Obama vs the Supreme Court

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I think you already realize that PPACA was really just a stepping stone to single payer. Or at least that was the original intent. And, I for one, would just like to wipe out the health insurance industry altogether. Maybe leave it optional, for those who like being ripped off by grinning Romneyites.

Dave

You do realize how many "working people" are employed by the health insurance industry. What do do with all those newly unemployed?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Maybe it'll be covered under free health care

Pete

There is no such thing. Never will be.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Thanks to Saint Ronnie you and I are paying for those benefits and for all the freeloaders as well to the tune of about an extra $1075 per year on our insurance premiums. Almost time to get another tube of anal lube.

What percentage do the freeloaders consume relative to the the overall cost of healthcare?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

You do realize how many "working people" are employed by the health insurance industry. What do do with all those newly unemployed?

I don't know. Why don't you ask all of these governors and businesses laying people of by the hundreds of thousands over the last few years? (In the name of "fixing" the economy.)

I thought firing people was good?

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by CarlV

It is not as rosy as you think it is here Pete.




This is some of how Arnold paid for some of his corporate welfare tax breaks.




As far as I know they will still pull a tooth "for free". Whoopee.

That is a great list of things that ought be paid by consumers. Those are all either quackery, quasi-scientific, or relatively low cost.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

What percentage do the freeloaders consume relative to the the overall cost of healthcare?

Fareed Zakaria did and excellent segment on the 5% just the other night. The so-called "Freeloaders".
"5%" meaning the 5% of patients who fail to pay their own way through the system and ad significantly to the "inefficiencies" in the system. I don't have the numbers, but 5% has got to be a lot of people and since their costs are way higher, some well into the six digit range it's got to be a ton of money.

Guess what?

They can't pay because their medical expenses have already bankrupted them, or their insurance has dropped them. And, obviously they are too sick to work, so......................

I guess increasing their bills would induce them to magically heal themselves?

Or maybe young, healthy people who MIGHT not get sick or injured should just drop out of the system until they feel like they might need it? That'll help keep the bills paid....right?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

What percentage do the freeloaders consume relative to the the overall cost of healthcare?

That $1075 represents approx 10% of our annual insurance premium of $10,750.

[Bigerik]

I like that. Freeloaders. People who are to sick to be able to work to afford their benefits. Obviously, they are of no use to society. We should just take them around back and shoot them. Much cheaper that way.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

I like that. Freeloaders. People who are to sick to be able to work to afford their benefits. Obviously, they are of no use to society. We should just take them around back and shoot them. Much cheaper that way.

Sounds like you're getting a good picture of what has arisen since you left. That statement sounds just like the sort of thing I hear from certain people in my life every day.............................

Dave

[Bigerik]

I must say I love how a "tax deduction" is the fix all for a righty.

Back when minimum wage was $5.25 an hour, I had guys working for me who made $8.00/hr. Our company health insurance covered 80%. I remember really well a guy who needed to get a MRI. The cost was just over $1500. His part was a bit over $300. Seeing how he was getting by on what he was making, he didn't have an extra $300 to pay for the MRI. A weeks gross was just not something he could spend easily. Yet, he is one of the tens of millions who is considered to be covered by health insurance.

So the fix for this situation is to make him responsible for it and give him a tax deduction? He can't come up with the $300 to cover his 20%. Where will he find the $1500 to pay for it, regardless of whether it is 100% tax deductible or not.

Again, the solution for the right is the one where a person has to have the means to look after himself. If you got the bucks, you get the coverage.

Interesting too how you don't want the government involved in making decisions on health care, yet you are ok with the government making those same decisions in terms of tax deductions. The government is still going to have to decide whether or not those deductions are legitimate.

I love the idea of a huge deductible for catastrophic care. So when a person is at there absolute lowest, seriously ill, they are going to have to come up with $50K or $100K to pay their deductible. Where will the average person come up with that? Oh yeah. Sell their house.

As far as cost, you guys still pay TONS more for your health care than anyone else in the western world. We are doing just fine paying for it. You guys are going broke faster than we are, last time I checked.