Thread: "ObamaCare" Origin

Rather than bury this in the mired-down thread already existing, this particular piece examines just where the Bill came from. If it's to be believed, and this one likely can be corroborated if needed, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", as it's known, came into being unconstitutionally through Senate manipulation of a House Bill already awaiting decision. Disregard the second letter to the editor.

Senator Harry Reid has evidently done some underhanded conniving with this. So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans, or simply place it under a veil of "quiet waiting", to be sprung back into action at such time as "governmental monetary crisis" is resolved? jocular

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans,

Funnily enough, my friends who visit America always come back with stories of people stopping them in the street or interrupting them at a cafe when they hear the Australian accent. What do they want? Everyone wants to hear us say G'day, mate, but they also ask about our health system. Perfect strangers! Marvelling about Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits and our complete freedom to choose any doctor - not dictated by any insurance company or government agency, along with completely free emergency care - and cancer, and heart surgery, and pediatric, and every other kind of care - in public hospitals. We take these things for granted but Americans think they're fan.tas.tic.

I believe the same thing happens to Canadians - without the G'day mate.

Originally Posted by adelady

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans,

Funnily enough, my friends who visit America always come back with stories of people stopping them in the street or interrupting them at a cafe when they hear the Australian accent. What do they want? Everyone wants to hear us say G'day, mate, but they also ask about our health system. Perfect strangers! Marvelling about Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits and our complete freedom to choose any doctor - not dictated by any insurance company or government agency, along with completely free emergency care - and cancer, and heart surgery, and pediatric, and every other kind of care - in public hospitals. We take these things for granted but Americans think they're fan.tas.tic.

I believe the same thing happens to Canadians - without the G'day mate.

Indeed it does.
I ordered parts for my planer from a canadian------reasonable prices(about 1/2 of what I could get the same parts locally) and some damned good advice on rebuilding the machine.
While I had him on the phone, I asked about the Canadian health care system. And, he gave me his impressions of the good and bad of it.

G'day mate

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by adelady

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans,

Funnily enough, my friends who visit America always come back with stories of people stopping them in the street or interrupting them at a cafe when they hear the Australian accent. What do they want? Everyone wants to hear us say G'day, mate, but they also ask about our health system. Perfect strangers! Marvelling about Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits and our complete freedom to choose any doctor - not dictated by any insurance company or government agency, along with completely free emergency care - and cancer, and heart surgery, and pediatric, and every other kind of care - in public hospitals. We take these things for granted but Americans think they're fan.tas.tic.

I believe the same thing happens to Canadians - without the G'day mate.

Indeed it does.
I ordered parts for my planer from a canadian------reasonable prices(about 1/2 of what I could get the same parts locally) and some damned good advice on rebuilding the machine.
While I had him on the phone, I asked about the Canadian health care system. And, he gave me his impressions of the good and bad of it.

G'day mate

It's good that Americans are asking the questions.

Just about the whole industrialised world has a comprehensive public health care system, except the USA. And there no sign, none whatsoever, in any of these countries, that the people want to get rid of it. In the UK it's creaking at the seams but woe betide any politician who talks of getting rid of it. I feel sure it is there to stay in the US now (though doubtless it will be modified in some respects), and in a generation people will be incredulous at the furore.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by adelady

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans,

Funnily enough, my friends who visit America always come back with stories of people stopping them in the street or interrupting them at a cafe when they hear the Australian accent. What do they want? Everyone wants to hear us say G'day, mate, but they also ask about our health system. Perfect strangers! Marvelling about Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits and our complete freedom to choose any doctor - not dictated by any insurance company or government agency, along with completely free emergency care - and cancer, and heart surgery, and pediatric, and every other kind of care - in public hospitals. We take these things for granted but Americans think they're fan.tas.tic.

I believe the same thing happens to Canadians - without the G'day mate.

Indeed it does.
I ordered parts for my planer from a canadian------reasonable prices(about 1/2 of what I could get the same parts locally) and some damned good advice on rebuilding the machine.
While I had him on the phone, I asked about the Canadian health care system. And, he gave me his impressions of the good and bad of it.

G'day mate

It's good that Americans are asking the questions.

Just about the whole industrialised world has a comprehensive public health care system, except the USA. And there no sign, none whatsoever, in any of these countries, that the people want to get rid of it. In the UK it's creaking at the seams but woe betide any politician who talks of getting rid of it. I feel sure it is there to stay in the US now (though doubtless it will be modified in some respects), and in a generation people will be incredulous at the furore.

Excellent thoughts, and appreciate the insights and truths associated with UK! Do you mean, by the last remark, they will be incredulous at the furor which took place instituting the program, or that there will be a furor existing a generation down the road? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by adelady

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans,

Funnily enough, my friends who visit America always come back with stories of people stopping them in the street or interrupting them at a cafe when they hear the Australian accent. What do they want? Everyone wants to hear us say G'day, mate, but they also ask about our health system. Perfect strangers! Marvelling about Medicare and our pharmaceutical benefits and our complete freedom to choose any doctor - not dictated by any insurance company or government agency, along with completely free emergency care - and cancer, and heart surgery, and pediatric, and every other kind of care - in public hospitals. We take these things for granted but Americans think they're fan.tas.tic.

I believe the same thing happens to Canadians - without the G'day mate.

Indeed it does.
I ordered parts for my planer from a canadian------reasonable prices(about 1/2 of what I could get the same parts locally) and some damned good advice on rebuilding the machine.
While I had him on the phone, I asked about the Canadian health care system. And, he gave me his impressions of the good and bad of it.

G'day mate

It's good that Americans are asking the questions.

Just about the whole industrialised world has a comprehensive public health care system, except the USA. And there no sign, none whatsoever, in any of these countries, that the people want to get rid of it. In the UK it's creaking at the seams but woe betide any politician who talks of getting rid of it. I feel sure it is there to stay in the US now (though doubtless it will be modified in some respects), and in a generation people will be incredulous at the furore.

Excellent thoughts, and appreciate the insights and truths associated with UK! Do you mean, by the last remark, they will be incredulous at the furor which took place instituting the program, or that there will be a furor existing a generation down the road? jocular

I meant at the furore today. I think in 20 years it will part of the furniture.

I don't really get how Obamacare can in any way be equated with public health care as established in Australia or Canada. Obama care is the same private system we have always had, except that now poor people who can't afford health insurance will have to pay a fine in addition to having no health care. Essentially, Obamacare is a huge windfall bill for the insurance companies, it doesn't do squat for people with no health care.

it doesn't do squat for people with no health care.

On the contrary. It will allow people to get insurance who've been shut out of the current system because they have pre-existing conditions and those who've exceeded life-time cost limits. (Not being able to get health insurance for pregnancy or cancer because you had expensive care when you were injured or sick years ago seems deeply dumb to me.)

The most important thing about this arrangement is that it's a big chink in the armour of the link between big business insurance and big business employers where either or both can control and restrict the health care options of the "insured". America will be a lot better off when, eventually, individuals wanting healthcare insurance can do what Australians and Canadians do when buying private health insurance. Look for a policy, and choose the options available in that suite of policies, that suits them and their families rather than the employer and the insurance company setting the conditions. Power in the hands of the consumers themselves is a much better option.

Originally Posted by danhanegan

I don't really get how Obamacare can in any way be equated with public health care as established in Australia or Canada. Obama care is the same private system we have always had, except that now poor people who can't afford health insurance will have to pay a fine in addition to having no health care. Essentially, Obamacare is a huge windfall bill for the insurance companies, it doesn't do squat for people with no health care.

In reality those that can't afford to pay are relatively well covered and protected. If they purchase the minimum coverage it peaks at 9% of their income and includes more than most current plans including many new protections so the insurance companies can't deny nor drop sick people, have maximum cost to their coverage, . If they choose not to get covered, they pay nothing unless their taxable income is greater than 133% of the poverty rate and no more than 8% of that taxable income as a fine. The cost of the basic/bronze plans are also capped and subsidized up to taxable income of 400% of the poverty level--meaning in a great many situations for folks between the poverty line lower middle it will be actually be cheaper to get the insurance (and it's coverage). And many people previously who could not get insurance, because they were sick, or in college can now get insurance or be covered by their parents.

Whether its going to work to slow down the increasing cost of health care, a decades long problem that precipitated the Republicans to develop this market based approach in the late 80s, is yet to be determined-no other nation has tried this market based approach. If nothing else pooling of large groups, standardization of records and cross checks of charges should reduce cost and result in fewer treatment accidents. Cost have already slowed down, though there seems to be a lot of disagreement why or whether it's lasting.

--

As for the OP, the originator clause does not apply. First off despite it being in large part gutted it actually started in the House, secondly case law from the 19th century establish that the originator clause only applied when the primary purpose of the bill was to raise revenue, not new programs that also to include fines and fees--clearly this was about establishing a new program.

The insurance companies are a big part in why we pay more on a per capita basis for "health care" than any other country in this whole freaking world.
Keeping them in the loop make about as much sense as asking the fox to police the henhouse.
The fox stays fat, but there ain't as many eggs.

I hope this chart prints out OK. A good friend sent it to me awhile back. It compares per capita medical costs & spending for several countries. How does it compare with the implications brought forth in the posts above?

Keeping them in the loop make about as much sense as asking the fox to police the henhouse.

Well, we can't get rid of them. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Exposing them to the demands of real. live, individual consumers rather than allowing them to hide - whether it's in comfy negotiations with like-minded luncheon companions or strong-arming bad deals for the insured when dealing with employers who just want to tick it off their to-do list without caring much about the "details". (Unfortunately the "details" are the core issue for the people who are insured.)

They know, just as we do, that they'd be pretty unlikely to get all the employees of a company to buy the product they sell to the employer if the employees had a free choice. That's why they prefer the existing system, it takes choice away from the consumers of the service.

Originally Posted by jocular

Rather than bury this in the mired-down thread already existing, this particular piece examines just where the Bill came from. If it's to be believed, and this one likely can be corroborated if needed, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", as it's known, came into being unconstitutionally through Senate manipulation of a House Bill already awaiting decision. Disregard the second letter to the editor.

Senator Harry Reid has evidently done some underhanded conniving with this. So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans, or simply place it under a veil of "quiet waiting", to be sprung back into action at such time as "governmental monetary crisis" is resolved? jocular

The origin of Obamacare is Mitt Romney's healthcare law that he passed as governor of Massachusetts, Obamacare was directly modeled after the Massachusetts health care law. "Romneycare" as its called has greatly brought down healthcare costs in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

Yes. Actually this debate makes me too think of the same quote (the one Red Panda quoted)...... and wonder who was the arsehole who originally said it - because it's demonstrably untrue.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

Pssh.

What does that idiot know?

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

I guess my post was too subtle.

The ignorance and lying that is required to make such a statement shows the true position of most of the anti-ObamaCare politicians.

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

I guess my post was too subtle.

The ignorance and lying that is required to make such a statement shows the true position of most of the anti-ObamaCare politicians.

And what about "death panels"? Didn't that idiot Sarah Palin claim these were a feature of national healthcare schemes?

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by RedPanda

The ignorance and lying that is required to make such a statement shows the true position of most of the anti-ObamaCare politicians.

And what about "death panels"? Didn't that idiot Sarah Palin claim these were a feature of national healthcare schemes?

Yes.
The ignorance and lying that is required to make such a statement shows the true position of most of the anti-ObamaCare politicians.

The way I see it, no side is innocent of spin.

That one side or another side will apply spin or even outright lie does not provide support that the opposing side is automatically correct.

Over-all, Obamas health reforms appear to be pretty good. But I am opposed to them; they are also invasive and will have as much bureaucratic red tape as the current mess we have.
This does not mean that our current system is automatically correct in my view. I think our current system with Insurance companies dictating what doctor you can see and such to be a total farce.
Since many people find it a farce and they want a change from that, they will assume that Obama's Plan must be "better." I've read the thing in full on .gov and it is not "better," merely different. Some aspects are better, some are worse, in my humble little political opinion.

Instead of partisan bickering and each side lying about the other and painting their own side to be angelic, we need Productive Discussion and debate within Congress as to how to best achieve a workable solution.

I formally predict that, "That ain't gonna happen." They are too busy childishly trying to tarnish the other guy. Even if the 'other guy' (Or gal, Palin...) makes that easy; this does not validate the position held by the opposition, either.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The way I see it, no side is innocent of spin.

That one side or another side will apply spin or even outright lie does not provide support that the opposing side is automatically correct.

Over-all, Obamas health reforms appear to be pretty good. But I am opposed to them; they are also invasive and will have as much bureaucratic red tape as the current mess we have.
This does not mean that our current system is automatically correct in my view. I think our current system with Insurance companies dictating what doctor you can see and such to be a total farce.
Since many people find it a farce and they want a change from that, they will assume that Obama's Plan must be "better." I've read the thing in full on .gov and it is not "better," merely different. Some aspects are better, some are worse, in my humble little political opinion.

Instead of partisan bickering and each side lying about the other and painting their own side to be angelic, we need Productive Discussion and debate within Congress as to how to best achieve a workable solution.

I formally predict that, "That ain't gonna happen." They are too busy childishly trying to tarnish the other guy. Even if the 'other guy' (Or gal, Palin...) makes that easy; this does not validate the position held by the opposition, either.

Yes indeed an outsider like me can't comment sensibly on the details of a US programme. I confine my criticism to the misrepresentation of systems such as the one we have in the UK, flawed though they may be.

IMO, the current bickering in Washington is a façade. The Reps. want to maintain popular belief in their own status quo, as do also the Dems. When the hammer finally falls, I suspect the Healthcare Act will survive, no matter what either side says today.

Simply a pack of devious, self-anointed, self-serving parasites.

jocular

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by RedPanda

Every time I see someone post about 'Obamacare', I always think of the following quote:

“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”

Nuff said.

(And, yes - I know he was born and raised in the UK)

Stephen Hawking strongly disagrees with your above statement. S. Hawking says "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the N.H.S. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.”

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...n-the-uk/?_r=0

Yes. Actually this debate makes me too think of the same quote (the one Red Panda quoted)...... and wonder who was the arsehole who originally said it - because it's demonstrably untrue.

Lies like these are created by think tanks from insurance corporations, pharmaceutical corporations, ex.ex. Obamacare will decrease these corporations profits, so these corporations think tanks create negative add campaigns to make Obamacare seem harmful to America. After the think tanks create their negative phrases Fox news, Rush radio, and other republican news outlets repeat the negative statements.

Republican news outlets also said the following untrue things about Obamacare.

Obamacare will take away your grandmothers doctor
Obamacare sets up death panels to kill American senior citizens. (they actually said this)
Obamacare will destroy America
Obamacare is socialism and it will lead us down the road to communism.
ex.ex.

The following Australian documentary shows/explains the corporate network that puts these lies into Americas population.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSAzYWmsiwI

Originally Posted by Neverfly

The way I see it, no side is innocent of spin.

That one side or another side will apply spin or even outright lie does not provide support that the opposing side is automatically correct.

Over-all, Obama's health reforms appear to be pretty good. But I am opposed to them; they are also invasive and will have as much bureaucratic red tape as the current mess we have.
This does not mean that our current system is automatically correct in my view. I think our current system with Insurance companies dictating what doctor you can see and such to be a total farce.
Since many people find it a farce and they want a change from that, they will assume that Obama's Plan must be "better." I've read the thing in full on .gov and it is not "better," merely different. Some aspects are better, some are worse, in my humble little political opinion.

Instead of partisan bickering and each side lying about the other and painting their own side to be angelic, we need Productive Discussion and debate within Congress as to how to best achieve a workable solution.

I formally predict that, "That ain't gonna happen." They are too busy childishly trying to tarnish the other guy. Even if the 'other guy' (Or gal, Palin...) makes that easy; this does not validate the position held by the opposition, either.

I agree with your spin assessment, but the Obamacare system of affordable national health care is far better than the system we have been living with. I don't think it's perfect, but like any program, you install it then fix the problems as they present themselves. Also, only the republicans are saying more Americans want to dump it, but that's not the truth. Next it's a very complex program that most people don't really understand, so how could they make any knowledgeable choices about it. You have to watch it in action to know what it's really going to do.

This new system will focus on preventive health care with the main goal helping the population become healthier and needing a great deal less hospital time, which is the most expensive part of any health care. The way it works now is if you are uninsured you get zero doctors advice on how to live a healthier lifestyle and the only way you can get any medical treatment at all is to go to the emergency room where the hospital can't turn you away by law. So they force the uninsured to go get the most expensive health care possible. When everyone has a doctor they can go to without the miserable emergency room wait for an over worked doctor. By the way does anybody know who actually pays for all that uninsured emergency room treatment? Someone has to pay for it. People that can afford to pay for insurance and choose not to for whatever reason will still get treated at a hospital. Why shouldn't the be forced to pay? If the health care system is forced to treat them they should be forced to have insurance that is affordable, the same as you have to have auto insurance if you drive a car.

This new system will focus on preventive health care with the main goal helping the population become healthier and needing a great deal less hospital time, which is the most expensive part of any health care.

And it's not just preventive care that matters, it's sensible management of chronic conditions.

I can remember my endocrinologist having tears in his eyes when he talked about a couple of stints he did working in American hospitals. (This would have been 30+ years ago we're talking about now.) He said it was not just depressing, but actively distressing, to work in emergency and see diabetics come in in a coma or with foot problems needing amputation or encroaching blindness. Why? Because there was no system to ensure they could afford to get the insulin they needed on a regular basis. They'd come into the ER and get a crisis problem fixed and a prescription for insulin. They couldn't get insurance because of the pre-existing condition exclusions and they couldn't afford the exorbitant price of the prescriptions. So they'd get it made up. Then they'd eke it out by taking doses only when they felt a bit hypo or hyper rather than on the scheduled basis. (Presumably they also couldn't afford a regular supply of blood test equipment either.) Then they'd "do without" and get another prescription when they could afford it. Do the same spin it out for as long as possible routine. And go to the ER - again - when that resulted in another entirely avoidable problem.

Their crisis care was expensive. Their long-term disabilities increased with every incident. They died far too early.

A sensible health care system would keep them on a proper dose of insulin all day every day. For that to be affordable you have to make the prescriptions available under insurance and/ or subsidise them so that everyone, regardless of income or circumstance, can get them when and as they need to. Far cheaper and much easier to manage than coma care or amputation surgery. And the healthier they stay, the more likely they are to be able to work and care for themselves and not become dependent on benefits or charities and they will certainly have fewer expensive hospital visits / stays.

And I just looked at the "Last 24 hours" list at ScienceBlogs.

This little segment struck a chord with me

For instance, uninsured patients who are diagnosed with cancer in our state frequently qualify immediately for Medicaid and are no longer uninsured. This leads to a rather frustrating situation for some of my patients who are uninsured and suspected of having cancer but can’t afford the biopsy necessary to prove it and make them eligible for Medicaid.

All of this leads to a potential explanation, and quite a reasonable explanation at that, as to why Medicaid patients do more poorly than patients with private insurance, in some studies (the ones touted by my state senator as indicating that Medicaid is worthless and doesn’t improve health outcomes), and that’s delay in treatment.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ontinue-apace/

Talk about Catch 22.

It's a bit hard for me to understand all the ins and outs of insured, Medicaid, Medicare, uninsured. I presume the Americans here will understand that a bit better. (Part of my problem is that I find it reprehensible that state governments can cut down the benefits of a national health system - here, as long as you're permanently in Australia, everyone everywhere is entitled to the same benefits and subsidies. Of course, access to services depends on other things, but not the entitlement itself.)

Originally Posted by adelady

Talk about Catch 22.

It's a bit hard for me to understand all the ins and outs of insured, Medicaid, Medicare, uninsured. I presume the Americans here will understand that a bit better. (Part of my problem is that I find it reprehensible that state governments can cut down the benefits of a national health system - here, as long as you're permanently in Australia, everyone everywhere is entitled to the same benefits and subsidies. Of course, access to services depends on other things, but not the entitlement itself.)

This is a wonderful condition of being a citizen, to be sure. Just how is it paid for? And, how is "permanently in Australia" defined and regulated per se? joc

Originally Posted by jocular

IMO, the current bickering in Washington is a façade. The Reps. want to maintain popular belief in their own status quo, as do also the Dems. When the hammer finally falls, I suspect the Healthcare Act will survive, no matter what either side says today.

Simply a pack of devious, self-anointed, self-serving parasites.

jocular

Ya think?

I doubt any of of employees will switch. They have the same benefits as we do. We pay for the primary and always have, for over 30 years, (including dental) they could add their family members if they wished but that was their decision.

One is easy. You have to be either a citizen or a permanent resident for the purposes of the Health Act. So you if you're a tourist or on some other kind of visitor's visa, your doctor's visit won't attract a "standard fee" payment from Medicare and you're not entitled to subsidy on your prescriptions.

Paid for? By taxes and the medicare surcharge on taxation, as well as private insurance for hospital care and out of pocket payments by patients. For hospital care other than free public hospitals, insurance pays for most. The out of pocket amount depends on the conditions of the insurance policy and the particular procedures involved.

We get a lot more care for a lot less money than the USA does.

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA - cost per capita $8233 - % GDP 17.9 (gasp, shock, horror)
Australia - cost per capita $3670 (waaaaay less than USA) - % GDP 9.1 (much more reasonable)

This graph from the WSJ shows it much more vividly. You have to work pretty hard to see Australia's graph line tangled in among all the others. No problem seeing the USA - and that's a problem all by itself.

U.S. Health Spending: One of These Things Not Like Others - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Originally Posted by adelady

One is easy. You have to be either a citizen or a permanent resident for the purposes of the Health Act. So you if you're a tourist or on some other kind of visitor's visa, your doctor's visit won't attract a "standard fee" payment from Medicare and you're not entitled to subsidy on your prescriptions.

Paid for? By taxes and the medicare surcharge on taxation, as well as private insurance for hospital care and out of pocket payments by patients. For hospital care other than free public hospitals, insurance pays for most. The out of pocket amount depends on the conditions of the insurance policy and the particular procedures involved.

We get a lot more care for a lot less money than the USA does.

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA - cost per capita $8233 - % GDP 17.9 (gasp, shock, horror)
Australia - cost per capita $3670 (waaaaay less than USA) - % GDP 9.1 (much more reasonable)

This graph from the WSJ shows it much more vividly. You have to work pretty hard to see Australia's graph line tangled in among all the others. No problem seeing the USA - and that's a problem all by itself.

U.S. Health Spending: One of These Things Not Like Others - Real Time Economics - WSJ

there is no doubt we need reform and another course of action, but this one isn't it...it has not been thought out at all! FIVE YEARS in the making and they are just trying to figure it out.

I say let it begin, F*** up and make a mess then let's find out what WILL WORK...Sheesh

FIVE YEARS in the making and they are just trying to figure it out.

I thought the legislation was passed in 2010. Nothing in the legislation has changed since then.

The only thing they're trying to "figure out" is how to stop it.

Originally Posted by adelady

FIVE YEARS in the making and they are just trying to figure it out.

I thought the legislation was passed in 2010. Nothing in the legislation has changed since then.

The only thing they're trying to "figure out" is how to stop it.

THey are trying to figure out WHAT it entails!

It has been mostly ambiguous!

I say let it run and it's going to be a freaking mess....and then let's go from there.

For the average American it's pretty straight forward, the only complex bit being what it's going to cost because it's dependent on age, level of plan, location, income and whether the state signed up for the Medicaid extension or not.

The auction that opened up a few hours ago will answer the cost bit.

A lot of the confusion is scare tactics from the Tea Party which has successfully run a disinformation campaign.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

A lot of the confusion is scare tactics from the Tea Party which has successfully run a disinformation campaign.

I found this to be a pretty weird comment that I've heard a lot. People keeping telling me, "You have no idea what's in it" and "You have no idea what it will do" etc, etc.

It's all been pretty well laid out. The confusion seems to be stemming from opponents of the AHA who are propagating this notion that it's a smoke screens and black curtains when it really isn't.

If you're against AHA because you don't support the changes, fine. If you're against it because you don't UNDERSTAND the changes, that's on you.

Originally Posted by jocular

So, my thoughts are, will "defunding" of ObamaCare actually force it's demise, a result seemingly desirable to a majority of Americans

Not per poll results:

=============================
New Poll: Only One-Third Of Americans Support Repealing, Defunding Or Delaying Obamacare
Avik Roy, Contributor
FORBES Magazine

Polls consistently show that Americans aren’t happy with Obamacare. They think the law will make health care more expensive, and decrease its quality. But a new survey of 1,976 registered votersfinds that only 33 percent believe that the health law should be repealed, delayed, or defunded. 29 percent believe that “Congress should make changes to improve the law,” 26 percent believe that “Congress should let the law take effect” and see what happens, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded. The bottom line? Voters are skeptical that Obamacare will live up to Democrats’ hype. But they also believe that it should be given a chance to succeed.

The new poll was conducted by the Morning Consult, a healthcare media company founded by Michael Ramlet. Ramlet, in evaluating the results of his survey, finds that voters are “unmoved by three months of the defund argument,” and that a majority would “blame congressional Republicans a lot for a government shutdown.”
====================================

Originally Posted by adelady

We get a lot more care for a lot less money than the USA does.


USA - cost per capita $8233 - % GDP 17.9 (gasp, shock, horror)
Australia - cost per capita $3670 (waaaaay less than USA) - % GDP 9.1 (much more reasonable)

Are the two dollar comparisons adjusted for monetary differences? The link you gave has information similar to that in the chart I posted earlier, my source being more ambiguous. It might be interesting to compare one stat supplier's numbers with another's. Do so, if you care to; I expect the numbers to be different, one chart to the other, by 50%, surprised if they're not.

If the bold statement be fact, (and I don't doubt the possibility at all, due to the bloated Medical Society here), how in the world can a former penal colony have progressed socially so much farther than we? Now, now, simmer down! I am also a great fan of Captain Bligh! jocular

Are the two dollar comparisons adjusted for monetary differences?

They're all standardised to US dollars, just like all the OECD, CIA Factbook and WHO figures are.

Australia is not exceptional. The US is. Unfortunately, in this case the US is exceptional in the wrong direction. If you want the "care" outcomes, the CIA Factbook is probably the best reference around.

Infant mortality: 50 countries have better results than USA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Life expectancy: USA ranked 51
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2102rank.html

Given the humungous amounts of money thrown at US "health", if I were American I'd expect a top, top 5 or top 10 ranking in every health indicator ever devised. I've never seen a single health outcome where the USA makes the top 20.

Forcing the working poor to buy insurance is a stinking lousy compromise.
Our health care(wherein care is just a four letter word) industry is bloated with too damned much profit motive.

I have insurance, but one day a couple years ago, i needed a torn open wound on my hand cared to, and they screwed up the numbers and sent me the bill.
About $600.00 for 20 minutes of a physicians assistant's and nurses' time.
The open wound was crazy glued back together. The crazy glue(about $3 worth) was billed as "suture material" and billed at $49.00.
One hell of a profit margin.

The costs are way over any rational limit.
Giving a free mandate to insurance companies ain't gonna fix anything.

If indeed national health care is a good thing(and I think it should be) then a single payer system is most likely the only rational way to go.

Originally Posted by adelady

FIVE YEARS in the making and they are just trying to figure it out.

I thought the legislation was passed in 2010. Nothing in the legislation has changed since then.

The only thing they're trying to "figure out" is how to stop it.

How about Medicaid "Opt-out" option for states, by Supreme Court decision? joc

Originally Posted by sculptor

Forcing the working poor to buy insurance is a stinking lousy compromise.

Why. The vast majority are able to get coverage for less than $100/month after the subsidy is applied. Also the poor won't be fined in states where Medicaide wasn't expanded--they'll just continue to be stuck without health insurance because of their state's stupidity.

If indeed national health care is a good thing(and I think it should be) then a single payer system is most likely the only rational way to go.

(nods)

THey are trying to figure out WHAT it entails!

It has been mostly ambiguous!

I say let it run and it's going to be a freaking mess....and then let's go from there.

Just found out a lot of the provisions are already in effect. Policy holders were already $500,000,00 better off in 2012 because of the ACA requirements. 8.5 million people will get a $100 refund "this summer" Obamacare in Three Words: Saving People Money | The White House

See also Question 5 here 20 Questions You Have About Obamacare But Are Too Afraid To Ask | ThinkProgress

Question 19 has more details ....

Believe it or not, a lot of Obamacare has already gone into effect. The first provisions took place way back in 2010. In June of that year, Obamacare closed the so-called “doughnut hole,” and Seniors who fell into that gap in Medicare coverage received a $250 check in the mail. That was the very first provision to be rolled out, but it’s far from the last. The majority of the law will go into effect by 2014, when the exchanges are set up. The very last aspect won’t roll out until 2018, when certain “Cadillac” insurance plans — top-of-the-line health plans that cost tens of thousands of dollars — will get an added tax. The White House has a fairly comprehensive timeline of dates for Obamacare’s rollout here.

A single payer was the way it should have gone.

Single payer? Yeah. I thought Obama was too easily made to let that drop as part of the original "negotiations".

Knowing in advance that the watered down version would attract this kind of furore might have strengthened his arm. On the may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb principle.

(And speaking as an Australian, a single payer to reimburse any general care doctor for any consultation without some insurance company getting between patients and the doctors they'd like to consult appeals to me mightily. I don't like the UK system of being 'allocated' to a practitioner. I like even less a private company doing the same thing.)

Originally Posted by jocular

How about Medicaid "Opt-out" option for states, by Supreme Court decision? joc

That's going to hurt a lot of people. Fortunately most states have decided to NOT opt out.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by jocular

How about Medicaid "Opt-out" option for states, by Supreme Court decision? joc

That's going to hurt a lot of people. Fortunately most states have decided to NOT opt out.

Map I saw yesterday, looked like maybe a dozen, or so. I think "opt-outs" were West Coast, CA, OR, WA; AZ, UT, maybe CO, can't recall others with certainty, did NOT. joc