Incorrect. Hit your scroll bar and go back up. I'm saying none of us , including our reps, know enough to make an educated decision. Anything I put out there was simply to show that others are saying there are pros to offset your stated cons, thus, my point about certitudes.

 

I could do a point-counterpoint for any side I took on this.

I agree I'm simply talking about 1 part of the law. It's way more complex than that.

I in now way have any answers to how to fix this. However, I do have insurance (and if it was tax deductable for me, I probably wouldn't in all honesty.) In the last 10 years, I have spent $12,473 on premiums, and have never used my insurance once. The premium cost contiune to rise year in and year out, up over $300.00 from last year alone. Why? If I was using it, I could maybe understand some resoning or logic behind the increases. Something in this system is broken on this end, and if others are forced to get insurance I can only imagine how much my premiums will be.

 

 

Further more, why does it cost so much to go to a doctor/urgent care/er? Prime example, my girlfriends mother broke her ankle back in October of last year. She recently went back for her checkup on her ankle. She met with the doctor for less than 15 minutes. She got the Insurance bill this weekend and the cost from the doctor (after insurance discount) that she had to pay having not met the 2012 deductable yet for the visit, $386.78. Someone explain it?

 

Imagine what the cost will be when every person is now on insurance, and goes to the doctor every time they sneeze.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7553.pdf

 

From 2003. My guess is as a whole our nations' health hasn't changed dramatically.

 

Of the non-elderly uninsured 60-63% were in excellent or very good health.

28% to 29% were in good health.

28% to 29% were in fair or poor health.

 

I can't find the article I was reading a while back but it states something close to this - 10% (Obviously the Unhealthy/Sick) of the insured make up 90% of all insurance costs per year.

I can't find the article I was reading a while back but it states something close to this - 10% (Obviously the Unhealthy/Sick) of the insured make up 90% of all insurance costs per year.

 

That would be good info. Of course, I could counter it a bit by saying that % would be less if all had insurance. My seemingly logical assumption is that if you're uninsured you're only going if it's serious so therefore only the 10% are driving cost.

 

Again, even those who have the time and the paycheck incentive to do so cannot fully get their arms around this beast. We all agree the beast needs to be tamed but with it having so many arms on it it's tough to figure out a viable plan.

To me the real issue is costs. This thread shows that everybody already has health care in one form or another.

 

Nobody is there to keep the costs in line, and let's face it, if somebody isn't paying a dime for the care-run all the tests you want. That is the prevailing attitude.

That would be good info. Of course, I could counter it a bit by saying that % would be less if all had insurance. My seemingly logical assumption is that if you're uninsured you're only going if it's serious so therefore only the 10% are driving cost.

 

Again, even those who have the time and the paycheck incentive to do so cannot fully get their arms around this beast. We all agree the beast needs to be tamed but with it having so many arms on it it's tough to figure out a viable plan.

OK, I was a bit off. :lol: This wasn't the article I saw but has some good info.

 

Report: 5% of Patients Responsible for Half of Health Costs | Healthcare Leadership Council

 

Half of U.S. health spending goes toward the care of just 5 percent of patients, a government report says.

 

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality finds that U.S. healthcare costs are concentrated on a small slice of patients. USA Today recently ran a story on these findings.

 

This fact indicates that Americans don’t necessarily overspend on their medical care. In 2009, Americans devoted a total of $1.26 trillion to health care.

 

Heavy spending on a few may skew the picture of the many. And even for the few, the cost concentration has lessened.

 

AHRQ’s study gives a clearer picture of how American healthcare dollars get allocated.

 

The 1 percent of Americans receiving the most medical care explains 22 percent of the nation’s healthcare costs. The other 99 percent accounts for 78 percent of the healthcare pie.

 

The sickest 5 percent consumed half of the nation’s health costs in 2009. Fully 95 percent split the other half of the overall U.S. health spending.

 

In dollar terms, each of the people with the most health expenses in the 1 percent averaged $90,000 per person in health costs. Those in the top 5 percent of most expensive patients each accounted for $36,000 per person.

 

By comparison, in 1996, 28 percent of total health spending went to the top 1 percent.

 

This report also shows who demands the most in U.S. health spending.

 

AHRQ looks at those in the top 10 percent of healthcare consumers, based on expense, for two years running, 2008 and 2009.

 

In short, these patients are elderly women in public healthcare programs. These high-cost patients rely on Medicaid and Medicare, putting ever-greater strain on these already-financially-challenged public health programs.

 

Though not a huge proportion of Medicare or Medicaid populations, those patients eligible for both programs absorb a significant share of the programs’ financial resources.

Obamacare Has Increased Cost of Health Insurance, Says Kaiser Foundation | CNSNews.com

 

However, he continued, “Our analysis is that the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] could have been responsible for about one-and-a-half percentage points – we say 1 to 2 percentage points – of the increase that we’re documenting this year,” he said.

 

“And that reflects the costs of providing prevention benefits without cost-sharing,” he said. “It reflects the costs of covering young adults up to 26 years of age under their parents’ policies. Those are also very popular benefits, according to our tracking polls.”

 

Altman pointed out that the Affordable Care Act was not responsible for the entire premium increase, explaining that most health plans would be grandfathered in and would not be subject to the full force of the law’s new regulations.

 

According to the study, health insurance premiums for employer-provided coverage – the most common type – have been rising at a steady rate of about 5 percent each year.

health care bill

 

 

This year, however, that rate jumped to 9 percent for family coverage and 8 percent for single coverage.

 

This means that ObamaCare was responsible for anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of the 4 percentage point jump in insurance premiums this year.

 

Most of the law’s provisions don’t go into effect until 2014. The two biggest changes this year allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance policies and require some insurance plans to cover preventive services at no cost to patients. These are popular provisions that provide real benefits, and combined they account for about one to two percentage points of this year's premium increase."

 

^ Those are just minor changes and it did raise the cost. What will the major changes do?

To me the real issue is costs. This thread shows that everybody already has health care in one form or another.

 

Nobody is there to keep the costs in line, and let's face it, if somebody isn't paying a dime for the care-run all the tests you want. That is the prevailing attitude.

 

Cost was not part of Congress's concern according to the SG today....

 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/wednesday.pdf

 

"MR. KNEEDLER: No, I -- I -- I think any cost assumptions -- there is no indication that Congress made any cost assumptions, but -- but there is no reason to think that the individual -- that the individual market, which is where the minimum coverage provision is directed, would affect that."

 

So if you support this because of 'cost' the SG told the SC today that Congress did this without regard to costs.

After skimming the transcript from this morning....

 

- Individual mandate is dead. No one acted as if it would not be. The arguments were about the heart and if the body can survive without the heart.

- Severability. This is a Scalia vs. Kagan/Soytomeyer fight. Scalia wants to send it all back to Congress. Kagan/Soytomeyer want to do surgery on the 2,700 pages.

After skimming the transcript from this morning....

 

- Individual mandate is dead. No one acted as if it would not be. The arguments were about the heart and if the body can survive without the heart.

- Severability. This is a Scalia vs. Kagan/Soytomeyer fight. Scalia wants to send it all back to Congress. Kagan/Soytomeyer want to do surgery on the 2,700 pages.

 

They want the SC to do that?

They want the SC to do that?

 

Page 37.

 

MR. KNEEDLER: -- blend into, blend into discretion, and in turn blend into the merits of the severability question. And as to that, just to answer a question that, that several Justices have asked, we think that severability is a matter of statutory interpretation. It should be resolved by looking at the structure and the text of the Act, and the Court may look at legislative history to figure out what the text and structure mean with respect to severability. We don't --

 

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to -- to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

MR. KNEEDLER: Well -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I thought the answer was you don't have to because -

MR. KNEEDLER: Well, that is, that is the -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- what we have to look at is what Congress said was essential, correct?

After skimming the transcript from this morning....

 

- Individual mandate is dead. No one acted as if it would not be. The arguments were about the heart and if the body can survive without the heart.

- Severability. This is a Scalia vs. Kagan/Soytomeyer fight. Scalia wants to send it all back to Congress. Kagan/Soytomeyer want to do surgery on the 2,700 pages.

 

The individual mandate is not dead. They are presenting arguments today in case it is struck down so they do not have to present this argument again in June. It's an if this happens then what about this situation.

If this is overturned, I believe it helps Obama get re-elected. Every poll I have seen says at least half the country wants this reform and I believe one of the key issues that got him elected the first time was his promise to reform health care. Those people will become more committed to Obama and more motivated to get out and support Obama if this bill is overturned.

If this is overturned, I believe it helps Obama get re-elected. Every poll I have seen says at least half the country wants this reform and I believe one of the key issues that got him elected the first time was his promise to reform health care. Those people will become more committed to Obama and more motivated to get out and support Obama if this bill is overturned.

 

Makes sense. Anything that excites the base is a good thing for a candidate.

Interesting comment regarding the possibility of striking down the mandate.

 

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, but knocks out the mandate requiring almost everyone to buy their products, the industry warns that health care reform will result in higher premiums and less access to coverage. In court and before the public, the Obama administration is making the same case.

 

Supreme Court Health Care Reform: Without Mandate, Nightmare Awaits Insurers, Uninsured