![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 107. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:37:06
For those already with social healthcare the Obama Healthcare Bill passed in it's entirety. As of 2014 don't ask for medical tests, don't ask for meds, don't ask for a thing as we will either be Wealthy and receive or poor and get inferior healthcare. Taxes to those with businesses mean businesses will no longer provide healthcare to employees. We are scr*ewed. P
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:39:04
In reply to Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:37:06
Posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:43:12
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:39:04
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 12:54:00
In reply to Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:37:06
I gasped when I calculated my increased taxes due to the cap on flexible spending accounts.
I'll definitely have to cut back on spending.
Posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 13:29:10
In reply to Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:37:06
The insurance law, not that this will change your mind, was modelled after Massachusetts, which was modelled after one of the most conservative think tanks in the country, the Heritage Foundation.
Either the Heritage Foundation is a secret socialist think tank that just happens to be conservative on every other initiative, or your partisan thinking is distorting the facts.
Also, a socialist government is state-run. Thie insurance law mandates coverage to private health insurance companies.
Either your partisanship is distorting your ability to make arguments, or you don't know what the term socialism means. I have difficulty with believing you don't know what socialism means.
You're entitled to not like the idea, but let's not use terms that make one sound ignorant. Something is either state run or not. Insurance companies are not state run.
Posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 13:34:27
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Phillipa, posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 13:29:10
I always suspect the ones who claim they're opposed to the healthcare mandate either qualifies for medicaid (Republican states tend to be the most uninsured, due to poverty rates) or have health insurance, and are acting as if the mandate would somehow affect them.
I wish reporters actually asked people who oppose this bill, "but um, do you yourself have health insurance, or are you just manufacturing outrage even though this law doesn't affect you?" Only it would affect them, since I have to pay for Phillipa's healthcare when he goes to the ER room uninsured... assuming he's unisured.
If someone's taking psych meds, I have difficulty believing it's less expensive to pay out of pocket for a psychiatrist and psych meds than to just get insurance.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 13:42:56
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Phillipa, posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 13:29:10
I worry about the effect on employment. It may end up being cheaper for employers to hire people for less than full time, cut back on employer benefits in the so called "Cadillac" plans (as long as they don't involve union voters - how fair is that?), and possibly influence thinking on overseas outsourcing.
Not to mention the increased tax I will have to pay after voting for a candidate who promised "no increase in taxes on a family earning less than $250,000". Call it tax or cap on flex spending, if I end up paying substantially more on April 15, that's an increase in taxes. What's the justification for balancing the bill on the backs of those with chronic illnesses? Other than those belonging to unions. Or Congress.
Posted by Emily Elizabeth on June 28, 2012, at 14:32:38
In reply to Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Phillipa on June 28, 2012, at 12:37:06
I tried not to post, but I couldn't stop myself.
Access to healthcare is not just a financial issue, it is a human rights issue. Healthcare should not be a privledge only for the employed.
I benefited from healthcare reform when I was able to get insurance coverage through my state's high risk pool. Although I was working over 40 hrs per week, I am an independent contractor. No private insurance company would touch me because of my psychiatric treatment. Thankfully, I was able to get fairly reasonably priced insurance after a mandatory 6 month uninsured waiting period.
Best,
EE
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 14:47:34
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Emily Elizabeth on June 28, 2012, at 14:32:38
I agree that things needed to be changed. I don't know that I agree that this is the best way to change them.
Is it just healthcare you consider a human rights issue? What about the other necessities of life? Housing, food, etc.? Do you consider that everyone should receive the same quality of all basic human needs, regardless of income?
Posted by poser938 on June 28, 2012, at 15:13:16
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Emily Elizabeth, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 14:47:34
as long as i can still get to see a high quality doc with my health insurance in 2014, then i'm not sure if i have a problem with ObamaCare.
but, if it is going to have me and everyone wasting money on their health insurance only to be stuck seeing doctors like the ones at every state run facility around then we are all indeed screwed!
government ideas sound great on paper, but in the real world they rarely work out.
Posted by sigismund on June 28, 2012, at 15:15:33
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Emily Elizabeth, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 14:47:34
It is one of the achievements of the Murdoch press that Americans in particular have such a strange idea of socialism. I mean nationalisation of the systems of production, distribution and exchange, or (as in the UK after WWII) a 95% marginal tax rate.
Other countries manage something of a safety net. If individuals want better, they pay more. It doesn't need to be such a drama.
When the money is there, there is never any for poor people. That's when it is meant to trickle down. And when the money has been spent........
Posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 15:37:16
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 13:42:56
Massachusetts has the individual mandate, employers must cover people if they work 30 hours or more, and it has one of the lowest (6%) unemployment rates in the nation.
So much for having to make up predictions-- it's already proven, and the problems you're claiming will occur haven't in the years we've had it here.
This isn't some wild experiment-- it's already been done. The health insurance law is modelled after Massachusetts. It's not new. It protects the mentally ill from being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. You're lucky if you have insurance through an employer, but some of us don't have that luxury, and can be denied for being ill already.
You're lucky, but many mentally ill people aren't, and you must feel something for them. I hope it's not hatred.
> I worry about the effect on employment. It may end up being cheaper for employers to hire people for less than full time, cut back on employer benefits in the so called "Cadillac" plans (as long as they don't involve union voters - how fair is that?), and possibly influence thinking on overseas outsourcing.
>
> Not to mention the increased tax I will have to pay after voting for a candidate who promised "no increase in taxes on a family earning less than $250,000". Call it tax or cap on flex spending, if I end up paying substantially more on April 15, that's an increase in taxes. What's the justification for balancing the bill on the backs of those with chronic illnesses? Other than those belonging to unions. Or Congress.
Posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 15:40:06
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by poser938 on June 28, 2012, at 15:13:16
> government ideas sound great on paper, but in the real world they rarely work out.
>You're smart enough to know this isn't new, and it's not an experiment-- Hawaii and Massachusetts both have succeeded with universal coverage of health insurance, and don't have problems seeing doctors. In fact, Massachusetts is the best to go for psychiatry-- they have more psychiatrists per capita than any other state. And good ones, many from Harvard.
Posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 15:58:06
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Phillipa, posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 13:29:10
> I have difficulty with believing you don't know what socialism means.
That's the only part of your post that I'd disagree with. Philippa has a history of posting unqualified nonsensical bullshit.
What always amazes me is how a people that refers to its head of state as the "leader of the free world" actually wants to debate whether they want to assist their fellow man/woman/child/baby/whatever when their health is at risk. Had I been born in the US into an uninsured family that wouldn't qualify for Medicaid, I would be dead by now. And even if you want to get into details about the impacts of universal health care on the economy: Switzerland has an excellent public health care system, and is the most competitive country in the world, according to the World Economic Forum. Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and others have excellent public health care as well and still are in the top 10 of competitive countries.
This whole debate is nothing but a joke, at the expense of poor and ill American citizens.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:11:03
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by novelagent on June 28, 2012, at 15:37:16
> You're lucky, but many mentally ill people aren't, and you must feel something for them. I hope it's not hatred.
Where on EARTH did you get the idea of hatred? Because I'm not gung ho about the law? You either have to adore Obamacare or you're suspected of hatred?
It so happens that I object to balancing a very small part of the ginormous (although IMO underestimated) cost of this bill by decreasing the deductible medical expense to the amount over 10% of income, rather than 7.5% as it is now, and by decreasing FSA's (which are rarely used at over 2,500 by anyone who doesn't have a chronic medical condition). I'm also very skeptical of some of the other revenue raising measures in the bill. I also fear unintended consequences. Things often sound good, but have unintended consequences.
Both plans required businesses to provide insurance. The Massachusetts plan requires businesses employing over ten employees to pay a "Fair Share Contribution" or pay a relatively low penalty. They are required to offer an insurance policy to be paid from pre-tax dollars. But the fair share, as I understand it, is 33% of the cost.
The fair and reasonable contribution tests for employers are:
Percentage of Full-Time Employees Enrolled: At least 25% of your full-time employeessare enrolled in your health insurance plan, and you are making a financial contribution to that plan.
Premium Contribution Standard: You provide at least 33% of the premium cost of the individual health insurance plan offered to your full-time employees.Employers of 50 or fewer FTEs only need to meet one of these tests to avoid the Fair Share Contribution.
Employers of 50 or more FTEs must meet both tests.
This is from the MA Health Connector site, which apparently has a very long URL, but you should be able to google it.
How does this compare with the federal requirement? Is the cost to employers more onerous? Is it greater than 33%? If so, is it a good comparison? 33% is good. Pretax is good. But I daresay that some employees would find the cost prohibitive.
I've learned my fears from more than one business consultant sharing what they're advising their clients to do. And what they've already done themselves. FWIW.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:12:44
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » novelagent, posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 15:58:06
Do you consider the sociological makeup of the Swiss population as being similar to that of the US?
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:21:49
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » novelagent, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:11:03
I might also add that the Cadillac plan tax starts at family plans over $27,500. Many large employers consider that if they won't be subject to the tax now, they soon will be - particularly in higher cost areas of the country. They fortunately upped this amount, and indexed it to inflation. But we all know that premiums rise faster than inflation. So I see a reasonable chance they could cut back benefits, and or choose to pay the penalty to force employees into the government pools rather than pay the 40% tax on these cadillac plans.
I can see far better ways to characterize cadillac plans than a fixed amount, even indexed for inflation.
And what do you think of the various exemptions, including union employees? How is that fair?
Posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 16:35:23
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:12:44
I don't see your point. The Swiss don't get less sick than Americans. But if you don't like the example of Switzerland, pick a different country: Sweden, with a high percentage of immigrants, or the Netherlands, with a huge and diverse immigrant population.
This isn't about "sociological makeups", but about what you consider to be the meaning of the word 'society'. If 'society' means for you to assist your fellow citizens, then you'll find a way to pay for health expenses, even if it means that people who do financially well have a slightly higher marginal tax rate. *That* is the actual question here. You can then go on and look at the fact that European citizens get better health care at a lower price, effectively contradicting the theory that the American free-market system of health care results in lower prices for patients. Or you can look at the fact that, right now, American citizens already pay for some other people's healthcare costs via their general taxes (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). Or you can look at the fact that European societies do not have what Americans call 'medical bankruptcy'. And so on and so on. The point is that that is not the point. If you want to establish a public healthcare system, you can do it without either bankrupting the country or sacrificing economic competitiveness. That latter part especially is just mindlessly repeated over and over again by Republican politicians, but that doesn't mean it's true. Western European countries falsify this hypothesis.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:37:12
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:21:49
I propose changing the funding mechanisms that penalized people who are ill or have chronic conditions with treating *all* taxpayers alike. Remove the exemption for union and government employees. Including Congress. Let them have their cadillac plans judged by the same standard as every other American.
Oh right. That might lead to a loss in the elections.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:41:47
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 16:35:23
What I was getting at is what percentage of Swiss pay taxes? How does it compare to the US?
What is the percent of those living in poverty?
Posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 16:54:25
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » europerep, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 16:41:47
> What I was getting at is what percentage of Swiss pay taxes? How does it compare to the US?
>
> What is the percent of those living in poverty?I still don't see your point. I think it's even true that poverty has an influence on individuals' health, and this is pretty well documented I believe, but that would only be an argument for a *more* redistributive tax system, the reject of which made "Joe the Plumber" so well-known during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Is your point related to the 47% of Americans that don't pay federal income taxes? I'm sure you know that the USA is by far the biggest economy in the world, so the idea that you guys can't afford public healthcare because of some lazy jerks on welfare is totally absurd.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 17:07:05
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 16:54:25
So you are in favor of redistribution of wealth?
If I understood you correctly, your argument is that those who produce the GDP are wealthy enough than it's ok to take their money to give to others?
I take it you don't mind Phillipa's assertion then? Although I suppose there is a difference between a social ownership of the means of production and the involuntary appropriation of the proceeds of production to benefit others.
Phillipa, this may not qualify as socialism. Perhaps more republican (in the form of government sense) Robinhood-ism.
I rather hope you only approve of government appropriation of the belongings of those "rich" they decide to take from to give to those poor they decide to give to? Rather than private citizens doing the same?
Do you believe union employees should be treated differently than others of equal wealth? Government employees? Congressmen?
Posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 17:22:40
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » europerep, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 17:07:05
I will gladly respond to anything that you have to say on the topic of this thread.
Generally speaking, yes, I think that living in a modern society brings you rights and duties. I do think that those who do very well financially can pay a little more in taxes - and that is not Western European socialism, it is the essence of a progressive income tax as the USA has had for decades and still does. It's also worth noting that the American economy has done well even under much higher marginal tax rates than those of today - and those higher marginal tax rates were introduced by leftist radicals such as Richard Nixon.
The exchange that we have had here is very instructive by the way. You obviously don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, but you hide that behind abstract considerations and thoughts that aren't even related to the actual discussion. If you want to be a social egomaniac, at least have the balls to say it.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 17:25:11
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » europerep, posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 17:07:05
You know, the funny thing is that I *love* the idea of a mandate to buy health insurance. I get really annoyed at uninsured persons getting treatment in such a way that results in higher fees for me. Of course, that also is true of medicare, which in many cases does not cover the doctor's costs much less provide reasonable compensation.
I'm in favor of several of the "fairness" parts of this bill.
I have always been in favor of doing away with Medicaid in most cases for healthy enough individuals, and helping families pay for insurance. I'm rather skeptical of the ability of government to provide decent services in an efficient manner.
What I don't like is the way it was done. I *really* don't like the way it was done.
Posted by Dinah on June 28, 2012, at 17:31:28
In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 28, 2012, at 17:22:40
You don't know me one bit. And you know what? That's perfectly ok with me, particularly after your post about Phillipa.
I happened to be alive during the ninety percent marginal tax rates and stagflation of the Carter presidency. 16-18% interest rates! I thought Reagan's decrease of the top marginal tax rate to 50% or so was fabulous. The later reductions to already low rates I saw more as pandering to the electorate. I seem to remember one under the Clinton administration that I particularly disapproved of.
Keep thinking whatever you like.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."
Source: Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.