The Uninsured versus Obamacare

[Voice of Reason]

It looks like the issue of mandatory coverage will be put on the fast track for review by the Supreme Court. We can debate the constitutionality in this thread if you want, and I am sure that will be heavily discussed.

 

However, what I would like to focus on is how to handle the uninsured. The way I see it, every one of us that pay for health insurance pay higher rates because of the uninsured. I believe forcing everyone to get insured will reduce our rates by putting more dollars into healthcare and by reducing insurance risk cost due to there being a larger pool of insured. For that reason, I like the provision in Obamacare that requires everyone to get coverage.

 

If you don't like Obamacare's required coverage provision, what is your alternative proposal to cover the uninsured? Are you in favor of uninsured being refused care by doctors and hospitals? If we aren't going to require coverage, I want to see accounting for uninsured by hospitals and doctors and I want them to demand payment before providing care or eat the cost of care if they decide to provide it. I want to stop paying for the uninsured in my rates. If people know they will have to pay for care to receive it if they aren't insured, maybe they will get coverage and help us that way.

[Run To State]

My question first would be if these people can't afford to pay, how do we make them pay? Jail them? Not give them treatment? If they flat out are living week to week and are stretched too thin just to get by, what happens to them?

[Voice of Reason]

My question first would be if these people can't afford to pay, how do we make them pay? Jail them? Not give them treatment? If they flat out are living week to week and are stretched too thin just to get by, what happens to them?

 

That is the big question. Without Obamacare, how do we handle them? I say no treatment unless they pay. They have to find a way to pay to get treated. Maybe we create a charity that people can contribute to that will pay the costs for these people? Would people contribute money to such a charity?

[Run To State]

That is the big question. Without Obamacare, how do we handle them? I say no treatment unless they pay. They have to find a way to pay to get treated. Maybe we create a charity that people can contribute to that will pay the costs for these people? Would people contribute money to such a charity?

I want to know how we handle them with Obama Care. Do you know what is outlined for those that don't pay? A charity might work, but how abused would it be? So many charities end up giving very little money collected to the actual charity.

[Habib]

I want to know how we handle them with Obama Care. Do you know what is outlined for those that don't pay? A charity might work, but how abused would it be? So many charities end up giving very little money collected to the actual charity.

 

Under the current law those who can't afford insurance either fall under Medicaid or are given subsidies to purchase private insurance commensurate with their need, if that was your question.

 

As far as how the SC will rule, I haven't the slightest clue. From my rudimentary following of SC cases that appear similar to this law - which looks like it will be centered around the Commerce Clause - it looks like it will be a partisan vote with Kennedy playing the decider. I've also heard that it may not be an opinion centered around the Commerce Clause as well. I'd be interested in hearing Getslow or leatherneck's take.

[woodsrider]

VOR, I agree. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to buy insurance. Everyone makes a choice to either have it or not have. If you choose not to have it more power to you but if you get sick then you better have money to pay for treatment.

[bballfamily]

If the choices are 1) paying higher costs for health care as we are under the current system or 2) paying higher costs and/or taxes with the government running the system. I'll take choice #1.

We could have made some changes without the massive law that was passed.

What is the next mandate, dietary laws and/or taxes on unacceptble foods as Bloomberg proposed in his speech to the UN? Obamacare is unconstitutional.

[Voice of Reason]

If the choices are 1) paying higher costs for health care as we are under the current system or 2) paying higher costs and/or taxes with the government running the system. I'll take choice #1.

We could have made some changes without the massive law that was passed.

What is the next mandate, dietary laws and/or taxes on unacceptble foods as Bloomberg proposed in his speech to the UN? Obamacare is unconstitutional.

 

Those are two bad choices bb. Can't we come up with something better than those two choices?

 

As to your "next mandate", another false argument people like to use. Make a decision on the current proposal on its own merits. If someone tries to push through a "next mandate" make a decision on that. That debate and decision has nothing to do with the first.

[cammando]

There are provisions for millions of illeagals in ObamaCare. Maybe some of that money could be used to care for our own citizens that can't afford ObamaCare...

[bballfamily]

Those are two bad choices bb. Can't we come up with something better than those two choices?

 

As to your "next mandate", another false argument people like to use. Make a decision on the current proposal on its own merits. If someone tries to push through a "next mandate" make a decision on that. That debate and decision has nothing to do with the first.

 

I did say some changes could have been made that could have helped, but we did not need a massive overhaul.

As far as this mandate goes, if it is allowed, it just makes it easier for the next one. The slippery slope, as in you could not smoke on a small number of flights, then a few more and then all flights. Now it has gotten to the point where smoking is considered, by some, to be worse than taking hard drugs. Or in New York city they have taken saturated fats out of restaurants and Bloomberg wants more. I forget which state it is that wants track obese kids, which is none of the governments business.

Or how about allowing homosexuals to serve openly, today I saw the headline of a news story were the writer wanted transgenders to serve. Then where does it go? I'll leave that to your imagination.

I would like to stop from going over the slippery slope now.

[Bluegrasscard]

It looks like the issue of mandatory coverage will be put on the fast track for review by the Supreme Court. We can debate the constitutionality in this thread if you want, and I am sure that will be heavily discussed.

 

However, what I would like to focus on is how to handle the uninsured. The way I see it, every one of us that pay for health insurance pay higher rates because of the uninsured. I believe forcing everyone to get insured will reduce our rates by putting more dollars into healthcare and by reducing insurance risk cost due to there being a larger pool of insured. For that reason, I like the provision in Obamacare that requires everyone to get coverage.

 

If you don't like Obamacare's required coverage provision, what is your alternative proposal to cover the uninsured? Are you in favor of uninsured being refused care by doctors and hospitals? If we aren't going to require coverage, I want to see accounting for uninsured by hospitals and doctors and I want them to demand payment before providing care or eat the cost of care if they decide to provide it. I want to stop paying for the uninsured in my rates. If people know they will have to pay for care to receive it if they aren't insured, maybe they will get coverage and help us that way.

 

The government can certainly have a role and almost must have a role. In fact, it has the required role today. That is 'insurer of last resort'. The government can do what a business, especially under SOX, can not - take on risk that would possible bankrupt a regular private company. In Florida, the state had to set up just such a private/government run entity called Citizens after the state was hit by 4 hurricanes in one year. When no one else will ensure someones property - Citizens will. It is the 'insurer of last resort' for the state.

 

Yes, government can do something private businesses can not - take on risk that normally would be unacceptable for any private company. The mechanics? - god knows how that would work.

[Voice of Reason]

The government can certainly have a role and almost must have a role. In fact, it has the required role today. That is 'insurer of last resort'. The government can do what a business, especially under SOX, can not - take on risk that would possible bankrupt a regular private company. In Florida, the state had to set up just such a private/government run entity called Citizens after the state was hit by 4 hurricanes in one year. When no one else will ensure someones property - Citizens will. It is the 'insurer of last resort' for the state.

 

Yes, government can do something private businesses can not - take on risk that normally would be unacceptable for any private company. The mechanics? - god knows how that would work.

 

If I can use a favorite line of a couple of other posters - BINGO we have a winner!

 

Yes, the government sure does have the role today. Obamacare is not the government taking over health care because the government pretty well already does control it. It is really more about how to structure it. Obamacare is a restructuring of the current government health care system. About 60% of health care spending comes from government programs. Yes, 60% currently before Obamacare is rolled out. So please people, do not try to claim Obamacare is a government takeover of healthcare because the government already controls it.

 

Yet there are 50 million people in the US who are uninsured. What does that cost us? The US is the only major nation that does not have health care coverage for all it citizens. And the US has the most expensive health care system in the world. I think there is a clear correlation there. That is why I think we must have some system that either makes sure everyone has coverage or a system that does not provide health care to those who don't have coverage unless they pay for it.

[swamprat]

If I can use a favorite line of a couple of other posters - BINGO we have a winner!

 

Yes, the government sure does have the role today. Obamacare is not the government taking over health care because the government pretty well already does control it. It is really more about how to structure it. Obamacare is a restructuring of the current government health care system. About 60% of health care spending comes from government programs. Yes, 60% currently before Obamacare is rolled out. So please people, do not try to claim Obamacare is a government takeover of healthcare because the government already controls it.

 

Yet there are 50 million people in the US who are uninsured. What does that cost us? The US is the only major nation that does not have health care coverage for all it citizens. And the US has the most expensive health care system in the world. I think there is a clear correlation there. That is why I think we must have some system that either makes sure everyone has coverage or a system that does not provide health care to those who don't have coverage unless they pay for it.

 

So you believe that with mandatory health insurance, health costs will decrease? I don't and there are few provisions in Obamacare to curtail of the rampant fraud in the current system. Fraud that, I believe, will increase under the new act. 90% of the current fraud is perpetrated on Medicare and Medicaid covered patients.

[swamprat]

The government can certainly have a role and almost must have a role. In fact, it has the required role today. That is 'insurer of last resort'. The government can do what a business, especially under SOX, can not - take on risk that would possible bankrupt a regular private company. In Florida, the state had to set up just such a private/government run entity called Citizens after the state was hit by 4 hurricanes in one year. When no one else will ensure someones property - Citizens will. It is the 'insurer of last resort' for the state.

 

Yes, government can do something private businesses can not - take on risk that normally would be unacceptable for any private company. The mechanics? - god knows how that would work.

 

Citizens, as insurance of last resort, is unbelievably expensive compared to private insurance. My sister was forced to buy Citizens and pays 3 times what I do for the same coverage. The state did that to prevent it from competing with private insurance. The authors of Obamacare actually tried to add this to the act, but were forced to remove it, primarily because they did not intend to make it prohibitively expensive, like Citizens.

[Voice of Reason]

So you believe that with mandatory health insurance, health costs will decrease? I don't and there are few provisions in Obamacare to curtail of the rampant fraud in the current system. Fraud that, I believe, will increase under the new act. 90% of the current fraud is perpetrated on Medicare and Medicaid covered patients.

 

Shouldn't mandatory health care pump more dollars into healthcare? Shouldn't it reduce risk cost by increasing the pool of insureds? Like I said, the US has the most people without coverage and the highest cost in the world. It seems having everyone covered is leading to lower costs in other nations.