Re: Healthcare Law in the U.S.

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:42 am

LMarkoya wrote:
johninajijic wrote:
CheenaGringo wrote:John:

Do you ever stop and think before you post your drivel? What would be your explanation for a conservative leaning Supreme Court upholding the law? Could it be that they actually followed their mandate and disregarded politics when making this decision?

The mandate is illegal forcing people to buy a product they don't want, when the majority of the US didn't want it. What didn't those morons not understand??

Those morons are a republican majority....making you one of them ...and where do you base your facts from...what majority?
All Americans should have health care...even if they are stupid enough to think they don't need it. And the mandate is obviosly legal....its done.

ALL Americans including 26 year old KIDS as one idiot Politician referred to them as. No health care should go beyond age 18. Let them go to work and have an employer pay for part of it. ALL Americans should have health care, even the drunks and druggies who will cost the system a fortune. Then it will become like the FAILED Canadian system where everyone goes to the Dr. for a sniffle. Ask any Canadian who will answer you honestly.

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:45 am

gringal wrote:Just a practical question: How does this affect expats?

I don't think anyone will know for awhile, but it could affect those without insurance. For the self insured here with money, I'm not sure if it would bother them to be fined.

by gringal Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:47 am

I didn't get a chance to edit before you answered with another Opinion.
Don't care about opinions. Just the facts if anyone has them.

by Axixic Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:47 am

sampati wrote:Do you know if there are any states that do not mandate car insurance? Never knew it was a state thing, always thought it was required of everyone. Thanks.

Another essential difference is, of course, that mandated car insurance only applies if you choose to drive/own a car.

by Axixic Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:49 am

CheenaGringo wrote:Are the opinions expressed by numerous participants more valid than the close minded views of a party of one?

Touche.

by CheenaGringo Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:50 am

The mandated health insurance only applies if you choose to get sick. HA!

by gringal Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:51 am

johninajijic wrote:
gringal wrote:Just a practical question: How does this affect expats?

I don't think anyone will know for awhile, but it could affect those without insurance. For the self insured here with money, I'm not sure if it would bother them to be fined.

"With money"? Think about it before jumping in with that. There are a number of people both with and without "money" who must self-insure because they are ineligible for any private insurance, at any price.

by Mainecoons Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:53 am

Quote without comment:

From 2009:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…OBAMA: Yes.STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Famous quote: "There ain't no free lunch."

by Rolly Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:58 am

The Court says OK. The law stands.

by Axixic Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:58 am

johninajijic wrote:...it will become like the FAILED Canadian system where everyone goes to the Dr. for a sniffle...

In fact, the Canadian system works quite well in terms of ordinary everyday medical services, the types of services one would seek from a Family Physician or clinic. Where the Canadian system lags behind is in its handling of larger -involved- services, such as surgeries under general anaesthetic or large scale diagnostic services.

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:02 am

Axixic wrote:
johninajijic wrote:...it will become like the FAILED Canadian system where everyone goes to the Dr. for a sniffle...

In fact, the Canadian system works quite well in terms of ordinary everyday medical services, the types of services one would seek from a Family Physician or clinic. Where the Canadian system lags behind is in its handling of larger -involved- services, such as surgeries under general anaesthetic or large scale diagnostic services.

Not what I'm told by the Canadians that I know.

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:03 am

Rolly wrote:The Court says OK. The law stands.

Won't do you any good, you live here permanently. I hope you have private insurance here.

by gringal Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:03 am

And this three year old conversation means what, today? In fact, it was the Supreme Court that decided it was a tax. The government was presenting the case on a different basis........but let's talk tax . I don't think anyone wants to pay income taxes. Nobody wants to pay health insurance if they firmly believe that they'll never get sick.

On the other side of the argument, people who have chronic, uninsurable conditions will be happy with the new law. Maybe it depends largely on how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.

by Axixic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:05 am

johninajijic wrote:Not what I'm told by the Canadians that I know.

Don't really care what your imaginary friends tell you. I am saying how it is.

by Parker Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:05 am

CheenaGringo wrote:"when the majority of the US didn't want it."

Granted this is a brand new poll but at this point in time, those who agree with the ruling outnumber those who don't by approximately a 2:1 margin:
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12459343-vote-do-you-agree-with-supreme-court-ruling-on-health-care-law

Well at 11am 6/28/12 it is at 58.7 agree and 37.8 disagree.

by gringal Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:06 am

johninajijic wrote:
Rolly wrote:The Court says OK. The law stands.

Won't do you any good, you live here permanently. I hope you have private insurance here.

John........your combination of rage and glee is getting tiresome. Sleep

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:12 am

gringal wrote:
johninajijic wrote:
Rolly wrote:The Court says OK. The law stands.

Won't do you any good, you live here permanently. I hope you have private insurance here.

John........your combination of rage and glee is getting tiresome.

Go back to bed. LOL

by Mainecoons Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:15 am

This isn't the Canadian system or anything remotely like it. To start with, the Canadian system is administered at the provincial level, not run out of Ottawa. Our Canadian friends tell us that the availability of more serious medical care is variable depending on where you live there. Many places escape the "waiting list" problems that have been publicized extensively.

Canadians as a group are healthier than Americans, the latter being the most obese people on the planet these days. Canadians are well down the list on most illnesses related to poor life style when compared with Americans. Canada has a little more than one tenth the population of the U.S.

BTW, several things of interest in this decision. It attempted to narrow the Commerce Clause interpretation and more importantly, it negated the attempt of the Federal government to force states to accept a big expansion in Medicaid. That latter part could have very big implications in the actual implementation of this law going forward.

The thing that amazes me the most about all this is that anyone could look at the performance and competence of the U.S. Federal government and believe that they can actually run this thing successfully.

We who live here do have access to decent health care at prices that are a great deal more affordable than in the U.S. It will be interesting to see if this legislation eventually causes more folks to join us.

by Parker Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:18 am

…”On the other side of the argument, people who have chronic, uninsurable conditions will be happy with the new law. Maybe it depends largely on how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.”…

Does anyone know if the government will regulate these premiums because if they don’t who will even be able to afford them?

by johninajijic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:23 am

Parker wrote:…”On the other side of the argument, people who have chronic, uninsurable conditions will be happy with the new law. Maybe it depends largely on how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.”…

Does anyone know if the government will regulate these premiums because if they don’t who will even be able to afford them?

Do you think that the Gov't gives a rats bum about it's citizens and what they can or cannot afford? There should be major premium adjustments for people who cannot afford health care.

by Axixic Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:30 am

Parker wrote:Does anyone know if the government will regulate these premiums because if they don’t who will even be able to afford them?

Well, the Libertarian view would be that, left unregulated, market forces will determine premiums. But I guess that only provides comfort if one subscribes to a Libertarian viewpoint.

by Mainecoons Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:36 am

Interestingly, John, you all may benefit from this, at least unless the system breaks down under the weight of costs and/or maladministration, as it would make it possible for you all to get coverage for pre-existing conditions. Have you considered this?

I just wonder where the money is going to come from. At what point is it no longer possible for a government borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to borrow even more? Empathy is easy, paying for it, not nearly so easy. Particularly when existing deficits are so large that you could confiscate all the personal wealth in America over $1 million and not cover even one year's red ink.

Mexico, for all its flaws, looks better and better to me.

BTW, most Libertarians, at least myself and those I know, don't confuse the medical system in the U.S. with anything remotely resembling free capitalism.

by hockables Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:37 am

Axixic wrote:
johninajijic wrote:Not what I'm told by the Canadians that I know.

Don't really care what your imaginary friends tell you. I am saying how it is.

Wait times are the biggest issue....
Approx 3 - 6 months for Knee or Hip Replacement..... cost $ 0.00

However... I've met a few people who had Cardiac issues and had surgery same or next day... ... cost $ 0.00

I believe they call it Prioritise

by RoofBob Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:41 am

johninajijic wrote:
Parker wrote:…”On the other side of the argument, people who have chronic, uninsurable conditions will be happy with the new law. Maybe it depends largely on how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.”…

Does anyone know if the government will regulate these premiums because if they don’t who will even be able to afford them?

Do you think that the Gov't gives a rats bum about it's citizens and what they can or cannot afford? There should be major premium adjustments for people who cannot afford health care.

I agree, the Gov doesn't care and without cost supports the average Joe is going to live a painful life and have a painful death.

by Mainecoons Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:47 am

The one reality about all this, and one that really has nothing to do with politics at all, is the reality of demographics. As the baby boom has moved through the population it has driven every aspect of social and financial life that are most relevant to it. First it overwhelmed the hospital maternity wards, then the grade schools, then the high schools, then it created a boom in colleges, then the housing and stock market.

Now the U.S. is on the wrong side of the demographic curve. The boomers are retiring, trying to sell their big houses and retire, trying to cash in their investments to live on, showing up more and more in doctor's offices and hospitals. There is simply no way any medical system, private or public, is going to be able to accomodate this demographic wave without a substantial reduction in the level/availability of care to the elderly.

If you look at the U.K., this has already happened there. It is inevitable!

by ferret Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:51 am

hockables wrote:
Axixic wrote:
johninajijic wrote:Not what I'm told by the Canadians that I know.

Don't really care what your imaginary friends tell you. I am saying how it is.

Wait times are the biggest issue....
Approx 3 - 6 months for Knee or Hip Replacement..... cost $ 0.00

However... I've met a few people who had Cardiac issues and had surgery same or next day... ... cost $ 0.00

I believe they call it Prioritise

In the medical field it's called "triage"...same as on a battlefield in war. You aren't going to die from waiting for a knee or hip replacement...you just think you are.
I'm hoping, for the sake of the American public, that this legislation will pull the rug out from under the big controlling HMO's...meaning that "bulk" health care will be cheaper and prescriptions will be cheaper. Haven't read the whole law but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

by Sponsored content