What is Obamacare?

[Pandabearparade]

Canada is looking better every day!

I've seen a lot of conservatives say things like this. It's amusing, really. An American liberal is a conservative by the standards of the rest of the world. Enjoy experiencing -actual- socialism.

 

[Imthatguy]

You just don't get it. Supplying healthcare for millions of people is a lot like feeding millions of people. You ultimately end up giving everyone the same mediocre product that is nowhere near as good as it should be.

Rather get some than die <-- That is the situation 1/3 of the countries in.

 

[Kordie]

Basically a rich athlete gets sick and is shocked to find he can get better care by paying more at a private hospital? I find that as a point for Canada, where we will treat every the same regardless of income. Health care isn't about screwing over the poor to help the wealthy/famous. It's about making sure everyone gets cared for.

You just don't get it. Supplying healthcare for millions of people is a lot like feeding millions of people. You ultimately end up giving everyone the same mediocre product that is nowhere near as good as it should be.

I do get that, and in both cases it is more important to keep everyone alive and fed then to focus on only feeding the rich. As a country we have to care for everyone in the country. And I would change one word in your last sentence, our health care in canada is not as good as it "could" be. Not should. It can always be better. I would argue that having the best doctors for the richest, and no one for the poor is nowhere near what a health care system should be.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

If you level up Obama during the daytime and have max friendship, he evolves into Obamacare.

 

[SciMal]

OT: So does Obamacare mean that when 'Merkins fall over and feel pain in their chests they'll go to the doctor rather than not wanting to get a bill for "just a broken rib" or would they still be charged?

They are still charged.

What Obamacare does is make health insurance compulsory, and the way health insurance plans in the United States currently work is they subsidize a portion of the bill.

Depending on your plan some procedures may be free (X-rays, simple diagnostic tests, etc.), but office visits require a small co-payment (usually between $30 and $50). If you go to the Emergency Department, most insurance companies set the limit higher so you end up paying a couple hundred dollars for each E.D. visit.

So, if Merkins fell over and broke a rib, if he went to his hospital's Emergency room, he would be charged about $300. If he went to a standard Physician, he would be charged about $40. The majority of insurance plans cover X-rays at no-cost, so the diagnosis probably wouldn't cost anything. If Merkins needed any treatment, that may cost something.

If Merkins required surgery, the way most surgeries work under private insurance companies is that there's a set amount (the "Deductible") that they require the person who has the insurance to pay before the insurance company starts to subsidize. So if Merkins had a 20% Co-Pay and a $5,000 Deductible plan and needed surgery, Merkins would first have to pay $5,000 out of pocket, and then only 20% of any bills he received after that.

It's also worth noting that most plans have a "Maximum Out of Pocket" amount which limits how much each individual will pay after they've gone over the Deductible so you don't end up paying $30,000 for a few surgeries.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

So you don't believe that people should be entitled to a basic standard of health, no matter their circumstances? People should be allowed to suffer with serious injuries and illnesses simply because they're poor?

I've really never been able to fathom how people can be against something like this unless they were both quite selfish and thought they were going to lose out monetarily.

Here's how I'm thinking:

Let's say I'm finally able to get a job. Of course I will be sending a good deal of my paycheck to the government for social security and other things. Then of course after that I have to pay other taxes that didn't get covered from what I set to the government from my paycheck.

Now I have a lot school loans to pay off and other expenses, so I would need every bit of my earned money that I can get.

If I knew that I could opt-out of paying extra taxes that would be sent to fund healthcare, I would, because yes, I am selfish. I'm not going to think about being generous to others until I myself am on my own two feet and I actually have extra funds that I'm not using.

My mom is actually in the process of going into bankruptcy a second time because she doesn't manage money properly, no matter how hard I try to get her to understand how to manage expenses. Even though she is still in this problem, she still gives money to charities and "people in need"(she paid seven dollars for six peanut butter cups to some high school kid outside a store because he had a paper that said he was raising money to buy uniforms for his school sports team). It boggles my mind. If one is in a state of money troubles to the point of being taken to court for not paying bills, one doesn't use what money he/she has to give to charities, he/she should put that money towards getting out of debt.

So, yeah I'm selfish, but only because my situation makes me selfish. I have to look out for myself first right now. Yeah, I'll be fine giving charitable contributions when I actually have the money to spare for such things.

 

[DalekJaas]

Anybody else find it ironic that more non-Americans have replied than Americans?

Not ironic at all Americans are the last people to know anything, especially what's going on in their own country

 

[mindlesspuppet]

I don't support free healthcare given to me from the payments of taxpayers. That is forced charity and that just isn't right.

So you don't believe that people are entitled to a basic standard of health, no matter their circumstances? People should be allowed to suffer with serious injuries and illnesses simply because they're poor?

I've really never been able to fathom how people can be against something like this unless they were both quite selfish and thought they were going to lose out monetarily.

Did you even read his comment? He said he doesn't want charity, this is a common mentality of many people -- myself included. Some people don't want given to them what they didn't earn, and simply being born in a geographical location of the world is not earning.

It's not government's job to baby sit us; to nurture us when we're sick, plan our retirement, feed us when we're hungry. The more we expect from government, the more power we give to them, the less we have.

Yes, I did read his comment. It's not charity and the whole point of a government is to babysit you.

Government exists to enforce rules and standards, in other words to turn an anarchy into a society. To do this it actually has to look after the people in its society (what do you think laws are for, do you count them as charity as well? How about roads, state funded schooling, public sector jobs etc...).

In a functional society people have basic rights and priviledges, I'd say that the right to be generally healthy is fairly central to the whole concept of a functioning society. You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter of course, I'd just call it extremely callous.

Do you even realize how incredibly entitled you sound? And how very much you expect from government? You make it sound as if mankind would be helpless on their own.

The two most basic functions of government is to deal with foreign powers and establish some sort of justice, everything else is extra. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves, and that's simply not happening these days.

You can go ahead an call me callous, I see nothing wrong with that.

The medical care in the US is top notch as long as you can afford it.

Of course, but that's not an argument. The top-tier level of healthcare is roughly the same around the world... if you can afford it.

I traveled to New Delhi last year for several months. If you can afford it, Indian medical centers are pretty close to what's available in every other developed nation. However, their most common tier of care was usually two or three men in a "clean" office that handed out prescriptions with one diagnostic test if you were lucky. If you were poor (which 46% of India is), then you visited some guy in a closet who handed out drugs based on symptoms.

You can't judge medical care by the "best," but rather by what's widely available.

So, sure, American medical care is top-notch if you can afford it, but so is UK, Canadian, Russian, German, French, Italian, Swedish, etc. etc. etc.

Other than that, the United States is 37th in terms of what the average person has access to.

Sorry, my reply was tongue in cheek, didn't intend for it to come off as a real argument. You said it right the first time though, the high cost of health care in the US does allow for large advances in medical technology.

 

[Kdavi84]

This is probably the most civil discussion of this issue i have seen anywhere.

 

[Da Orky Man]

Your gonna need to elaborate on that... what does lesner have to do with healthcare? Also in my experience Canada's health care issues have more to do with being under staffed than under equipped.

No Canada is horribly under equipped too. When the CITY of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada you really can't say that Canada is sufficiently equipped. Canada is a perfect example of how socialized medicine ultimately turns into everybody waiting a long time for healthcare that ends up being mediocre at best and horribly deficient at worst.

You sure about that? Since, at least according to the following, that aint true:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.282005.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

 

[Xanthious]

I do get that, and in both cases it is more important to keep everyone alive and fed then to focus on only feeding the rich. As a country we have to care for everyone in the country. And I would change one word in your last sentence, our health care in canada is not as good as it "could" be. Not should. It can always be better. I would argue that having the best doctors for the richest, and no one for the poor is nowhere near what a health care system should be.

Rather get some than die <-- That is the situation 1/3 of the countries in.

The thing is though the poor weren't dying in the streets with our current healthcare system in the US. As it currently stands if you have a medical emergency you can not be turned away regardless of the hospital. There are government funded healthcare safety nets in place already for the poor and elderly. Nobody is really going without. America has managed to survive just fine without Obamacare just fine and amazingly enough we haven't had to sweep hordes of dead poor people out of the gutters yet.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

snip

If you're under 26, you can be covered on your parents' insurance.

Yeah, that's not going to be the case for very long. I'll be 27 in 4 months.

Series of interesting anecdotal points about US hospitals

That's great and all but I was asking about the situation in Canada.

Sorry about that, I responded the way I did because the person you were asking is from the US, and I didn't catch the part that you were talking about Canada.

 

[Bertylicious]

OT: So does Obamacare mean that when 'Merkins fall over and feel pain in their chests they'll go to the doctor rather than not wanting to get a bill for "just a broken rib" or would they still be charged?

They are still charged.

What Obamacare does is make health insurance compulsory, and the way health insurance plans in the United States currently work is they subsidize a portion of the bill.

Depending on your plan some procedures may be free (X-rays, simple diagnostic tests, etc.), but office visits require a small co-payment (usually between $30 and $50). If you go to the Emergency Department, most insurance companies set the limit higher so you end up paying a couple hundred dollars for each E.D. visit.

So, if Merkins fell over and broke a rib, if he went to his hospital's Emergency room, he would be charged about $300. If he went to a standard Physician, he would be charged about $40. The majority of insurance plans cover X-rays at no-cost, so the diagnosis probably wouldn't cost anything. If Merkins needed any treatment, that may cost something.

If Merkins required surgery, the way most surgeries work under private insurance companies is that there's a set amount (the "Deductible") that they require the person who has the insurance to pay before the insurance company starts to subsidize. So if Merkins had a 20% Co-Pay and a $5,000 Deductible plan and needed surgery, Merkins would first have to pay $5,000 out of pocket, and then only 20% of any bills he received after that.

It's also worth noting that most plans have a "Maximum Out of Pocket" amount which limits how much each individual will pay after they've gone over the Deductible so you don't end up paying $30,000 for a few surgeries.

So no, they won't go. Still, at least they won't go bankrupt when, after the rib has punctured a lung, they have to be wheeled into hospital to be chopped up with knives. So that is something.

 

[Evilpigeon]

So you don't believe that people should be entitled to a basic standard of health, no matter their circumstances? People should be allowed to suffer with serious injuries and illnesses simply because they're poor?

I've really never been able to fathom how people can be against something like this unless they were both quite selfish and thought they were going to lose out monetarily.

Here's how I'm thinking:

Let's say I'm finally able to get a job. Of course I will be sending a good deal of my paycheck to the government for social security and other things. Then of course after that I have to pay other taxes that didn't get covered from what I set to the government from my paycheck.

Now I have a lot school loans to pay off and other expenses, so I would need every bit of my earned money that I can get.

If I knew that I could opt-out of paying extra taxes that would be sent to fund healthcare, I would, because yes, I am selfish. I'm not going to think about being generous to others until I myself am on my own two feet and I actually have extra funds that I'm not using.

My mom is actually in the process of going into bankruptcy a second time because she doesn't manage money properly, no matter how hard I try to get her to understand how to manage expenses. Even though she is still in this problem, she still gives money to charities and "people in need"(she paid seven dollars for six peanut butter cups to some high school kid outside a store because he had a paper that said he was raising money to buy uniforms for his school sports team). It boggles my mind. If one is in a state of money troubles to the point of being taken to court for not paying bills, one doesn't use what money he/she has to give to charities, he/she should put that money towards getting out of debt.

So, yeah I'm selfish, but only because my situation makes me selfish. I have to look out for myself first right now. Yeah, I'll be fine giving charitable contributions when I actually have the money to spare for such things.

So are you happier about paying for people's school fees and other public services? It's not a charitable contribution, it's national insurance, it's going to give you very cheap (compared to current health insurance, or so I'm told) cover against illnesses and injuries that could cause you to lose far, far more due to illness and medical bills than you are going to save on its cost.

It's not an issue of "Oh i wanna save a little bit more per year" it's an issue of there are large numbers of people who are going to suffer due to lack of healthcare, there is a high chance that you will end up paying medical bills at some point during your life and by spreading the cost you can have a more economical system (see that link I have in my last post) that serves a greater portion of the population and gives a higher basic standard of living. It's a pity that the whole idea is flawed and hamstrung by you guys having such a big and influential health insurance market but there we go, better than nothing.

I'm sorry but the whole story about your Mum is irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I don't get why people are whining about having to pay if they don't have health insurance. In Canada we get taxed 13% on everything, EVERYTHING. Now compare that to the sales tax in your state. We pay this 13% regardless if you have additional health insurance or employment. Paying, what I believe someone said comes out to 700 dollars a year, is nothing.

Oh, and even if Canada's health care is "worse" than US health care, at least nobody gets turned away because they can't pay for a life saving procedure or be denied because of a pre existing condition bullshit. The way the US runs healthcare like a business is scary.

I was reading this Americans story. He worked as a Pizza delivery guy when he was diagnosed with Cancer but didn't have the health insurance to pay for it. Later that year, he was laid off. Being unemployed, his cancer treatment was covered by the state. How the hell does that make any sense? So if I'm a working class citizen, I can't get my cancer treatment, but if I'm unemployed I can?

 

[SciMal]

So, yeah I'm selfish, but only because my situation makes me selfish. I have to look out for myself first right now. Yeah, I'll be fine giving charitable contributions when I actually have the money to spare for such things.

Everybody is selfish until they get seriously sick or injured, and when (it's not really an 'if') you end up needing several thousand dollars' worth of medical care, if you don't have insurance and can't pay the hospital directly, everybody else will be footing the bill.

I know this first-hand. I was in perfectly-healthy (near 'athletic') shape when some gal pulling into a school froze at the wheel in the bike lane and forced me to brake hard into the pavement. A tendon in my dominant shoulder snapped like a twig when I endo'd, and even though car insurance is REQUIRED in my state - the gal driving didn't report the accident. The Ambulance cost about $900, the E.D. care cost about $2,000. I was unable to use my dominant arm for 4 weeks, and unable to lift more than 20lbs for 3 months.

The first surgery cost $3,500, and took 4 weeks to recover.

The second surgery cost $12,000 and took 8 weeks to recover.

My medical bills, all-totaled, from a single 30 seconds one day while riding my bike, was about $24,000 and almost 7 months spread out over 3 years of being unable to use my dominant arm in any capacity. Oh, and don't forget that she never reported it - I had to do that two years after the injury after getting the police report.

I am extremely lucky in that I was able to afford the bills at the time, and eventually her insurance did reimburse me for my bills... but imagine if you're in a state that doesn't require automotive insurance. Imagine if you didn't have the several thousand dollars to cover the bills initially.

That's the entire point of Obamacare. The argument for it was that, at some point, everybody (or practically everybody) will need medical care and it is unfair to those who have insurance to subsidize care for those who don't - but can afford it.

If you don't want to buy insurance, you get taxed about $200/year.

If you can't afford insurance, you are exempt from the tax.

 

[Kordie]

Your gonna need to elaborate on that... what does lesner have to do with healthcare? Also in my experience Canada's health care issues have more to do with being under staffed than under equipped.

No Canada is horribly under equipped too. When the CITY of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada you really can't say that Canada is sufficiently equipped. Canada is a perfect example of how socialized medicine ultimately turns into everybody waiting a long time for healthcare that ends up being mediocre at best and horribly deficient at worst.

You sure about that? Since, at least according to the following, that aint true:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.282005.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

Nice sources. I wish I had a time machine to see what happens to those numbers after a few years of Obamacare... Also apparently I should move to Japan, those guys are near the top of every list.

 

[Bertylicious]

Series of interesting anecdotal points about US hospitals

That's great and all but I was asking about the situation in Canada.

Sorry about that, I responded the way I did because the person you were asking is from the US, and I didn't catch the part that you were talking about Canada.

I will find it in my heart, on this occaison, to forgive you. If it happens again I will demand restitution; perhaps by virtue of a picture of a kitten or groveling rhyming couplets.

 

[A_Parked_Car]

But who owns the hospitals? Do the Doctors work for Doctor Corp. or do they work for the state?

Series of interesting anecdotal points about US hospitals

That's great and all but I was asking about the situation in Canada.

As far as I know they are government employees. Healthcare funding is provided by the individual province, not at the national level. In the province that I live in (Alberta), they work for Alberta Health Services, which is part of the provincial government.

I know very little about Obamacare, but the little I do know seems like a step forward for the US. Of course I'm speaking as a Canadian, so I wasn't brought up with the same insanely capitalistic, anti-"socialist" mindset. Put simply, I don't believe that anything that has to do with saving human lives should be a for-profit venture.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

People who can't afford healthcare, will be fined...

*sigh

Canada is looking better every day!

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act people with incomes up to 400% of the poverty line are assisted in buying health insurance through government subsidy. Their annual health insurance premium may not exceed a percentage of their income, 3% at 133% of poverty line up to 9.5% at 300% of poverty line. Those with income up to 133% of poverty line qualify for Medicaid under the act. Furthermore, if a household whose insurance coverage would cost more than 8% of annual income they are exempt for the tax penalty should they choose to not purchase health insurance.

I hope the mandate seems less absurd to you now. I for one disagree with the mandate but I think it's a decent reform overall.