Thank you Chief Justice Roberts, you are a wise man.

Status
Not open for further replies.
jadmperry said:
Source? Though I don't doubt this...the argument is a classic failure of confusing causation with coincidence. Who, in the US, uses government health care more: richer or poorer folks?
Click to expand...

It's completely bogus as rich and poor all get Medicare after 65. And as you note, since government steps in and pays part of the $100,000 ER bill for the kid in PICU with a burst appendix because her family did not have health care coverage (though they very well might have been paying insurance just could not afford to get health care after paying for the insurance) it looks like getting "government health care" as a last resort after getting sick from lack of health care is the cause.
 
whynot said:
I'm employed, paying tax.
I have to have private insurance or have to pay extra tax for health services.

I'm unemployed, not paying any tax.
I cannot afford private insurance so I'm enforced to pay extra tax for health services???
Click to expand...

Exactly.
IF I could afford healthcare, I would have had it long ago.
Since I cannot afford to pay through the nose for healthcare, it obviously stands to reason that I cannot pay the TAX for not having healthcare.

Also there is something in there about employers being forced to supply credits for employees who cannot afford healthcare coverage.
My boss stated in an interview on TV that if this was the case, he would have to lay off some employees!
Since I am only part-time, I'm liable to be one of those employees.

The whole thing SUCKS.
 
Brad L said:
We did not need to jump into socialist medicine to solve the problems that existed with medical insurance.
Click to expand...

We need medical care not insurance. Every dime spent on "insurance" is a waste of health care dollars and a denial of health care services. Again, the "socialist health care" (you say it like it was a bad thing) works better for economically, medically and socially. Costs 50% less, gets better health care results and covers 100% of the population.
 
It is a tax for not purchasing something that the government says you have to, preposterous. We will get taxed from the federal gov. if we do not buy something that they do not have the right to tell us is mandatory. The whole law is just stupid and anyone that supports it either does not have their facts straight or is just another follower.
 
Peggy said:
Exactly.
IF I could afford healthcare, I would have had it long ago. Since I cannot afford to pay through the nose for healthcare, it obviously stands to reason that I cannot pay the TAX for not having healthcare.
Click to expand...

You are not paying for health care. You and your company are paying for INSURANCE not health care. You WILL pay for health care if you need it, we'll take your house, garnish your wages, hire more and better lawyers than you can...hey we know how to get blood from stones and the "insurance" you paid for will not pay, keeping the money.

Companies in Europe pay 50% less for health care than in US and have ZERO administrative costs.
 
BGL said:
$100,000 ER bill for the kid in PICU with a burst appendix ... last resort after getting sick from lack of health care is the cause.
Click to expand...

A burst appendix is not caused by a lack of healthcare or a lack of preventative medicine, FWIW...
 
a legacy reborn said:
It is a tax for not purchasing something that the government says you have to, preposterous. We will get taxed from the federal gov. if we do not buy something that they do not have the right to tell us is mandatory. The whole law is just stupid and anyone that supports it either does not have their facts straight or is just another follower.
Click to expand...

Except the Supreme Court says the Federal Government does have this right. You are free to disagree with the law and the policy behind it. But, Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court all have concurred that ACA is the law. Saying that those you disagree with are stupid because you disagree with them is not the most effective argument. And it changes nothing.
 
BGL said:
We need medical care not insurance. Every dime spent on "insurance" is a waste of health care dollars and a denial of health care services. Again, the "socialist health care" (you say it like it was a bad thing) works better for economically, medically and socially. Costs 50% less, gets better health care results and covers 100% of the population.
Click to expand...
Is this just an opinion or do you have hard, unbiased facts to back it up? I have some friends in the UK who would say you're full of it if you think their system is all that. Let me ask all you proponents this: how do you expect the federal government to pay for this whole thing when they haven't agreed to a budget in almost 5 years? It blows my mind that there are so many happy to let the gov't. take my money before I even touch it out of one corner of your mouth, then out of the other, criticize me when I say enough is enough.:rolleyes:
 
craigiri said:
They are responding to the right-wing echo chamber and to the multi-million dollar ad campaigns paid for by the very people and businesses that benefit from their ignorance.

It's all about Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) and instilling it into a certain segment of the population. As you suggest, for people to work against their own interests seems fantastic! Yet it is very real. Programming. They know not what they do - rather they listen to 24/7 blabber and something sounds good so they repeat it.
Click to expand...

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you can't argue your point on its merits, perhaps it would be best not to reply.
 
John said:
how do you expect the federal government to pay for this whole thing when they haven't agreed to a budget in almost 5 years?
Click to expand...

By the individual mandate provisions of the law, including the tax penalties for those who don't purchase. That was what the majority of the Supreme Court case was about.
 
shawn said:
A burst appendix is not caused by a lack of healthcare or a lack of preventative medicine, FWIW...
Click to expand...

Oh but it is because they don't have a primary care pediatrician who they can go to when it was a "stomach ache" only an ER to go to when it didn't go away for two days, got worse and the kid finally stopped screaming but looked really scary bad and off to the ER. It's a classic case. A short easy operation becomes life or death battle in the PICU (Pediatric Intensive Care Unit), the most expensive place on earth, and the bill, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Kiddo may or may not make it.
 
MagnusB said:
Have you ever worked with statistics? Are you even familiar with any methodology? You are presenting a data table, nothing more. You show nothing about the assumptions behind the data, if any data is discarded from the statistics, nothing about the methodology used. If anything, the study shows that if you detect cancer at an early stage, you are more likely to be alive after 5 years, which is something you choose to completely ignore, instead you are saying this is absolute evidence that USA has the best healthcare in the world.
Click to expand...

No, you're absolutely right. But it's there for you to refute methodology if you like. That's the problem with a lot of these discussions -- people look at the statistics and conclude "infant mortality is higher in the US, US healthcare must suck, insurance companies are the source of the problem". When the reality is that infant viability is calculated differently from one country to the next. The US spends a tremendous amount of money trying to save the lives of pre-term infants, often (but not always) with great success. Other countries consider <35 weeks to be a miscarriage, so it doesn't factor in to their mortality statistics.

If you want a real head-scratcher, take 1. the popularly-accepted notion that 40% of Americans don't have health insurance and 2. the numbers provided in the Fact Check article above, and explain to me how a 14% survivability spread (insured vs not) is skewed by less than 4% when taken in the aggregate. They can call themselves whatever they want, but facts don't seem to factor into it.
 
BGL said:
Which is interesting because those of use on the other side of health care know EXACTLY what we will get paid by the insurance company for each procedure. Well almost exactly, sometimes despite our paying to hire office staff solely to deal with insurance company, getting prior approval for exactly what insurance will pay, the insurance company will deny payment. Then we hire more staff and outside contractors to deal with insurance company on the back end. Of course much of the "insurance" you pay for goes to paying people to deny approval and then deny or delay payment even after approval. These two huge staffing bureaucracies are about 10% of the US's 50% higher cost of health care insurance (not health care).
Click to expand...

You just described Medicare billing, FWIW...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom