It's been a while since it was actually passed into law, but the deadlines are finally approaching for Obamacare to be implemented. For those who aren't aware, this is Obama's plan to force citizens who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face major tax penalties. I am one of the millions of unemployed Amerikaan citizens who is completely unable to purchase health insurance, so come March 2014 I will be severely in debt to the U.S. government. Well, unless I can find a job before then making roughly 5 to 6 times the current minimum wage and not get fired for illegitimate reasons. I don't even live beyond my means. My entire adult life I have lived well below the poverty line. Obama's plan for me to simply have more money to spend (presumably, by magic) so that I can afford additional expenses is of course something I'm terribly excited about.
I assume you're in one of the states that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, then? And that you CAN find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of your income, which would stop you being exempt from the requirement to purchase health insurance.
You should consider moving. Healthcare in the US is approximately ten times as expensive as it is in Europe. No joke.
When the people who are arguing for the wealthiest people in the country (or even the world) to pay less taxes AND at the same time hold the side which, amongst other things, would stop the poorest from being f***ed, well it's not gonna end well. On the other hand, when a change in the right direction, like Obamacare was supposed to be, happens, but along the way it actually turns out it's flawed in it's core...well it's not gonna end well.
But yeah, what SSH said. You should get as informed as you can about your options. I won't even pretend to understand the messed up American healthcare system, I can hardly understand my own basic health insurance.
I wouldn't call it "Obama's plan" per se.
The individual mandate (arguably the worst part of the legislation) was actually suggested back in 1993 by Republicans in response to attempts at health care reform by the Clinton administration. The Republicans have since attempted to pass several such acts requiring individuals to purchase insurance (notably, the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act," the "Consumer Choice Health Security Act," and the "Healthy Americans Act"). Presidential candidate Mitt Romney actually implemented the individual mandate in Massachusetts, so to believe that this wouldn't have happened nationwide if he had won the presidency is ludicrous. The current "Affordable Care Act" is in fact modeled after the Romney plan. Obama has historically been opposed to the individual mandate. The Republicans did not begin to oppose it until after Obama was convinced to accept it himself.
Unfortunately, better (more liberal) plans like the "United States National Health Care Act" (also known as "Medicare for All", and similar to universal health care plans in Canada and the UK), would not have passed through the Senate because of opposition from conservatives. The Republicans have consistently gone out of their way to oppose the President, and the current shutdown of the government is no different.
Sadly, it doesn't look like there is going to be any change in the law, and the "Affordable Care Act" will be going into action. This means that I will be forced to pay for unaffordable health care, or be taxed an amount I cannot afford for refusing to purchase. I live in Georgia, which has rejected the expanded Medicaid. I cannot afford to pay (8% of my income is a lot of money to me), and even an inexpensive plan with subsidies would not cover my deductible, leaving me paying for both insurance and my heath care costs (as far as I can tell from the information I've gathered).
Having said all of that, I am against the "Affordable Care Act" on the grounds of the individual mandate alone. It is otherwise a good plan, but of course, nowhere near as good as the "Medicare for All" plan, or similar universal health care plans. I would like to see the individual mandate stricken from the law. Better still, I would love to see the "United States National Health Care Act" implemented. I believe that health care is on par with police and fire services and, as such, should be offered universally to all Americans.
Oh, and I'd love to move (preferably back to Canada, where I was born), but I can't afford that either.
Well, a deductible is the first X you pay each year... so with a 3000 deductible, and costs of 2000, you pay 2000. With a 3000 deductible and costs of 200000 (e.g. cancer, brain surgery, etc) you pay 3000 + some percentage of the rest. Not sure what typical percentages are for ACA plans.
Of course, 3000 sucks as a deductible. I'm lucky enough that my employer "gives" me a good plan, but I still hate having to pay the first $400 when I'm already paying so much as a premium.
One example of crazy US costs: my doctor visit copay is $15, Insurance pays the other $400 or whatever it is. In Singapore, $15 was THE ENTIRE COST of a doctor visit.
Quote from: SSH on Tue 08/10/2013 00:20:43
Well, a deductible is the first X you pay each year... so with a 3000 deductible, and costs of 2000, you pay 2000. With a 3000 deductible and costs of 200000 (e.g. cancer, brain surgery, etc) you pay 3000 + some percentage of the rest. Not sure what typical percentages are for ACA plans.
Of course, 3000 sucks as a deductible. I'm lucky enough that my employer "gives" me a good plan, but I still hate having to pay the first $400 when I'm already paying so much as a premium.
One example of crazy US costs: my doctor visit copay is $15, Insurance pays the other $400 or whatever it is. In Singapore, $15 was THE ENTIRE COST of a doctor visit.
That's the point. I'm a fairly healthy individual, and I typically only need to visit a doctor once every year or two for relatively minor things (this year I had strep throat), so I don't really
need insurance.
If a doctor visit normally costs $100, and if my deductible is higher than that, then I'm stuck not only paying for the $100 doctor visit, but also the monthly insurance charge. I'm pretty poor as it is, so adding another monthly expense is not going to help matters, especially if it's not going to cover the $100 I'll end up spending out of my own pocket. If I'm still going to have to pay deductibles and copays, insurance isn't really helping me very much as a relatively young and healthy individual. Taxing me because I can't afford health care is essentially a poverty tax as well (and I find that to be unethical).
I understand that the ACA is already helping many, but so would alternative plans (like the "Medicaid for All" plan I mentioned above). There is a better way, and it would be nice if the government would work towards it, or at least strike the individual mandate from the ACA.
I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I don't like the prospect of forcing me to pay any more than I'm already paying (which is the cost of visiting a doctor whenever I'm too sick for over the counter medicine). I also think that more medication should be made available over the counter.
I've mostly been in favor of ACA until I saw how much it's going to utterly screw the generation below mine, and people who simply can't afford it.
I'm in NY so we still have an active exchange that was not affected by the shutdown and was one of the first exchanges to go up when October 1 was nearing. Hell, I was REALLY glad to get a plan that literally slashed what I had been paying for an overpriced COBRA plan in half.
But then I looked at the Bronze plans, read: the bus crash plans available in NY. Holy hell. They're about $150 less per month than the Gold plan I selected; but that coverage difference is so stark...my plan has only a $600 deductible. Vision and dental is included. A freakin gym membership counts towards the deductible, and if you have 50+ visits in 6 months you get $100. Nothing is in percents as far as surgeries and hospital admissions go-- everything is all dollar-amount copays. But the bus crash plan has an utterly ridiculous deductible, higher copays, and hospital admissions have an 80-20 cost-share. My Gold plan is a Cadillac Plan compared to it. All because of a freakin $150 difference. Assuming one could even afford that bus crash plan to start with, an extra $150 per month is a major obstacle when you're poor if not just impossible. I've been there myself. That $95 is most definitely a poverty tax. Making poor people pay $300/month they don't really have for a shitty bus crash plan is NOT going to solve our healthcare problem. And that stark difference, once again...basically one deserves such supreme care and that good of a deal if they can afford it in the first place? Gah! Yeah, I worked hard to get out of poverty but I had luck on my side too (see below.) The stark differences between those two plans is a canyon; a canyon many don't have the means to get over.
And a lot of my peers and the next younger generation are going to be utterly screwed by this because they can't afford it. Not when they're paying off student loans, and ridiculously inflated rents. I'm a debt-free individual with rent control who now has a decent income-- I am rare, and the only person I know out of MANY folks from various walks of life who is benefiting from NY's exchange. I find that incredibly sad. My pure LUCK in having rent control is what made my health insurance payments possible-- why should access to healthcare be dependent on luck? And not every young person has the option to just go on their parents' insurance assuming that even IS an option, as politicians on both sides choose to ignore generational poverty. (Luck coming into play once again.)
ACA had good intent, but this individual mandate was written by people who have not had to live in the real world where most people can't afford a few hundred bucks here and there per month. Health insurance is also a huge scam at the heart of it-- you pay and pay into the damn thing and almost never see any benefit then if you DO get hit by a bus, you still have to pay that deductible. Unless we adopt a single-payer system like the rest of the civilized world, sadly health insurance IS needed even if you're supposedly young and healthy. I don't go to the doctor often but I got into two serious accidents in barely a 6-month span between late 2011 and early 2012; a head injury then I almost broke my hip in a climbing accident. If I didn't have health insurance, I'd be head over my ass in debt from just ONE of those incidents...medical bill induced bankruptcy is a serious problem in this country and destroys peoples' lives. But the problem lies not in people lacking insurance, but the existence of for-profit healthcare period.
Quote from: Anian on Mon 07/10/2013 23:12:45When the people who are arguing for the wealthiest people in the country (or even the world) to pay less taxes AND at the same time hold the side which, amongst other things, would stop the poorest from being f***ed, well it's not gonna end well.
This actually exemplifies one of the serious problems with Amerikaan politics at their core. Liberals and conservatives alike have ulterior motives because the people in power have more money than they know what to do with (though they're still terrified of losing a cent of it). A single presidential campaign (for a single candidate) could fund my core living expenses for
literally five thousand years. Now, I'm not saying that the candidates themselves are fronting that from their own pockets, but the point is that all this money is used for their own selfish purposes so that they can obtain power. These politicians not only do not know, they don't want to know, and they don't want to care about the problems faced by those of us living in poverty.
I support a more conservative style of government. Offering tax breaks or other such incentives are not conservative at all though. If the government acts like a corporation, then the prime directive will inevitably become money. This is the reality we are faced with, where neither side of the government is concerned with the citizens, who take a back seat to making more money and obtaining more power.
Quote from: Anian on Mon 07/10/2013 23:12:45On the other hand, when a change in the right direction, like Obamacare was supposed to be, happens, but along the way it actually turns out it's flawed in it's core...well it's not gonna end well.
I definitely think we needed some degree of healthcare reform. The system we have is clearly broken. Even the need to have insurance is utter bullocks. As you've stated though, the reform plan we've gone with has a fundamental flaw that no one is doing anything about.
Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 22:55:34I assume you're in one of the states that didn't accept the Medicaid expansion, then? And that you CAN find a plan that costs less than 8 percent of your income, which would stop you being exempt from the requirement to purchase health insurance.
Less than half of the states actually implemented the Medicaid expansion. Some are seeking alternatives, but Texas isn't one of either of these groups. The problem with the exemption (regarding 8% of my income) is that it's based on my annual income, which does nothing to account for unforeseen events which may occur throughout the year, such as me being fired for political reasons. If you default on an insurance payment, you are uninsured. There is an exception that allows to be uninsured for brief periods, but if I was not able to quickly resume making these payments then I would incur the penalty anyway. And starting a new job from a state of unemployment is a very, very expensive thing.
Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 07/10/2013 23:24:41I wouldn't call it "Obama's plan" per se.
I'm not ignorant of the fact that Obamacare has been modeled on other proposals (and of course, Romney's plan), but I referred to it as Obama's plan because he was the one primarily responsible for it being signed into federal law. He was the primary advocate and endorser of the plan as it exists today. Had it been Romney or anyone else, I would still be equally opposed, and I'd be calling it by their name instead of his.
Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 07/10/2013 23:24:41The Republicans have consistently gone out of their way to oppose the President, and the current shutdown of the government is no different.
This is a completely separate topic, but the sheer amount of obfuscation, misdirection, and blatant propaganda that has been utilized to cover up the actual issues is simply astounding. The governmental shutdown came about only because no federal budget was able to pass a vote. Conservatives are opposing
additional government spending when we have already reached and raised the debt ceiling (several times), and the only way to support this additional spending is to raise it again and go further into debt (when we are already over $16 trillion in the hole). Instead of focusing on getting out of debt (which is the entire
purpose of having a debt ceiling in the first place!), we (as a country) have been completely fiscally irresponsible. That is the reason for the shutdown.
Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 01:10:59Taxing me because I can't afford health care is essentially a poverty tax as well (and I find that to be unethical).
There's also the issue that the government forcing citizens to purchase anything from the private sector is taxation without representation. Even if I were a shareholder in the company, you might not be, and the stocks may not even be publicly traded. There would not be equal opportunity for representation to be given, which was one of the fundamental issues under which this country was founded.
Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 01:10:59I understand that the ACA is already helping many, but so would alternative plans (like the "Medicaid for All" plan I mentioned above). There is a better way, and it would be nice if the government would work towards it, or at least strike the individual mandate from the ACA.
The issue with this is that the powers-that-be have stated multiple times that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Obamacare, and any opposition to it in any way whatsoever by any person holding any political power is portrayed (by the media, and thereby viewed by the public) as nothing more than rampant Republicanism (which isn't the same as conservatism, many Republican ideals are very liberal, as with the tax breaks). As much as the media demonizes the Republican party (albeit sometimes justified), this would be political death to anyone who wasn't already a declared Republican.
Quote from: FamousAdventurer77 on Tue 08/10/2013 03:53:08the problem lies not in people lacking insurance, but the existence of for-profit healthcare period.
I absolutely agree with that. I would even go so far as to say that for-profit organizations themselves are the issue. They breed corruption and greed, which doesn't ultimately benefit anyone.
You should be fine re:mandate.
Quote
People who cannot afford coverage because the cost of premiums exceed 8 percent of their household income or those whose household incomes are below the minimum threshold for filing a tax return are exempt.
Also, surely as an unemployed person you qualify for medicaid anyway?
On the whole I support the ACA simply because it's better than what you had before and less people will die from lack of insurance. That is a good thing.
Ideally you'd move to a european style health care system but that's simply politically impossible in the US. Which is actually fine with me. I appreciate that any kind of socialist system is anathema to the american people and I respect that. You have your political beliefs and, as a country, you are willing to stick by them.
*However* I will say that America's healthcare system is a little bit schizophrenic. It seems like you can't decide if healthcare is a right or a luxury. If it's a right then provide it to all people irrespective of the ability to pay (like the UK). If it's a luxury then
stop treating people who cannot pay for it. If you treat people who can't pay then it just drives up the cost of healthcare for those who can which is irresponsible and immoral (if you accept that healthcare is a luxury). To put it bluntly, you should just let them literally die in the street. Anything else, in a for-profit system, is immoral because it drives up costs for those who have a job and can pay and because it hurts the healthcare business unfairly.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 08/10/2013 08:02:51
It seems like you can't decide if healthcare is a right or a luxury.
That would aptly sum it up. Most people get it in their heads that you have to "deserve" healthcare. Namely, "If you don't have insurance then you're not working hard enough to deserve it" or some bullshit like that.
Because that line of thinking is horribly flawed. I mean, do the Walton children deserve their healthcare when they so didn't actually earn their billions? While the hardest workers I know are fucking poor and working two or more jobs to try to make ends meet. The for-profit healthcare system is just that-- driven by shareholders, not medical professionals. Then there's many doctors who've happily adopted the for-profit model and they care more about getting paid than they do about actually making patients better (which correct me if I'm wrong, but don't doctors in the UK get bonuses for how many patients whose health problems actually get better/eliminated? I know NHS has its problems, but they're nothing compared to the American death panels believe me.)
And the privileged who think Medicaid is sufficient for the working poor live in a fantasy world. There is not a gap, but a canyon if you make too much money to go on Medicaid but not enough to afford health insurance through one of these exchanges, before even getting into what's in store for you care-wise if you're on Medicaid.
I also think that healthcare should not be dependent on what you do for a living-- read: your employer, or if you are self-employed and just can't afford insurance. I say this not just as a business owner but also as someone who has been in the latter boat, and had coverage issues once I did have a plan. I had been told by many that I didn't deserve healthcare because I "didn't have a real job". I'm sure many of us in the game development field have heard that noise (which can get fucked with a capital F and no lube.) Well, when you're on an employer-sponsored plan you sign over the rights to your life. Your employer can ask you any number of privacy-violating questions, fire you if they think you're going to raise the premiums in any way, and/or the plan they choose can stick you with shitty doctors. They can choose plans that match THEIR beliefs and not yours, like refusal to cover contraceptives or mental health services.
Then on the other side of the coin? Health plans are a huge financial and legal jungle to administer even if the amount of covered employees is small. They cost a LOT of money, and most small employers simply can't afford it. Large employers can, but whine about the cost the most...and engage in practices like just hiring more bodies to make up for all the people they deliberately put under 35 hours a week to avoid the 35+ hour-and-you-must-provide-insurance mandate, or laying off workers then putting them on a 1099 basis to avoid paying for it. ACA was also supposed to help with insurance just not being feasible if you're self-employed/contract worker. But once again, they don't think about how inconsistent self-employment is when you can make $5,000 in a month then have absolute zilch come in the next two whilst getting eaten by expenses, and making health insurance payments has to take a backseat to keeping a roof over your head.
It's a twisted system that badly needs to be reformed.
[Off topic - mostly]
Quote from: FamousAdventurer77 on Tue 08/10/2013 15:45:04
While the hardest workers I know are fucking poor and working two or more jobs to try to make ends meet.
This is where I honestly get confused. Or the "UNaffordable Care Act" quote. Many of you have mentioned being broke and not being able to make ends meet (plus having no kids). Unless the USA economy is quite shit and pays their employees much less than Canada, I just don't understand this. Or perhaps you're all students working part time living in expensive schooling apartments.
Two years ago I was working management at a grocery store. It wasn't all that much. I was making $15 an hour. New ownership pushed me out the door and I was on EI for a year making about 60% of what my average income was ($1256 a month). I own a house, paying mortgage payments, taxes, utilities, etc. I'll admit that shit got really tight near the end, but I wasn't "broke". I even bought a $600 phone and many other things within that year.
Then when it actually came time to getting off my ass and finding a job, it was easy. An autoparts factory. It was easy to get in, they're always hiring. Making $17.71 an hour. Which isn't rich by any means, but considering what I made off of EI, it's a luxurious living. My paychecks are instantly 15-20% less mostly due to government deductions (Tax, EI, CPP, and Long Term Disability). I still easily save 50% of what I make (I don't have kids though and I'm single).
After mortgage and utilities, most of my money goes towards cell phone, fuel and food. Which happen to be considerably cheaper in the USA (it sucks, I know - even restaurants are half the price). Fuel, cell phone and alcohol being almost half the price in USA. Our sales tax is also 13% (where the USA is oftentimes half or even no sales tax). Sure for the care act, 8% is quite a bit, but I'm hearing mentions of being broke before this act will even be in effect. There must be something else about the USA, income and expenses, that I don't know much about. Or am I honestly really that stingy with my income?
A year ago I was let go (laid off) from a temporary contract job where I was making $13.50/hr. working full-time. Two months later I filed for unemployment benefits, and I made $400/month (because the Texas Workforce Commission determined that the "average" pay for the work I had been doing was much closer to the minimum wage of $7.25/hr), about 20% of what I was bringing home before in net.
Several months later I actually did find another job (my most recent one), but I was also in debt. I was making $12.50/hr. full-time with shift differentials of $1-$2/hr. (for night and weekend shifts). I was putting money in savings and looking to get completely out of debt when I was terminated from my job because the day-shift supervisors (who I rarely worked with) did not like me on a personal basis. This was confirmed to me by the evening-shift supervisor, who I was on much better terms with. Officially, on the paperwork, the stated reason is that I was "driving recklessly in the parking lot", which also isn't true. Texas isn't a "right-to-work" state though, so any reason an employer cares to put on the paperwork gives them the legal right to fire me. I have no proof of how I was or wasn't driving, so it's my word against theirs.
Because I made less than $15,000 last year, I have not contributed enough to the unemployment program in Texas to qualify for any further benefits. Between rent, electric, car insurance, gas, phone, food, and making sure that I don't default on my credit card payments (which are nearly paid in full anyway), my savings are all but depleted.
As to qualifying for Medicaid, because I'm not pregnant and have no kids or wife, I don't qualify. That's literally that.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Tue 08/10/2013 19:00:34
There must be something else about the USA, income and expenses, that I don't know much about.
Living expenses simply outweigh income in most parts of the US today. And nope, it's not just happening to students subletting in a nice part of town to go to school-- it's happening to people in their thirties and forties who have gotten screwed out of work, securing full-time work, getting hit with expenses and debts.
I've lived in NYC a majority of my life, and housing is the first major expense to come to mind: The days of a person who isn't filthy rich being able to seriously afford living in most parts of Manhattan have gone the way of the dinosaurs. But it was still always more expensive than the other boros-- once upon a time, you went to Brooklyn or Queens to find affordable housing if you were too scared to come to my home turf, the Bronx (which always had the cheapest housing and still does.) And those apartments would be reasonably priced and somewhat proportional to your income-- it was barely 7 years ago, you could get a 1-bedroom apartment in a decent neighborhood for $750/month. You could live by yourself in BK or Queens for well under $1,000/month and if you had roommates, paying well under $600/month was not uncommon.
Cue the housing bubble bursting, followed by all the local natural disasters and shitty payouts from FEMA and homeowners' insurance making people want to rent til they die (and/or just leaving them with no place to live regardless.) What happens when supply decreases but demand doesn't? Prices shoot up. You now can't get even a shitty studio in the SOUTH BRONX for less than $1,000/month! I've got rent control and feel so grateful for it. And this problem isn't just in NYC-- it's in NJ, and even in PA where living expenses are so low compared to here, all these apartments smaller than mine and with none of the convenience are demanding such high rents. Rent alone basically comprises 50-60% of a person's post-tax income, if not even more than that-- but 50% is used as the guideline by many realtors and landlords where I live.
If you're in the city proper like myself, public transit is awesome and affordable. If you're not but close to the city, it's tough but doable to get by without a car. Anywhere that ISN'T a major city (speaking for most parts of the Northeast at least), it's virtually impossible since the US is very car-centric. Insurance is expensive and so is gas, and paying off a decent car or constantly repairing a clunker also isn't cheap.
A lot of young people are also trapped with student loans-- and it's not even just young people, hell my sister has co-workers in their fifties who are still paying them off. The student loan problem in this country is a whole other diatribe of mine which I honestly think is maybe 25% the students' faults, but 75% of the problem is definitely institutional and governmental. Those things are basically heavy, shifting ankle bracelets because unlike normal loans where you have an amortization schedule and it's just "Pay this amount on X of the month" the sharks who issue student loans can charge you interest-only for months on end, basically ensuring you never pay down the principal. Then if you're on an income-based repayment plan, you get penalized the second your income goes up or if you get married and your spouse has a decent income. If you choose deferment, that puppy just puts you in a pit of interest that gets more and more impossible to climb out of.
So between all the above coupled with our lovely for-profit healthcare system...then it comes to incomes being at all-time low because of hiring freezes, HR dipshits creating useless barriers between employers and job seekers, jobs being outsourced or automated, mass layoffs to artificially increase earnings per share to please shareholders, and severe levels of both unemployment AND underemployment. Expenses increase and increase but wages have stagnated if not stopped altogether for many people.
That is why many people are already broke before even factoring in the ACA individual mandate.
By way of comparison, where I live (southeast Texas, north of Houston), most jobs were pulling the stunt of overstaffing and not giving anyone more than 35 hours a week. At $7.25/hr. and after taxes, typical take-home from such a job would be less than $1,000 monthly. I actually went apartment hunting just a few months ago, and the cheapest one-bedroom I could find was about $500/mo. And the leasing requirements stated that I had to provide proof-of-income showing that I made at least three times rent each month.
If you actually calculate that out, that would require a job making about $10-11/hr. working 40 hours a week. My last two jobs fit that bill, but my last two jobs were very atypical, and I had to commute an hour each way. There is no way that a person could live on their own, pay rent, and support themselves under these circumstances while working a single job (without other income or assistance).
Monkey, move to Canada and get yourself a job as a game programmer! :cheesy:
Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 01:10:59
That's the point. I'm a fairly healthy individual, and I typically only need to visit a doctor once every year or two for relatively minor things (this year I had strep throat), so I don't really need insurance.
If a doctor visit normally costs $100, and if my deductible is higher than that, then I'm stuck not only paying for the $100 doctor visit, but also the monthly insurance charge. I'm pretty poor as it is, so adding another monthly expense is not going to help matters, especially if it's not going to cover the $100 I'll end up spending out of my own pocket. If I'm still going to have to pay deductibles and copays, insurance isn't really helping me very much as a relatively young and healthy individual. Taxing me because I can't afford health care is essentially a poverty tax as well (and I find that to be unethical).
I understand that the ACA is already helping many, but so would alternative plans (like the "Medicaid for All" plan I mentioned above). There is a better way, and it would be nice if the government would work towards it, or at least strike the individual mandate from the ACA.
I'll have to look into it a bit more, but I don't like the prospect of forcing me to pay any more than I'm already paying (which is the cost of visiting a doctor whenever I'm too sick for over the counter medicine). I also think that more medication should be made available over the counter.
Well, insurance doesn't work if healthy people only pay for what they need. How can you balance risk if all the low-risks aren't in the scheme? In any system that basically doesn't punish people for being sick then healthy people have to subsidize the unhealthy.
You know that a single-payer system would have to be funded via taxes, right? So, it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper than the ACA, and you would be forced to pay for it!
Quote from: SSH on Wed 09/10/2013 20:49:35
You know that a single-payer system would have to be funded via taxes, right? So, it wouldn't necessarily be cheaper than the ACA, and you would be forced to pay for it!
It almost certainly would be cheaper for a whole host of reasons. Primarily the increased bargaining power.
Quote from: FamousAdventurer77 on Tue 08/10/2013 03:53:08But the problem lies not in people lacking insurance, but the existence of for-profit healthcare period.
I agree here. I think that a single-payer system would be beneficial to the American people, and would do away with a lot of the cost inflation already present (thereby doing away with the need for private, for-profit insurance companies). The topic of rights versus luxury came up, and I believe that in a civilized modern society, health care is a right. I've said it before, it should be on par with police and fire services.
I would rather be taxed and provided with adequate health care than be taxed because I can't afford inadequate health care.
Quote from: dactylopus on Wed 09/10/2013 22:12:24I would rather be taxed and provided with adequate health care than be taxed because I can't afford inadequate health care.
Agreed. (nod)
I finally gave in and suffered through the buggy MA health insurance website to get insured, after being uninsured for way too long. I make too much to qualify for MassHealth (hurray?) but the only other options were a lot more expensive than simply eating the yearly tax penalty for not having insurance. I'm young and healthy can afford paying full price for the occasional checkup, right? I even sprained my arm a couple years ago and that was still cheaper than having insurance.
Until earlier this year, when I had an overnight ER visit (thought I was having a pulmonary embolism but it turned out to be a complete false alarm.) The bill was not devastating, but awful enough to make me realize that if I were ever hit by a car or got appendicitis, anything requiring actual surgery, I'd be royally fucked, so, time to suck it up.
It is a frustrating process and for months I was turned off by stuff like open enrollment periods (I literally could not get insurance until a week ago) and activation dates. The insurance I picked doesn't kick in until January 1st. If I were hospitalized before than, what happens? Probably something terrible.
Thankfully MassHealth seems to be a great option for most of my friends. My girlfriend has it and pays very little. One year she made too much and was booted off of it, which is frustrating since freelance incomes can fluctuate wildly. But nonetheless, it's utterly ridiculous to me that other states didn't even have that option before.
Such a barbaric system.
Quote from: dactylopus on Wed 09/10/2013 22:12:24
I would rather be taxed and provided with adequate health care than be taxed because I can't afford inadequate health care.
Totally concur. Hey, my taxes pay for wars I don't agree with, politicians' salaries when a majority of them have vast incomes from other sources, said politicians' state cars and Cadillac Plan health insurance while my neighbors go bankrupt from medical bills, corporate welfare for large businesses who fucked themselves while small businesses are FOREVER hung out to dry...and all of us working stiffs who make less than $110K/year get really burned on paying for Social Security. Which was promised to our grandparents as tax-free money but that was a lie, and which our generation isn't even going to benefit from when we're old (all while we're not going to have the defined-benefit pension plans that many of our grandparents had, either.)
I'd MUCH rather have my taxes go to universal healthcare than many of the things my hard-earned money gets pissed away on.
Quote from: Trapezoid on Wed 09/10/2013 23:27:08
The bill was not devastating, but awful enough to make me realize that if I were ever hit by a car or got appendicitis, anything requiring actual surgery, I'd be royally fucked, so, time to suck it up.
Yep. I debated dropping my COBRA because of how much the payments were killing me, until I got into a pit-related accident at a show in late 2011 (head injury.) I didn't require surgery, but all my scans, exams, and hospital admission fees would've cost over $20,000 at that fucking toilet North Central. My insurance picked up most of the tab, I paid less than $1,500 when all was said and done.
What clinched it for me was when my father was diagnosed with colon cancer. All his treatments would've literally cost over $1M, and my family is not the frigging Waltons. After that, I swore up and down I'd continue to pay for the plan as painful as it was.
We need universal healthcare like yesterday!
There's one good thing though with a system like the ACA. When things fail, they quickly get changed. It seems like it's one step towards a universal healthcare system (even though it's still shit) - or I'm dead wrong.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 10/10/2013 12:43:40When things fail, they quickly get changed.
Hah. Funny joke. Not in Amerikaa they don't.
Is that like, some Afrikaans joke?
Calling it "America" would imply that it's the same country that broke off from Britain 230 years ago. (wtf)
I would hope not.
Calling it Britain implies it's the same Britain that America broke off from 230 years ago. I prefer to call it Britain Bambaataa Planet Rock.
That's perfectly true, but I was referring to the historical state of Britain, so my logic holds.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Fri 11/10/2013 02:51:32
Calling it "America" would imply that it's the same country that broke off from Britain 230 years ago. (wtf)
Calling it America implies that it's the land discovered/mapped by Amerigo Vespucci, i.e. the coast of Brazil. Because logic.
Call it what you will, that's not the point here. The point is that this ACA is a broken piece of legislation attempting to fix a broken system. It's hardly a band-aid. Better yet, it's a band-aid that's covered in caustic toxins. It may stop some of the bleeding, but the wound is going to get infected.
Quote from: dactylopus on Sat 12/10/2013 05:31:24
Call it what you will, that's not the point here.
Since Monkey persists in writing it "Amerikaan" for some contrived reason and making a deal about how "America" apparently should only be used to refer to the region during the 18th century, I'd say it's a pretty big point. If it wasn't the point, the thread wouldn't have "Amerikaan" in its title, right? So I say let people address that too.
Quote from: Andail on Sat 12/10/2013 08:27:23for some contrived reason
I can honestly say, I don't know that I have ever felt more understood. :)
The law or the system it is trying to create is certainly far from perfect. A single-payer system would almost certainly have been better for the American people, but that idea was DOA due to the opposition on the right. The compromise you ended up with was an attempt to create something that would be acceptable to Republicans (indeed, that the Republicans had championed)... who ended up hating it and doing their best to sabotage it regardless. (What can we learn from this? Fuck the Republicans.)
Given this flawed approach, the attempt to provide healthcare to everybody does however require the individual mandate. Remember, the law says insurance companies cannot consider preexisting conditions in denying anyone insurance or setting their insurance rates (because otherwise, sick people would find it impossible to get insurance, which defeats the purpose). But that would mean lots of healthy people would choose not to buy insurance until they got sick. And that would be like selling lottery tickets that always paid out: the insurance companies would have to set the prices so high you'd basically be paying them just as much as for the treatment. The whole thing would collapse. Therefore, to make the whole thing work you have to tell people they must have healthcare insurance, even if they're healthy.
Paying insurance fees you can't afford sucks. Getting sick without insurance in America sucks worse. Being poor sucks in general. But hey, what could be more American than millions of people trapped in poverty, screwed over by a failed social system and dysfunctional politics?
If the individual mandate is to be seen as a necessity, then this whole thing should be abandoned. They should really work to reform the entire health care paradigm.
Quote from: Snarky on Sat 12/10/2013 10:42:16
(What can we learn from this? Fuck the Republicans.)
Indeed. They are truly the ones standing in the way of progress. Not only in preventing this ACA from going into effect, and not only in shutting down the government, but in denying the people of the only real solution available, which would be the aforementioned single-payer system.