The Constitution Separates Church And State,except For Healthcare

[4588686]

Single payer (Obama-plan)  health care systems will increase  the cost of health care, exponentially

Obama care is not single payer.  At all.  Or even close.  As I mentioned before.  I don't know if this helps at all but the Affordable Care Act is Obamacare.  It is not a single payer system. Obamacare is a tweaking of the for-profit health care system.  

[StMichael]

Rant all you like, but it will be single payer once fully enacted.

 

Firstly, this unconstitutional law, redefines full time employment at 30 hours. So, workers are being cut to 28 hours. This forces them onto the future single payer system.

 

Those with "cadillac" plans are being fined, therefore, those will be dropped and forced onto the future single payer system.

 

Bottom line is that premiums have gone up over 46% since this @#$% law was shoved through and private insurers are guaranteed to assist the government in what will be a single payer system by the end of this decade.

 

You might want to read up on it before you bloviate any further. But here is the bottom line:

 

- The Federal Government is now in charge of all our care

- The Federal Government will have access to all our medical records

- The IRS will have access to all our medical information and insurance information

- The actual care of our health will not improve as this law is all about seizing 1/6th of the private economy and managing it ala Medicare.

- We ALL must buy insurance, even if we don't want it, or be FINED.

 

This law is so far off the reservation and an absolute invasion of privacy. The government has no business getting between me and my doctor or between me and how I see fit to care for myself.

 

As for its name, it is already proving itself to be the Unaffordable care act as businesses are dropping part time employees off their plans (Universal is the latest as of today - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-universal-part-time-insurance-20130219,0,4887679.story),  Labor Unions, who were behind it, are opting out, Poor children are losing their health plans and it is being replaced with inferior Medicaid (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/02/20/an-obamacare-setback-for-poor-children/) and lets forget how premiums on a family of 4 will exceed $20,000 per year (up from $8K).

 

Let me know where I can send you your "I  :heart: Utopia" bumper sticker that you can place on your electric car while you eat carrots and broccoli listening to NPR.

 

 

Obama care is not single payer.  At all.  Or even close.  As I mentioned before.  I don't know if this helps at all but the Affordable Care Act is Obamacare.  It is not a single payer system. Obamacare is a tweaking of the for-profit health care system.  

 

[add]

Obama care is not single payer.  At all.  Or even close.  As I mentioned before.  I don't know if this helps at all but the Affordable Care Act is Obamacare.  It is not a single payer system. Obamacare is a tweaking of the for-profit health care system.  

 

You do understand that the Single-payer health care is similar to the health services provided by Medicare in the US. The government pays for all care that is delivered for both private and/or not for profit services.

Single-payer health care is a stinking monopoly  Monopolies and the free market don't mix, never have (it's basic economics)

The likely outcome will be that; either the cost of healthcare insurance with skyrocket, the level of care will severely diminish or both.

You also don’t need to be clairvoyant to foresee research and development come to a streaking halt if the incentive to profit is taken away.

Obamacare will be unmitigated disaster.

 

[Winchester]

Googling the names of the authors of this book returns various white supremacist groups. (Which is not intended as an accusation against either the authors or you Winchester.)

 

I've never read the book. Wouldn't surprise me to find them latching onto it. It would be a "see, other people were enslaved" argument, for them, and they would imagine it somehow made slavery less horrible.

Single payer health care systems lower the cost of health care.

 

Nominal price, maybe.

[r2Dtoo]

I've never read the book. Wouldn't surprise me to find them latching onto it. It would be a "see, other people were enslaved" argument, for them, and they would imagine it somehow made slavery less horrible.

 

Nominal price, maybe.

From 2008:

 

 

There's a lot you can say against a single payer system such as government control of health care, but that it would be more expensive doesn't seem to be the case however.  

 

Oh, and Obamacare isn't single-payer, and likely never will be.  Barrack Obama going on MSNBC one time and saying that's the point of his health care plan does not make it true.

Edited February 21, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[StMichael]

Another one.

 

The key to getting down costs in the US were and still are not addressed.

 

Where is the tort reform that has quadrupled costs for hospitals, doctors and patients? Still none.

 

Where is the ability for insurance company competition across state lines? Still none.

 

Obamacare is designed to be a single payer and will be a single payer by the end of this decade unless repealed.

 

Additionally, what is not in this chart is that we live longer, we make more money and we seek specialized care, especially with aging baby boomers who want to act as if they were 25 (knee replacements, viagra, testosterone treatments, hip replacements, etc.).

 

Now we will shift from doctors to nurse practitioners in store fronts or at your local wally world. 

 

Some actually believe that all that is changing is controlled health care costs, which in itself, is insane. The government can only increase costs across the board, back and front end. And we have not even seen the so-called benefits of this unconstitutional law and our insurance costs have been driven through the roof since 2010 over 46% and loss of benefits as well.

 

 

From 2008:

 

 

There's a lot you can say against a single payer system such as government control of health care, but that it would be more expensive doesn't seem to be the case however.  

 

Oh, and Obamacare isn't single-payer, and likely never will be.  Barrack Obama going on MSNBC one time and saying that's the point of his health care plan does not make it true.

 

[4588686]

You do understand that the Single-payer health care is similar to the health services provided by Medicare in the US. The government pays for all care that is delivered for both private and/or not for profit services.

Single-payer health care is a stinking monopoly  Monopolies and the free market don't mix, never have (it's basic economics)

The likely outcome will be that; either the cost of healthcare insurance with skyrocket, the level of care will severely diminish or both.

You also don’t need to be clairvoyant to foresee research and development come to a streaking halt if the incentive to profit is taken away.

Obamacare will be unmitigated disaster.

 

 

 

I've already addressed this.  Market failure occurs in much of the health care system.  I most instances markets do drive down costs.  And that is true for some perepherial, elective aspects of the health care system, things like lasik eye surgery.  It is not true for most of the health care market and that is why countries that run effective single payers systems have dramatically less expensive health care.  

[r2Dtoo]

Another one.

 

The key to getting down costs in the US were and still are not addressed.

 

Where is the tort reform that has quadrupled costs for hospitals, doctors and patients? Still none.

 

Where is the ability for insurance company competition across state lines? Still none.

 

Obamacare is designed to be a single payer and will be a single payer by the end of this decade unless repealed.

 

Additionally, what is not in this chart is that we live longer, we make more money and we seek specialized care, especially with aging baby boomers who want to act as if they were 25 (knee replacements, viagra, testosterone treatments, hip replacements, etc.).

 

Now we will shift from doctors to nurse practitioners in store fronts or at your local wally world. 

 

Some actually believe that all that is changing is controlled health care costs, which in itself, is insane. The government can only increase costs across the board, back and front end. And we have not even seen the so-called benefits of this unconstitutional law and our insurance costs have been driven through the roof since 2010 over 46% and loss of benefits as well.

Actually, according the CIA's World Fact book the United States ranks 51 out of 222 countries listed for life expectancy.  Number 1 was Monaco.  We're behind most European countries, and the entire European Union ranked 31.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

 

That there is a coming doctor shortage to be made worse by Obamacare appears to be true.

Edited February 21, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[Winchester]

From 2008:

 

 

There's a lot you can say against a single payer system such as government control of health care, but that it would be more expensive doesn't seem to be the case however.  

 

Oh, and Obamacare isn't single-payer, and likely never will be.  Barrack Obama going on MSNBC one time and saying that's the point of his health care plan does not make it true.

 

Thank you for showing me a chart on spending.

 

Oh, and I never said Bipartisancare was single-payer.
 

Edited February 21, 2013 by Winchester

[r2Dtoo]

Anytime, Winchester, anytime.

[Winchester]

Anytime, Winchester, anytime.

 

Be sure to read my edit.

[r2Dtoo]

I know you didn't say Obamacare was single-payer.  I was referencing your claim that a single payer system only saves a nominal amount of money. 

[GregorMendel]

Actually, according the CIA's World Fact book the United States ranks 51 out of 222 countries listed for life expectancy.  Number 1 was Monaco.  We're behind most European countries, and the entire European Union ranked 31.

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

 

That there is a coming doctor shortage to be made worse by Obamacare appears to be true.

 

 

Yes there is a physician shortage on the horizon, but that has been an expected reality since the late 90's. If anything, the Affordable Care Act is at least a half-hearted attempted to draw young medical school graduates back towards primary care specialties and general practice.

 

If you really want to change the system (or at least optimize the performance of the players and providers involved), talk to your congressmen about allocating additional funds to Medicare, not only for your parent's well-being, since physician reimbursement has been a decades-long problem leading to a worrying trend in more physicians opting out of being medicare providers. Expanding funding to Medicare would also develop and fund more residency spots in more specialties (given that Medicare currently funds nearly all of the graduate medical education system in this country), which will at least cover the growing number of US grads who dont match each year, if not increase the number of specialists available.  Finally, consider that if the state was more involved in medical education, while there probably wouldnt be any new positions open to applicants, there would probably be a shift in managing (if not an outright drop) in tuition price, which would lead to fewer graduates reacting to more than $250,000 in debt by choosing specialties which command exorbitant fees, and as a result, restricted access.

[r2Dtoo]

Yes there is a physician shortage on the horizon, but that has been an expected reality since the late 90's. If anything, the Affordable Care Act is at least a half-hearted attempted to draw young medical school graduates back towards primary care specialties and general practice.

 

If you really want to change the system (or at least optimize the performance of the players and providers involved), talk to your congressmen about allocating additional funds to Medicare, not only for your parent's well-being, since physician reimbursement has been a decades-long problem leading to a worrying trend in more physicians opting out of being medicare providers. Expanding funding to Medicare would also develop and fund more residency spots in more specialties (given that Medicare currently funds nearly all of the graduate medical education system in this country), which will at least cover the growing number of US grads who dont match each year, if not increase the number of specialists available.  Finally, consider that if the state was more involved in medical education, while there probably wouldnt be any new positions open to applicants, there would probably be a shift in managing (if not an outright drop) in tuition price, which would lead to fewer graduates reacting to more than $250,000 in debt by choosing specialties which command exorbitant fees, and as a result, restricted access.

This is all well and good, but Obamacare defunds Medicare to pay for itself making it part of the problem in this area.

Edited February 21, 2013 by r2Dtoo

[Winchester]

I know you didn't say Obamacare was single-payer.  I was referencing your claim that a single payer system only saves a nominal amount of money. 

 

I know what you said. Since it was a bizarre thing to say, I made sure there was a clarification.

 

"Nominal price" doesn't mean "a nominal amount of money".