from a catholic piont of view, because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

[dairygirl4u2c]

from a catholic piont of view, because of healthcare, on balance obama as president was a good thing

i dont really want this debate to morph into whether it's ever morally permissible to vote for a prochoice candidate, but if it does, at least it will have some due consideration to go along with it. 

whether you like obamacare or not, which i tend to dislike, had mccain or a republican been president we probably wouldn't have accompished healthcare reform. it took the phenomenon that was barak obama when he was first elected, with all the democratic congressment that went with him, to get that change. he's also changed the conversation to anyone who dare question to repeal his healthcare..... to, what are you going to replace it with? yes republicans do tend to say repeal and replace, but now because of obama there's a certain heighted expectation for health care- you can't take away people's healthcare, and you need to have a plan. for real, because not everything is wrong with obamacare, they could just as easily talk about reforming it, but they mostly tend to be political and say repeal and replace. 
 
(and, for all the states that accepted medicaid expansion, their death rates have fallen accordingly)

obama care isn't perfect, but it's changed the conversation, and is a step in the right direction. 

with all this in consideration, this is why i can say and not be ashamed, that i voted for obama.  

[CatherineM]

It's not a healthcare law. It's a law requiring health insurance. 

[Luigi]

Obamacare is having negative effects in my workplace. It's the law of unintended consequences, but the people suffering the consequences don't usually care whether they were intended or not.

Previously, part-time employees could cobble together something like a full-time job by teaching nine credit hours per semester, and then working 12 to 20 hours per week in the writing lab or the reading lab or something like that. It was enough to make ends meet until they were hired for a full-time position.

Now, they are allowed to work only 24 hours per week. Period. Amen. Alleluia. Not one minute more. If they did, we'd have to give them insurance. And we won't give them insurance - why should we when the government will provide it?

So part-timers are now completely part-time, with little opportunity to make ends meet until they get hired.

Obamacare has drawn a hard and fast line that separates the haves from the have-nots, and the have-nots will have a helluva time ever becoming haves.

I disagree that "on balance Obama as president was a good thing."

[dUSt]

I'm just wondering why someone would copy and paste something that didn't have any capital letters.

[blazeingstar]

It isn't a good thing.  It's a law that you must have care.  For many, this has simply meant they pay exorbitant amounts of money for sub-par care.  The standards set about in obamacare didn't really make care better, just like it didn't make care better in Massachuessetts.  People still went to the ER for sniffles because it was still cheaper between co-pays and prescriptions.

All Obama did was to indenture the American people to insurance companies which now means we have some of the worst healthcare in the industrial world.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

All Obama did was to indenture the American people to insurance companies which now means we have some of the worst healthcare in the industrial world.

 

 

The US did before, too. You still do now, but Obamacare did not really change that in any significant way.

[blazeingstar]

The US did before, too. You still do now, but Obamacare did not really change that in any significant way.

Well, except for people are now forced to pay for that horrible care or be penalized.   I'm sorry, but being forced to pay $200 a month for insurace for a single person plus co-pays that are $30-$50 are making people alot worse off than better.  Many people had found ways to get decent health care through cash systems and minute clinics along with "catastrophic" plans.  I know I sure did in college.  But I also am glad I have a full time job now and am not in college because not everyone has parents that have plans you can stay on without causing undue hardship to them.  This is a serious issue among people who may have single parents who have insurance through the state already but aren't eligible on their own.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, except for people are now forced to pay for that horrible care or be penalized.   I'm sorry, but being forced to pay $200 a month for insurace for a single person plus co-pays that are $30-$50 are making people alot worse off than better.  Many people had found ways to get decent health care through cash systems and minute clinics along with "catastrophic" plans.  I know I sure did in college.  But I also am glad I have a full time job now and am not in college because not everyone has parents that have plans you can stay on without causing undue hardship to them.  This is a serious issue among people who may have single parents who have insurance through the state already but aren't eligible on their own.

So y'all went from having the worst healthcare in the developed world to having even more of the worst healthcare in the developed world.

[blazeingstar]

So y'all went from having the worst healthcare in the developed world to having even more of the worst healthcare in the developed world.

Well the care hasn't exactly changed, we went from having amazing care for the few rich,  expensive but excellent care for most and basic but affordable care for many poor to only basic and expensive care for all but the rich and the few who work for companies willing to pay $500m/o in healthcare benefits. 

If my husband wasn't on my insurance even with his just-below-state-average income he would of gone from being able to afford dental, eye and other to having it be a prohibitive burden...rates got jacked up for many small business like the one he's employed with because they "had" to cover things that were covered by Flexible health spending before and kept regular rates low.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not saying obamacare is good law. it has good and bad points to it. (primarily that it has saved thousands of lives as being good) all i'm saying is it's a path in the right direction of everyone having healthcare. without him passing that, we'd probably still have thousands dying, and thousands more without healthcare that under obama do have care. obamacare changed the expectations for any changes to healhcare law, for the better. 

[blazeingstar]

i'm not saying obamacare is good law. it has good and bad points to it. (primarily that it has saved thousands of lives as being good) all i'm saying is it's a path in the right direction of everyone having healthcare. without him passing that, we'd probably still have thousands dying, and thousands more without healthcare that under obama do have care. obamacare changed the expectations for any changes to healhcare law, for the better. 

 

Obama "care" is a misnomer, there's no care involved, it's not healthcare, it's a health insurance law.  That's it.  Care is a tercerary result of this law.  Insurance is the focus.

It very likely hasn't saved lives, and by the merit that it causes crowed ER's probably has cost lives.   Thousands paying for health INSURANCE does not equal, by any stretch of the imagination, thousands able to use health CARE.  Thousands more people are insured.  That's pretty much it.  America doesn't have thousands dying on the streets from lack of health care today than we had 10 years ago.  The law didn't even touch some of the most serious issues.  Most of those who are suffering right now are those with mental illness and chemical dependance as there is almost nothing to stop them from being impoverished....and they, even if they have free care often still choose ER care rather than primary.  And ER care was never meant to replace primary care so often these people are getting less care and there's some evidence that this sort of care is leading to the opioid and heroin crisis.  Now that's taking thousands of lives.

The only good that it's done is allowed some more freedom for people with "pre existing" conditions to have health care provided...but that still doesn't really address the very real problems it creates.  Yes, that part is noble and good for many but the damage from the rest of the law is real and is scary.

The root of the problem is still here.  There are still people with crazy "good" insurance that end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.  The problems that it fixed for some it dumped in the laps of others.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Obama "care" is a misnomer, there's no care involved, it's not healthcare, it's a health insurance law.  That's it.  Care is a tercerary result of this law.  Insurance is the focus.

It very likely hasn't saved lives, and by the merit that it causes crowed ER's probably has cost lives.   Thousands paying for health INSURANCE does not equal, by any stretch of the imagination, thousands able to use health CARE.  Thousands more people are insured.  That's pretty much it.  America doesn't have thousands dying on the streets from lack of health care today than we had 10 years ago.  The law didn't even touch some of the most serious issues.  Most of those who are suffering right now are those with mental illness and chemical dependance as there is almost nothing to stop them from being impoverished....and they, even if they have free care often still choose ER care rather than primary.  And ER care was never meant to replace primary care so often these people are getting less care and there's some evidence that this sort of care is leading to the opioid and heroin crisis.  Now that's taking thousands of lives.

The only good that it's done is allowed some more freedom for people with "pre existing" conditions to have health care provided...but that still doesn't really address the very real problems it creates.  Yes, that part is noble and good for many but the damage from the rest of the law is real and is scary.

The root of the problem is still here.  There are still people with crazy "good" insurance that end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills.  The problems that it fixed for some it dumped in the laps of others.

What do you consider to be the true root of the problem?

[blazeingstar]

What do you consider to be the true root of the problem?

Patients and Doctors not aware of actual costs--not say cost of drug to an individual based on insurance (tho there's that, too) but actual cost of honest to goodness what it really takes to even do a adult well check up.  I can call vets and get one for my dog, yet many dr offices don't have a "cash" price for basic care that they will quote you.  I believe if actual prices had to be posted, even if the prices included large subsidies for pro-bono care, we'd see unnecessary tests drop, we'd see better tests develop.  We'd see a bigger generic prescription market and more encouragement of medical innovation.  

Right now the cost of a service is based on the deals insurance companies have with hospital and health networks.  An in network surgery for two men by the same dr, hours apart, same place and same day with the same results (eg no complications, same amount of meds and supplies used) can have billing differences of tens of thousands of dollars.

And while the government is part of the reason for inflated college prices at least those are stated.  One can choose to get a decent education at a state school or pay tons and go to a private school.  And lets be real, most hospitals are mediocre to decent so most patients would not be at a loss in health for paying less for Podunk Memorial than before.  They'd just know the real price.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, that is fair. The healthcare + insurance system in the US has severely distorted prices. There would be much less demand for medical tourism if that were not the case.

[Peace]

Patients and Doctors not aware of actual costs--not say cost of drug to an individual based on insurance (tho there's that, too) but actual cost of honest to goodness what it really takes to even do a adult well check up.  I can call vets and get one for my dog, yet many dr offices don't have a "cash" price for basic care that they will quote you.  I believe if actual prices had to be posted, even if the prices included large subsidies for pro-bono care, we'd see unnecessary tests drop, we'd see better tests develop.  We'd see a bigger generic prescription market and more encouragement of medical innovation.  

I do not think if that is right. If a person does not have insurance, doctors will provide a price that they will charge for a medical service, if it is paid directly by the patient in cash instead of being submitted for payment through insurance. That price is usually not discussed if the patient has insurance, because that price will almost always be higher than the deductible that the insured person will have to pay for the procedure if it is submitted though insurance. If a person has insurance there is simply no need for him to know that information, becuase it will almost always be more economical for him to have insurance cover it.

But I do not see any logical reason why any of the benefits you proposed would flow from posting a "cash" price in a market that does not exist. It is not as though doctors are going to accept less money from a private individual than from an insurance company. If you look into it you will see that the opposite is almost always true. If a doctor receives XYZ amount of money for a procedure from an insurance company, the doctor will charge 2 or 3 times more than that if the procedure is paid for directly without using insurance. That is because an individual does not have the type of negotiating power to keep the price down that a large insurance company does.

But let's say that a hospital would receive $20,000 though insurance formedical procedure ABC, but then posts on its website that it would be willing to perform the same procedure for $50,000 if the a patient pays for it in cash. How exactly is that supposed to lead to "unnecessary tests drop, we'd see better tests develop.  We'd see a bigger generic prescription market and more encouragement of medical innovation"?

That sounds like a bit of a pipe dream. I don't see any reason for that to occur just by posting a price in a market that largely does not exist due to the existence of insurance companies.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Peace