Why conservatives should embrace Obamacare conceptually.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

ServantStrike

Guest
#41
#41
1still_waters said:
To a certain extent, conservatives should embrace Obamacare conceptually.
You are probably wondering why I would say such a thing.
Let's take a look at the list of no win scenarios concerning healthcare and insurance.

1. The way it was before Obamacare.(The status quo.) Those who are uninsured get treatment, but they don't pay for it. They get a free ride. then those costs get passed on to those with insurance, through higher premiums, costs, etc.

2. Single payer system. Under this system the government covers all. Those who pay taxes, feel the sting of having to pay for it. Those who don't pay taxes still get healthcare, but they don't actually pay for it or understand it's being paid for. They get a free ride.

3.Obamacare. EVERYONE must pay for insurance to some extent. EVERYONE has skin in the game. NONE can get away thinking health insurance is totally free.

We're really stuck with three or so no win situations. Only one of the situations does away with people thinking healthcare is "free stuff".

I agree that it's government overreach to force people to purchase healthcare. Obamacare is also raising rates and such.

Yet conceptually, it's the only option that seems to force people away from thinking everything is FREE. The people who voted for Obama, because they wanted free stuff are now being forced to pay, to some extent, for the free stuff they thought Obama promised them.
Click to expand...
I think I see what you're doing here, but AgeOfKnowledge is actually right, this will ultimately end up being about hyperinflation.

Currently the way things are, hospitals are required to provide care for people whether they can pay or not. The hospital, a private organization, is forced to foot the bill. As a result, all medical procedures cost more, to make up for the people who do not pay a cent. It makes the procedure more expensive for those who have insurance and or pay out of pocket.

Fast forward to the ACA coverage. If you make less than 9,500 a year, you pay no money for this "insurance." The government has you covered. So you go and have a procedure done, now the government pays for it. Except when the government pays for something, it's via deficit spending, which creates inflation.

As bad as it was for the medical institutions and for those who had to pay, there was no deficit spending in the current model, but there is a lot of it in the new model.
 
wisebeardman

wisebeardman

Banned
#42
Mar 22, 2013
4,718
124
63
Indiana
#42
AgeofKnowledge said:
So in about a decade, we'll be down to printing money out of thin air to cover it. Are you familiar with the draconian consequences of the concept in economics named "hyperinflation"?
Click to expand...
uhhh, we been printing money out of thin air for quite some time now actually..

As for the healthcare garbage.. #1 healthcare is not a right. #2 want to lower the price go after big pharma the drug pushers. #3 go after the FDA which allows bad stuff to be put in our food.

ME. I aint paying. and good luck forcing me to pay.
 
K

KeeganGentle

Guest
#43
#43
Fight the Power. Down with the Man. Hug trees. And tell my Psychiatrist that just because my parents fed me bark does not mean that I have deep seated issues. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Thank you for listening.
 
P

psychomom

Guest
#44
#44
Stilly, I do see and appreciate your point. :)

But as a chronically, rather severely ill person, I am vehemently opposed to Obamacare.
Had the gov't instituted tort reform, and gotten rid of the ridiculous monopolies insurance companies hold in the states
forcing them to actually compete...that would have been a better solution, IMO.

Certainly better than this Cass Sunstein-esque plan we now have.
Beaucrats deciding what care folks receive is scary! lol
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#45
#45
posthuman said:
there are two factors in play there; one, what happens when the bill is many many times larger than you can pay?
Click to expand...
Then I suppose I go into debt, or I don't get the treatment. This is why people should think about insurance. It's not a reason for everyone else to go into debt for my mistake/misfortune. Better for a few to go into debt through misfortune, than the whole country to be sold into debt slavery (which is what has happened and is happening).

posthuman said:
hospitals take a loss on average for uninsured patients.
Click to expand...
If they are being run for profit, why are they taking on losses? If they are being run as charities, why would they care about the cost of doing good?

posthuman said:
two, because on average hospitals take a loss on uninsured or underinsured patients, the prices they charge you when you are uninsured are different than the same procedures for the insured. to make up for the loss, insurers are charged more than the uninsured, and that cost is passed on to the insured.
Click to expand...
These just sound like excuses to me made up by hospitals/insurance companies, to charge people as much as possible. :| I hear similar arguments about software/video/music piracy.

posthuman said:
does usury have no small part in the economics of healthcare?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Were there no usury, the cost of healthcare would be chicken feed. Instead of the extortionate amounts paid in interest, these funds could pay for basic healthcare, with untold amounts left over.

posthuman said:
in my heart, i wish there were some way healthcare could be separated entirely from money. i don't think it ought to be a 'for-profit' endeavor.
Click to expand...
I think it's called charity, and that's the way health care started out.

p_rehbein said:
However, the problem arises when people want/need general care.....from a Primary Physician. Without Health Insurance, they can not receive this care. Basic Health Care is only available to the Insured, or those with enough cash to pay in advance of receiving any care.
Click to expand...
Again, a regulation problem. There are plenty of foreign doctors who would love to practice in America, but can't due to regulation. I think people really in need would sooner an unregulated health practitioner they could afford (with good references from past patients), than a choice of several regulated health practitioners, none of which could be afforded (supply vs. demand).
 
L

letti

Guest
#46
#46
Obama care hmm,nope nope, and nope.This has a deeper broader agenda.:(
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#47
Sep 4, 2013
30,225
6,555
113
#47
Married said:

Again, a regulation problem. There are plenty of foreign doctors who would love to practice in America, but can't due to regulation. I think people really in need would sooner an unregulated health practitioner they could afford (with good references from past patients), than a choice of several regulated health practitioners, none of which could be afforded (supply vs. demand).

This isn't really a "regulation" problem. It's Economics 101. You have to pay for services received. Doctors requiring patients to pay isn't any different that the guy who puts new tires on your car. You gotta pay for the tires. Same at the Grocery Store.

Regulation comes into play when the Government enacts Legislation to provide these services to certain people at the EXPENSE of the American Tax Payer. Foreign Doctors aren't the answer. Who wants to travel to England when they have the flu just to see a Doctor they can afford? We DO HAVE Licensed Practical Nurses in some States that are allowed to see patients, diagnose conditions, and prescribe medicines.....and this benefits those who are unable to afford the Doctor himself.

The MAIN problem with our Health Care System was the regulation of Insurance Companies, and the establishment of H.M.O.'s in my opinion. All Congress had to do was enact legislation allowing Insurance Companies Nation wide to compete in EVERY State for customers. This would have drastically reduced the cost of Health Care, and we would still have maintained the quality of care we are accustom to. A LIMITED program to provide necessary Health Care for those unable to afford Insurance could then have been crafted as a safety net for the needy. BUT we already HAVE many safety nets in place. Well, not now, because we have Obamacare, and the prior system has been drastically degraded in my opinion.

 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#48
#48
p_rehbein said:
This isn't really a "regulation" problem. It's Economics 101. You have to pay for services received. Doctors requiring patients to pay isn't any different that the guy who puts new tires on your car. You gotta pay for the tires. Same at the Grocery Store.
Click to expand...
I'm not American, so I'm speaking from experience in my own country. But in my view, doctors overcharge for the services they provide (usually, I'm not talking about specialist surgeons etc. - I mean, these guys overcharge too, but who else would even try to do their job?). The reason doctors can overcharge is that there is a shortage of them, for the services people need/want. The reason there is a shortage is because of government regulation.

If there were only a few guys who were allowed to put tyres on cars, or only a few stores that were allowed to sell groceries, the prices for these services/goods would be phenomenal. Same situation with doctors. I'm not necessarily saying the answer is foreign doctors (I believe it is one answer). A better answer would be a country training up sufficient of its own people to be doctors (not simply a number to maintain the current prices). A still better answer would be for less regulation for health practitioners (an experienced mum is probably as good a doctor as many of those qualified, for diagnosing colds and influenza, and recommending appropriate treatments).

If the cost of the health services were lowered (by eliminating the artificial shortage created by government regulations), the cost of insurance would be lowered also, as people would be much more able to afford a trip to a health care provider, and insurance providers would therefore need to offer financial incentive (i.e. lower premiums) to use their services.
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#49
Sep 4, 2013
30,225
6,555
113
#49
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I'm not American, so I'm speaking from experience in my own country. But in my view, doctors overcharge for the services they provide (usually, I'm not talking about specialist surgeons etc. - I mean, these guys overcharge too, but who else would even try to do their job?). The reason doctors can overcharge is that there is a shortage of them, for the services people need/want. The reason there is a shortage is because of government regulation.

If there were only a few guys who were allowed to put tyres on cars, or only a few stores that were allowed to sell groceries, the prices for these services/goods would be phenomenal. Same situation with doctors. I'm not necessarily saying the answer is foreign doctors (I believe it is one answer). A better answer would be a country training up sufficient of its own people to be doctors (not simply a number to maintain the current prices). A still better answer would be for less regulation for health practitioners (an experienced mum is probably as good a doctor as many of those qualified, for diagnosing colds and influenza, and recommending appropriate treatments).

If the cost of the health services were lowered (by eliminating the artificial shortage created by government regulations), the cost of insurance would be lowered also, as people would be much more able to afford a trip to a health care provider, and insurance providers would therefore need to offer financial incentive (i.e. lower premiums) to use their services.
Click to expand...
:) understood...........over here in the Colonies.......it's usually/mostly governed by "supply and demand." The supply (number of Doctors, whatever) increase with the demand, and decrease when the demand isn't there.......NOW, because of the enactment of Obamacare, there are those who say that Doctors will be closing their practices, and we could see a real shortage of qualified Medical Specialists...........dunno, will have to wait and see I suppose.

Training enough is ok too, BUT you can't FORCE people to choose the Medical Profession as their life career if that's not what they want to do...........and given the very LONG time it takes to become a Doctor in the US, and the expense they incur, IF they can't make enough of a living to make their investment worth their while..........chances are, fewer will choose to enter into the Profession. And, as the Government is NOW trying to "regulate" what a Doctor is paid...........their ONLY choice (should they remain in the Profession) is MASS PRODUCTION..........push through as many patients on a daily basis as they can to make their Practice profitable.

Not a good idea in my opinion.........don't see that leading to "quality medical care."
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#50
#50
p_rehbein said:
Training enough is ok too, BUT you can't FORCE people to choose the Medical Profession as their life career if that's not what they want to do...........
Click to expand...
Given the money doctors can make, I don't think finding enough people who would choose the profession would be a problem. The problem might be the time and money cost of the training (see next point).

p_rehbein said:
and given the very LONG time it takes to become a Doctor in the US, and the expense they incur, IF they can't make enough of a living to make their investment worth their while..........chances are, fewer will choose to enter into the Profession.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But the 7 year training to be a doctor is partially due to regulation, right? And (at least in my country), most of them diagnose colds/flus all day, and prescribe anti-biotics or issue sick notes. I don't think you need 7 years at med-school to do that (I could do it with no training). If the regulation was cut down significantly (so you needed a 6 month practical course to diagnose basic sicknesses etc.), you'd have a lot more health providers who would be prepared to work for less (because 7 years is a substantial loss of time/income to make up for in $).

The more difficult cases could be referred to doctors, who would be able to utilise their 7 years training (instead of just colds/flu/antibiotics), and justify their higher rates of pay. So the sick win, as they don't pay exorbitant amounts for basic illnesses, and doctors win, as they get to use their 7 years training for more difficult cases (and enjoy the higher salary this provides).

p_rehbein said:
And, as the Government is NOW trying to "regulate" what a Doctor is paid...........their ONLY choice (should they remain in the Profession) is MASS PRODUCTION..........push through as many patients on a daily basis as they can to make their Practice profitable.
Click to expand...
I think government regulation is usually bad. A government's primary role should be to provide justice, not meddle in the economy.

p_rehbein said:
Not a good idea in my opinion.........don't see that leading to "quality medical care."
Click to expand...
If people want quality, they will pay for it. But most don't (or can't afford it). They just want to be well, for a reasonable price. Such a system doesn't have to be expensive.
 
RickyZ

RickyZ

Senior Member
#51
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
#51
Married_Richenbrachen said:
I don't understand this part. If I'm not insured and something goes wrong for me, why does that mean the taxpayers or insurance payers foot my bill? Doesn't no insurance mean I foot it, or don't get treatment? :confused:

Hopefully all that money I saved on insurance premiums will mean I can pay the bill outright. :D
Click to expand...
posthuman said:
there are two factors in play there; one, what happens when the bill is many many times larger than you can pay? hospitals take a loss on average for uninsured patients. two, because on average hospitals take a loss on uninsured or underinsured patients, the prices they charge you when you are uninsured are different than the same procedures for the insured. to make up for the loss, insurers are charged more than the uninsured, and that cost is passed on to the insured.

hopefully we all do have a way to pay for ourselves. not too many years ago, i had to have procedures done and paid over 7 grand out of pocket. i'm insured now, but if i'm sure of anything it's that the actuaries that designed my policy optimized it so they'll be likely to get a lot more than $7,000 out of me before they pay $7,000 out.

does usury have no small part in the economics of healthcare?

in my heart, i wish there were some way healthcare could be separated entirely from money. i don't think it ought to be a 'for-profit' endeavor.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth619 said:
There are several hospitals that do charity and will treat you for free if you cannot pay. Seems many don't know this.
Click to expand...
Doctors don't work for free. Medical buildings cost money to erect and keep running. Gurneys, bandages, medications, all cost money. It adds up to huge numbers quickly. It bankrupts people. If you don't have the money to pay your $50k hospital bill, that $50k has to come from somewhere else. Even tho it's "free" to you, it doesn't just dissapear. It is absorbed by jacking up the prices on everything so that the ones who do pay cover the ones who don't. That's usually the government, aka the taxpayers, generous donors, and the insured.

Usury is definitely part of the equation.
 
RickyZ

RickyZ

Senior Member
#52
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
#52
My wife recently spent 3 unplanned days in the hospital for diverticulitis. The bill so far is over $90,000.00. Those who have this much in pocket change raise your hands. OK, the rest of you, BUY THE INSURANCE!!!
 
D

danschance

Guest
#53
#53
1still_waters said:
To a certain extent, conservatives should embrace Obamacare conceptually.
You are probably wondering why I would say such a thing.
Let's take a look at the list of no win scenarios concerning healthcare and insurance.

1. The way it was before Obamacare.(The status quo.) Those who are uninsured get treatment, but they don't pay for it. They get a free ride. then those costs get passed on to those with insurance, through higher premiums, costs, etc.

2. Single payer system. Under this system the government covers all. Those who pay taxes, feel the sting of having to pay for it. Those who don't pay taxes still get healthcare, but they don't actually pay for it or understand it's being paid for. They get a free ride.

3.Obamacare. EVERYONE must pay for insurance to some extent. EVERYONE has skin in the game. NONE can get away thinking health insurance is totally free.

We're really stuck with three or so no win situations. Only one of the situations does away with people thinking healthcare is "free stuff".

I agree that it's government overreach to force people to purchase healthcare. Obamacare is also raising rates and such.

Yet conceptually, it's the only option that seems to force people away from thinking everything is FREE. The people who voted for Obama, because they wanted free stuff are now being forced to pay, to some extent, for the free stuff they thought Obama promised them.
Click to expand...
I have been arguing this for some time now. Here in Los Angeles you can get free healthcare thru the county hospitals and not pay a penny. Which means the tax payers are picking up the bill for those who can't or won't pay. Obamacare plugs this whole, by forcing them to either buy into a plan are pay a penalty which helps cover the cost of the free loaders.

My only complaint with Obamacare is that it uses HMO's which are nothing but a middle man who takes his cut from the top. I wish Obamacare would of created a government run plan to lower costs.
 
breno785au

breno785au

Senior Member
#54
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#54
Heres my experience with Australian health care, whenever we go to the doctor, we don't pay. Ive had surgery, my one year old son has had surgery removing half of one of his kidneys, didn't pay anything. Most scans and blood tests are covered. I pay $600 at the end of the tax year which comes out of my income tax refund, i don't even see it. We are mega blessed.
 
Huckleberry

Huckleberry

Senior Member
#55
Aug 25, 2013
1,698
96
48
#55
1still_waters said:
To a certain extent, conservatives should embrace Obamacare conceptually.
You are probably wondering why I would say such a thing.
Let's take a look at the list of no win scenarios concerning healthcare and insurance.

1. The way it was before Obamacare.(The status quo.) Those who are uninsured get treatment, but they don't pay for it. They get a free ride. then those costs get passed on to those with insurance, through higher premiums, costs, etc.
Click to expand...
I decided to give this thread a go even though I thought the title was ridiculous.
After reading your first point, I see that I am right,
it is ridiculous, and I won't bother reading any more of it.
You don't know what you are talking about, and you have insulted me.

My family is uninsured.
When we get treatment, you better believe we pay for it!
We do NOT not get a free ride!
We pay cash out of pocket for all our own treatments and prescriptions.

Now we will be FORCED to pay into a system that will cost us more than we will receive in return.
No, I don't embrace it conceptually or otherwise.
I will stop here so I don't write anything that would get me banned.
 
D

danschance

Guest
#56
#56
breno785au said:
Heres my experience with Australian health care, whenever we go to the doctor, we don't pay. Ive had surgery, my one year old son has had surgery removing half of one of his kidneys, didn't pay anything. Most scans and blood tests are covered. I pay $600 at the end of the tax year which comes out of my income tax refund, i don't even see it. We are mega blessed.
Click to expand...
I want to live in Autralia.....
 
M

Married_Richenbrachen

Guest
#57
#57
danschance said:
I want to live in Autralia.....
Click to expand...
Eventually, you would need to take a citizenship test. Probably one of the questions would test to make sure you know how to spell "Australia" properly. ;)
 
Grace-Like-Rain

Grace-Like-Rain

Senior Member
#58
Sep 6, 2013
4,430
117
63
#58
If I remember correctly, anyone living in Australia for more than three years is automatically eligible for citizenship. Let's gooooo...
 
breno785au

breno785au

Senior Member
#59
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#59
Grace-Like-Rain said:
If I remember correctly, anyone living in Australia for more than three years is automatically eligible for citizenship. Let's gooooo...
Click to expand...
Eh? Lol if that's the case why is my wife who's been here for 8 years struggling to get a permanent residency visa?
 
Grace-Like-Rain

Grace-Like-Rain

Senior Member
#60
Sep 6, 2013
4,430
117
63
#60
Hmmm, maybe that was only one of the requirements. A friend told me that... she's a missionary in Papua New Guinea and her baby was born in Australia. She might have been confusaled...

I'm sorry for your poor wife! Hope she is granted her visa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.