Visit our Popular Forums

SV THIRD DAY · 06-11-2013, 18:07

Single Payer seems to be the solution, but the problem now is that this ACA is turning into such a disaster with Presidential lies, people losing their Dr and Insurance all wrapped up in basic Govent ineptitude, the American public's appetite for trusting the Government is now at record lows. No one really bellieves that after his debacle the wizards of smarts in DC will be able to say, "I know we screwed it up last time, but trust us, we know what we are doing this time". The reality is that this fiasco has the making of a Waterloo event for those who believe in Big Government Solutions, which honestly given the facts and track record of such failures and waste, I honestly can't say I'm too upset about.

Getting this back to how it affect and relates to cruisers, I think it is WAY too soon to know difinitively at this point because if the Individual Mandate is causing this much civil unrest, just wait until the Employer Mandate kicks in and millions and Millions more start getting canceled from their plans and seeing increased costs.

If I was a betting man, the ACA won't survive past 2015 and unfortuantely it's death will take our chance of real heath insurance reform to the grave with it. At this point, I'm not going to base my future as a cruiser, planning to live and stay outside of the USA, in the hands of government...looking at this and other messes, it's the only sane approach I can see.

HBWT · 06-11-2013, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I'm not picking on this poster. I see this type of statement in various forms and it makes me a bit worried about our critical thinking skills. Companies (issuers and providers) don't fund taxes. They collect taxes and send them to the government. Consumers pay any and all taxes. Tax money doesn't magically grow within a company. They get the money from their customers.

They do fund the taxes by increasing base cost, hence the funding taxes. This is what the critical thinkers call "pass-through." A tax is applied of 4-7% to all health exchange plans and 3% to self funded providers, these "carriers and provider" will pass through the added tax burden to their clients by increasing the base cost of a health insurance plan. You may have heard of the Cadillac Plan Tax, this is a insurer premium tax and they will afford the tax by increasing base cost. I made no mention of the consumer cost implications inherent to tax funding because I thought we were discussing the ACA and not Econ 101. I shall revise for future reference.

Boatguy30 · 06-11-2013, 18:14

Hard for me to see someone concerned about the president "lying" very into single payer. I guess the single payer is working out for your kids education so why not then? The reason why their was a grandfathering clause was so that people could keep there old policies. Most insurance companies chose to change the coverages on the policies so they would no longer be grandfathered. Obama had nothing to do with those policies not being grandfathered.

I'm also not sure "disgusting" is the right word. It certainly is not ideal, but I think it will serve to educate people that we spend far too much on healthcare for very meager results.

But people are stupid so who knows?

SV THIRD DAY · 06-11-2013, 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

The reason why their was a grandfathering clause was so that people could keep there old policies. Most insurance companies chose to change the coverages on the policies so they would no longer be grandfathered. Obama had nothing to do with those policies not being grandfathered.

If Obama and his team, who wrote the laws that mandeted the changes the insurance companies MUST MAKE to be ACA compliant, did not know that the provisions of their own law would lead to the loss of grandfathering, then he/his team is the most incompotient in history of the United States. Either that or I'm smarter than the President, because I knew it would happen (as did others) long before the law was even signed. They knew it, but as the news reports came out this week to show, decided to lie about it as a better way to sell the ACA at the time. Typically, things born in lies don't work out well as we are seeing.

"If you like your plan, you can keep it"
"There are WMDs in Iraq"
"I did not have Sex with that woman"

History remembers long after the excuses are forgotten.

What is too bad is that One party pushed through the ACA without any votes from the other party, so why did they not push through single payer? Answer...?

Capt Phil · 06-11-2013, 19:02

My wife and I from Australia and Canada, respectively, could never understand why a country as rich as the US could not afford to provide free basic health care to everyone until we realized that together our home countries don't have enough combined armed forces for a good parade. We rely on the good old USA to protect and control the rest of the world. Something for US cruisers to think about. Phil

transmitterdan · 06-11-2013, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by HBWT

They do fund the taxes by increasing base cost, hence the funding taxes. This is what the critical thinkers call "pass-through."

The verb "fund" means "to provide funds for". But doctors, hospitals and insurance companies don't provide the funds. They get the funds from other people. It's not "pass-through", it's "tax collecting". What's wrong with calling it what it is? If I'm in favor of a government funded activity then I also have to be in favor of the taxes to fund it. Too many people aren't thinking about that because the ones selling the idea can't bring themselves to use the word tax.

HBWT · 06-11-2013, 20:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The verb "fund" means "to provide funds for". But doctors, hospitals and insurance companies don't provide the funds. They get the funds from other people. It's not "pass-through", it's "tax collecting". What's wrong with calling it what it is? If I'm in favor of a government funded activity then I also have to be in favor of the taxes to fund it. Too many people aren't thinking about that because the ones selling the idea can't bring themselves to use the word tax.

So your argument is that i am incorrect using the actual terminology and misinformed because I am not using your understanding of our monetary tax system? I can't tell if you know too little that this argument is justified or you are just trying to argue because you have nothing else to contribute. Instead of adding to the conversation of factual information you choose to argue on personal ideology. Way to play the game. No need for a response, I'm done.

Doodles · 07-11-2013, 01:11

This thread is becoming another sh*#t fight over the politics. When was the last time someone actually made a comment relative to the OP's question? Come on people get a life!

Richard5 · 07-11-2013, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

What is too bad is that One party pushed through the ACA without any votes from the other party, so why did they not push through single payer? Answer...?

On the assumption your question is more than rhetorical I'll take a stab at it. The answer is because the govt (single payer entity) would be on the hook for having to actually provide health care to everyone. Canada has gotten around that by incurring lengthy waiting times although I don't know if it still is as effective as originally intended (see famous quote from CAN Supreme Court; "...access to a waiting list is not access to health care.").

The PPACA was never about health care, it has always been about taxation. SCOTUS had to make the case.

Richard5 · 07-11-2013, 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

...could never understand why a country as rich as the US could not afford to provide free basic health care to everyone...

Of course the USA could 'afford' this if speaking in monetary terms. But reliance on the govt has not been the foundation of what the USA is about.

And nothing is free. Someone else had to pay for the 'free' something one enjoys. That right there gets under the skin of most Americans. Where one is given an entitlement, another has been forced to provide. That is tyrannical in the minds of most. Rugged independence (and the liberty to express that) has been a part of Americana as anything. It really has been the basis of what created the wealth of the USA.

Doodles · 07-11-2013, 04:20

Please ignore my post above regarding politics. I've been informed it is o.k. to be political as long as we are polite. My apologies.

Boatguy30 · 07-11-2013, 04:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard5

On the assumption your question is more than rhetorical I'll take a stab at it. The answer is because the govt (single payer entity) would be on the hook for having to actually provide health care to everyone. Canada has gotten around that by incurring lengthy waiting times although I don't know if it still is as effective as originally intended (see famous quote from CAN Supreme Court; "...access to a waiting list is not access to health care.").

The PPACA was never about health care, it has always been about taxation. SCOTUS had to make the case.

This is the rationing that keeps health costs down, it ain't pretty but it works. I assume you've heard of the national debt. It's my belief that the growth in health care spending has been directly and indirectly fueled by the debt over the last 30 years. Everyone with healthcare believes it the best and they are PAYING for it, but in reality the care is so so and national debt is funding it.

The bottom line is someone that made say 35k a year as a truck driver cannot afford to visit a surgeon that makes 500k a year for multiple surgeries between the ages of 65 and 85. This is not economically possible. This is what other countries understand as they actually pay (mostly) for their systems every year. There doctors also make a lot less ans their is less corporate profit in thir systems as well.

The reason why we don't have single payer is the corporate power and the fact that there would have to be some rationing. However, if you believe in math it will likely be the only way to save Medicare in 20 years or so if voters deem that a desirable goal.

jcapo · 07-11-2013, 04:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

What is too bad is that One party pushed through the ACA without any votes from the other party, so why did they not push through single payer? Answer...?

Well maybe because of the powerful insurance lobby.

Boatguy30 · 07-11-2013, 04:38

Anyone that makes money on health care didn't want a major change. Doctors, nurses, implant makers, hospitals, etc. guys like my neighbor that is a former non medaling Olympic runner make more money as implant salesman than brain surgeons in England make and likely more than most local GPs.

At 36, I'm honestly not super worried about it because it will have to get totally overhauled at some point in the next 30 years unless of course china forecloses on us or something.