TheJON wrote:As expected, it's quite obvious that most of you haven't got a clue about how health insurance works currently so you don't understand the changes.
Who the fuck are you talking about?
The truth about this bill is quite simple............it's a stepping stone to a single payor system. Period. That's the whole purpose of it. Obama can't get that passed right now and he knows it, so he came up with a plan that will eventually get us there. 10 years from now (maximum) we will have a single payor system, I can 100% guarantee you that.
No shit, some of us have been saying that for months. It doesn't take a genius to see the plan, hell, Tom Harkin from your neck of the woods is already looking at using reconcilliation in 2011 to get the public option.
Here's my problems with Obama's policy.....
1.He is still failing to address the real issue with healthcare and health insurance in America. It's not the insurance companies, it's the individuals. Yes, I agree that many of these insurance companies are scum. But the truth is if we want healthcare costs to go down, we need to start living healthier lifestyles.
Insurance companies are not scum. They insure against risk. It's not their fault that we treat health insurance as hedging against the risk of getting a cold. Imagine if applied this model to cars - AAA would be paying for brake jobs, oil changes, etc. There are a couple of ways to control costs - eliminate the nearly 2000 state and fed regulations that don't add value but add cost; expose individuals to the real cost of health care via eliminating the employer-based model we have now; and reforming the tax code to permit more pre-tax savings for health care expenses. One reason why Massachusetts plan has failed is that once the plan passed the bureaucrats got to write the regulations. Hence, rather than creating a minimum level of coverage, all plans are nearly comprehensive, including medical devices. In MI all insurers must include diabetic maintenance supplies in their coverage no matter whether you need such provisions. Every state does this. Expect the federal plan to do so as well. The employer-based model we have totally insulates individuals from the real cost of health care services and encouraging the overuse of a finite resource. It's insane that I paid less than $100 total for the birth of my two kids. Obamacare enhances this total disconnect by further insulating people from the costs of their health care.
3.26 year olds should not be on their parents plans. Why stop there? Why not 40 year olds? Many companies still allow their dependents to cover their children up to age 25 as long as they are an unmarried FT student already. Once you get beyond 23-24 years old you're on your own. How many 25-26 year old will take advantage of this? The dad might have a great plan through his job and is already paying for family coverage. The son, a 26 year old, has a decent job himself but will now not have to pay for his own insurance because he can just stay on his dads plan. I woulda loved this at age 26. I had a decent job with good health insurance and was paying probably $120 a month for it. My mom is a teacher and has even better insurance but it wouldn't have cost her anymore to have me on her plan. That's $120 I would have saved per month. Pretty sweet, right? Well yeah, for me and the other 26 year olds in a similar situation. But at age 26 I should be paying my own bills. I didn't ask my parents to pay for my car insurance, my car loan, my mortgage, my cell phone bill, etc..... So why should they be paying for my health insurance?
It's the typical liberal paternal arrogance showing itself. You're right, 26 year olds are not children. They're not dependents, either. Employers and insurers should not be coerced into providing such dependent care provisions in their policies. It should a private arrangement for parents who want to continue providing health insurance for their dependents. And, there shouldn't be a maximum on it. Parents can decide when to maintain coverage or terminate coverage.
2.PREVENTIVE CARE! Get your annual checkups done. Don't be a fucking idiot. You're never too healthy to not be at risk for some sort of disease. Catching things early leads to quicker cures or preventing major illnesses.
Overrated. In fact, preventive care probably enhances the increases in health care costs because it relies on unneeded test/screenings that fail to detect anything at all or detect false positives therefore encouraging even more exams, or worse, unnecessary surgeries. Obamacare exacerbates this by requiring everyone to get such tests no matter the benefit associated with such testing/screening.
A 2008 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) review of almost 600 papers found that over 80 percent of preventive measures and treatments cost more money than they save.
A
2009 Health Affairs study came to the same conclusion, finding that screenings for colorectal and breast cancer are money losers.
As for the diabetes exams, a
2008 study in the journal Circulation found that the recommended prevention activities for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes would cost almost ten times as much as the savings.
You reduce the cost of health care services by exposing people to their real cost which then incentivizes the smarter, and decreased use of finite health care services.
