social income and get payed to send there children to school, and if they are spoken about it the first thing they do is cry racism.
Now about politics, if you think your politic system is crazy, think about if you have 20 politic parties, we have1 president that it is just a figures head, 1 prime minister chief of government and a  parliament whit 6 politic parties represented , 2 from left wing, 1 from center left wing, 1 from center right wing and 1 from right wing. So try to imagine all this parties whit there on agendas, ruling a country 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very Interesting perspectives from both the Scotus point and another Country's. I might remind every that in the World Health Organization( www.who.int) evaluates and ranks country's health cares system using a process that evaluates a number of factors including . Efficiency, access to care,  Reliability of care, training of care providers, cost of care to Patients, Life expectancy, Infant mortality rate plus other factors


Here are a few highlights: 


1 France                          12. Portugal

2 Italy                                18.United Kingdom
3 San Marino                   22. Columbia
4 Andorra                         30. Canada
5 Malta                              36 Costa Rica
6 Singapore                    37. United States
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan


So my question turns to why are we so proud that we can just say, wow look at France they have it right, lets copy them. Or Even Portugal, Shit Singapore is better off than us. We could even learn from Colombia and Costa Rica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the problems of the Americans his that they tend to focus to much on the individual rights, and forget that although a country is constituted by individuals, they are an community, and some times like some said
''The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one''
And now probably i am going to piss of some Americans.
Most of the world see the Americans as an egocentric and narcissistic people whit an overwhelming need to dominate and impose there way of living and ideals to the rest of the world
And i hope i do not get ban for say it  :unsure: 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anjobranco, no worries. You will not be banned for expressing your perspective. There needs to be a perspective from outside the United States, because it is easy to get wrapped up in one's own country and forget that there are others who may have different ways to doing things and that in and of itself does not mean that it is wrong. Though I am sure some would say that it is because it is not the American way.


There is truth that at times the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few or one. It can be a fine line to walk at times but one that we need to try and do as best we can.


I would also say that IDIC needs to be practiced a bit more as well. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Diversity needs to be embraced, because from the perspectives of different people and cultures can arise ingenious solutions to problems. It can be easy at times to get so wrapped up in one point of view that you become blinded to other possibilities and solutions to a problem.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anjobranco, never fear to express your opinion, on this forums. We can not grow, as a people or as individuals when we block out an opinion that may be contrary to the one we hold.


To this point, You will never be banned for expressing your opinion. Not Here. Not as long as I'm an admin on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this to establish what Ken Barber says is exactly true. If the SCOTUS says it is a constitutional power of the Congress to force people into commerce, via the commerce clause, then it is Constitutional. Period. Full Stop!


I thought they were allowed to do this under the taxation clauses -- that the requirement to have healthcare is, in essence, simply an additional form of taxation?  Can't find a reference right now, gotta go, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought they were allowed to do this under the taxation clauses -- that the requirement to have healthcare is, in essence, simply an additional form of taxation?  Can't find a reference right now, gotta go, but...

Not quite, Rilbur.


What the Chief Justice wrote is that the penalty for not complying was not a penalty, as that was beyond the power of the Congress. If it was not a penalty, then it had to be a tax, which was within the power of the Congress.


Only, there are a couple of things wrong with that pronouncement. First and foremost, the Judiciary has no power to legislate. The Congress used the word, "penalty." The SCOTUS cannot change the wording of legislation to say or mean "Tax." Yet they did.


Secondly, if this is a tax, then it must be apportioned, according to the Constitution. The only direct tax that may be imposed is a tax on income (16th amendment). That has yet to be (successfully) challenged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am on Medicare and I also carry private Health Care supplement insurance, so I am not as impacted as others might be. What I have noticed is that drug prices are escalating rapidly, as is the co-pay. Medicare is reimbursing Doctors less now, pushing more onto the patients in the form of co-pay. Medical supplies, in my case, Diabetic Testing Supplies are getting rough to obtain. I always run out and have to go without testing before I can convince the supplier that 90 days has gone by and i SHOULD be out. I find ambiguous charges on the bill, for which I am responsible and, when I question them, the answer is always "Government Mandate"! For example, the battery for the tester, which I can purchase at Radio Shack, same brand, same number, for $3.00, the supplier charges me $16 and claims the government requires it be changed every 90 days. The battery usually lasts 9 to 12 months at two tests per day!


I suppose that it what telephone book medicine is all about!


Medicare is not a handout, I paid dearly for it as a deduction to my wages for years and I would be willing to bet many folks are in the same situation as my wife, she died before she ever collected a dime on what she had paid in. You can bat that the government never offered me anything as a rebate to help pay her final expenses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Your right Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security are not hand outs or entitlements as some people refer to them, We pay for them.


I would continue to question the validity of the "government Mandate" response and ask them to show you where the government has mandated it in writing. 


There is a solution to all of these healthcare issues and its called Universal Health Care. A system where we pay for health care via a tax. I know some of the arguments against it but I will remind you that we are ranked 37th in health care systems and most of those ranked above us have a form of universal Health Care. And if you think the tax would cost you more than your current health care costs think again. 


June, 1991 General Accounting Office

“If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage”

December, 1991 Congressional Budget Office

“If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In fact, all US residents might be covered by health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower payment rates for services used by the privately insured. The prospects for con-trolling health care expenditure in future years would also be improved.” 

April, 1993 Congressional Budget Office

“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would decrease by $910 per capita.

The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”

“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have $144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita, but taxes would have to increase by $1,261 per capita to finance this plan.” (“Single-Payer and All-Payer Health Insurance Systems Using Medicare’s Payment Rates” ref : CBO memorandum, 60 pages)

And last but not least

July 2013: Economist Gerald Friedman, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Amherst

“Under the single-payer system created by HR 676 [the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich.], the U.S. could save an estimated $592 billion annually by slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). In 2014, the savings would be enough to cover all 44 million uninsured and upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“Specifically, the savings from a single-payer plan would be more than enough to fund $343 billion in improvements to the health system such as expanded coverage, improved benefits, enhanced reimbursement of providers serving indigent patients, and the elimination of co-payments and deductibles in 2014.

“Health care financing in the U.S. is regressive, weighing heaviest on the poor, the working class, and the sick. With the progressive financing plan outlined for HR 676, 95% of all U.S. households would save money.

“HR 676 would also establish a system for future cost control using proven-effective methods such as negotiated fees, global budgets, and capital planning. Over time, reduced health cost inflation over the next decade (“bending the cost curve”) would save $1.8 trillion, making comprehensive health benefits sustainable for future generations.”

Excerpted from “Funding HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, How we can afford a national single-payer health plan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken, let me ask you this one little question then... why are rich people form those countries come here for treatment?  it's because in a single payer system, the government decides how much a doctor will get for treating someone, not the doctor.  all that is, is more government control in our lives, and frankly, that is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken, let me ask you this one little question then... why are rich people form those countries come here for treatment?  it's because in a single payer system, the government decides how much a doctor will get for treating someone, not the doctor.  all that is, is more government control in our lives, and frankly, that is bad.

You're missing a few steps in there somewhere, Roland.  More than a few, even.


But at the same time, I'd argue that health services should be handled the same as any other public service, by government monopoly.  There are many places where I'd agree to restricting government interference, but government interference does have a role in some places, and in my mind insuring that everyone gets access to health care should be one of those!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and then we would see the death of private practices where Doctors have the incentive to be good at what they do.  lets face it, good, bad of indifferent, the reason that we have some of the best doctors in the world, is because we make it profitable for them to be that good. 


when the government gets involved you have the VA health system.  and for anyone who has ever had to deal with the VA, you will understand why that is bad.  Remember, no government is good at doing anything.  they are not efficient, they have very little accountability, and are more corrupt then any insurance company ever thought about being.  personally, and i don't know about anyone else, but i don't want the government making my heath care decisions for me.


oh wait.  we already have Obamacare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


In response to your question why do Rich People come here from those countries for treatment. I have been asked this many times in discussion with people that oppose a single payer health care system and I respond with there is 0 statistical data to support that claim and I have tried to find it myself. The claim is purely anecdotal and not factual. Actually the statistical data is really the opposite.



"To examine the extent to which Canadian residents seek medical care across the border, we collected data about Canadians’ use of services from ambulatory care facilities and hospitals located in Michigan, New York State, and Washington State during 1994–1998. We also collected information from several Canadian sources, including the 1996 National Population Health Survey, the provincial Ministries of Health, and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. Results from these sources do not support the widespread perception that Canadian residents seek care extensively in the United States. Indeed, the numbers found are so small as to be barely detectible relative to the use of care by Canadians at home."

That is old data.


Here is newer one


Whether pushed by the high costs of U.S. health care or pulled by the attractions of niche services in exotic locales, Americans are going abroad in search of more satisfying health services. It’s not just for cosmetic procedures. U.S. residents are replacing their heart valves, filling their cavities and undergoing other medical treatments outside of the country................Accurate estimates of how many Americans travel outside the country for medical services are difficult to determine – the number ranges from 150,000 annually to 500,000 in 2005, depending on the source. The federal government does not track the number. In addition, it is difficult to keep tabs on people who go to Mexico for dental care or who travel abroad and happen to have a medical procedure while at their destination. 

How about a more notable publication.  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-31-mexico-health-care_N.htm?csp=N009

So I turn the question around to you If our Healthcare system is so great why are so many americans traveling to other countries for treatment.

There are actual Brokerages in some countries that will coordinate your travel and care for you. For a substantial fee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the VA health system.


I am a veteran and so is my bother and so is my father and so was my grandfather. We have all at some time or another made use of the VA facilities. After some major medical issues recently were we almost lost my father, he began seeking treatment through the VA. Not only did they finally correctly diagnosed his condition but they  also discontinued numerous medications that where contradicting each other and just running up cost. The non-VA doctors just kept adding medication and adding medication. Since starting treatment at the VA his blood-sugar levels have stabilized, his energy is restored, his cholesterol is down, and the blood clots that where causing stroke after stroke have begun shrinking.  I have taken him to many of his appointments at the VA and instead of finding the expected cold and rude staff. I was amazed at how concerned and caring they were. Right down to the lady at the coffee shop that remembers my dads name. The Doctors and Nurses treated my dad with the respect he deserves not like the Private hospitals where they just wanted to move onto the next patient so they could make more money.  The VA without a doubt saved my fathers life from a corrupt medical/pharmaceutical/insurance conglomerate that was killing him.


Now that is anecdotal so let me back it up with some facts


Thirty-Two VA Medical Facilities Named “Top Performers”


VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

One more for you not from a VA source


For quality, it's hard to top veterans' health care

A little excerpt

     SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Where can you find the highest quality health care in the U.S.? There isn't one single answer, but believe it or not, many studies and independent experts point to the Veterans Health Administration as among the best. The VA has its own system-wide electronic health record, sophisticated quality-measurement tools, a coordinated approach to care, long relationships with patients and close ties to teaching hospitals, which supply a steady stream of medical residents.


And BTW the VA is socialized Health Care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It is a problem for me that the Federal Government thinks it may require me to purchase something, ANYTHING, from a private vendor.  A BIG problem.  And it doesn't matter whether or not any branch thinks it's constitutional, or even if it actually IS constitutional.  It definitely should NOT be, and that is a problem for me.  As Ken has said, there are ways to guarantee universal care.  And Lord Roland, those of us with insurance have ALWAYS paid for those who don't.  Why do you think a hospital room (just the room) costs $800 a night for those who can pay (either privately or with insurance)? It certainly isn't because that's how much the space costs per person per night.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...