The Case Against the New Health Care Law (PPACA) - page 2

it certainly is unprecedented: twenty-six states and the national federation of independent business banding together in a legal challenge to the highest court in the land over the health care reform... Read More

  1. by   tntrn
    lots of people drive without car insurance. if they have an accident, the other guy's insurance pays. and the irs doesn't make you prove you have car insurance or fine you if you don't. so the comparison is invalid.
  2. by   wooh
    Quote from tntrn
    lots of people drive without car insurance. if they have an accident, the other guy's insurance pays. and the irs doesn't make you prove you have car insurance or fine you if you don't. so the comparison is invalid.
    I thought conservatives were against the responsible people (those who have car insurance) having to pay for the irresponsible (those who go without car insurance). So this would make the ACA a conservative DREAM. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own health insurance instead of counting on someone else to pay for their irresponsible lack of insurance.
  3. by   tntrn
    Quote from wooh
    I thought conservatives were against the responsible people (those who have car insurance) having to pay for the irresponsible (those who go without car insurance). So this would make the ACA a conservative DREAM. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own health insurance instead of counting on someone else to pay for their irresponsible lack of insurance.

    comparing the "aca" which is proving to be not affordable at all to car insurance is the point of my post. it isnt' the same at all.
  4. by   VivaLasViejas
    Quote from tntrn
    comparing the "aca" which is proving to be not affordable at all to car insurance is the point of my post. it isnt' the same at all.
    Agreed! It is not a requirement to own or drive a car, thus it is not necessary to purchase insurance if one doesn't own a car. The ACA basically says that if you breathe, you HAVE to buy health insurance whether you can afford it or not. BIG difference!!
  5. by   wooh
    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    Agreed! It is not a requirement to own or drive a car, thus it is not necessary to purchase insurance if one doesn't own a car. The ACA basically says that if you breathe, you HAVE to buy health insurance whether you can afford it or not. BIG difference!!
    So which is your alternative for those who can't afford it:
    1) Make someone else pay for their medical care.
    OR
    2) Not breathe aka DIE.
  6. by   VivaLasViejas
    I'm one of the uninsured. I can neither afford nor obtain private health insurance, because my husband has cancer and I have a host of medical problems. Right now we're running up bills that I'll be paying on for the next 40 years, and I admit that I probably won't be able to get it done in my lifetime. But I'm not asking someone else to pick up the tab, either, so I guess dying is the only other option available at this point. Not ready to do that either.....I suppose I'll be one of those who gets fined, because it's a bargain compared to the price of health insurance and we don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

    Sorry, but I don't trust Obamacare any more than I trust the Congress-critters who told us they needed to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it.
  7. by   wooh
    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    But I'm not asking someone else to pick up the tab, either....
    If you haven't paid them (and you admit you probably won't manage to ever pay them, which is completely understandable), then every bill is being eaten by the hospital and passed on to the other patients.
    That's our current system's version of "uninsured motorist" coverage. You run your car into me, and I have to pick up the bill. Why is it any worse than asking everyone to get insurance so they can pay for their own driving mishaps? Because hospitals won't stay open if everyone that has a reason to avoid insurance keeps avoiding it. (At least as long as we're sticking with a system that wastes money on insurance companies because it would be too "socialist" to go with single payer.)
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    Agreed! It is not a requirement to own or drive a car, thus it is not necessary to purchase insurance if one doesn't own a car. The ACA basically says that if you breathe, you HAVE to buy health insurance whether you can afford it or not. BIG difference!!
    It's actually not any different. The reason why you have to buy car insurance if you have a car is that you have the potential to incur costs that others will have to pay for if you have no insurance. Due to legal requirements to provide healthcare services, everyone has the potential to incur costs, which is why everyone is responsible insuring themselves when able.
  9. by   MunoRN
    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    I'm one of the uninsured. I can neither afford nor obtain private health insurance, because my husband has cancer and I have a host of medical problems. Right now we're running up bills that I'll be paying on for the next 40 years, and I admit that I probably won't be able to get it done in my lifetime. But I'm not asking someone else to pick up the tab, either, so I guess dying is the only other option available at this point. Not ready to do that either.....I suppose I'll be one of those who gets fined, because it's a bargain compared to the price of health insurance and we don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

    Sorry, but I don't trust Obamacare any more than I trust the Congress-critters who told us they needed to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it.
    If you're racking up bills that you'll never be able to pay, then yes, you are asking someone else to pick up the tab.

    A lot of people also mistakenly assume that even if they can pay their healthcare bills out of pocket that they are not shifting the costs to others, which isn't true either. For major bills, hospitals and other provides won't typically bill the full amount to someone paying out of pocket, they figure out the largest portion of their true bill they think the person could pay instead of declaring bankruptcy. So just because you pay off a $20,000 hospital bill doesn't mean you didn't shift costs to others if the actual cost of your hospitalization was $80,000.
  10. by   nurseprnRN
    Well it's months later since this thread began, and while the computer systems are slowly being brought up to speed, I thought it would be interesting to let you all know about an article in the New England Journal of Medicine a few weeks back comparing the roll-out of the ACA to the roll-out of Medicare. Seems that, hard to believe, it took months to get the systems up and running, to get all the doc offices and hospitals straightened out, and to get people enrolled. And you know what happened? The people, the docs, the hospitals all collectively shrugged their shoulders and said, "We'll get there, it's a big thing, so it would be nuts to expect it to happen all at once." There are not that many people around now who were part of that, and the immediate-gratification crowd has grown up into power positions, but it's really the same sort of thing. Ranting about incompetence and broken promises and all that makes for great sound bites but doesn't advance the public comity which we so need lately. Saying, calmly, "This will all work out" is more productive. And more accurate.

    Meanwhile, I am a small business owner (very small- a single woman shop) and I went to the exchange to see if I could get a better deal. Actually, I sent my insurance agent to do it for me, because he does this for a living and I didn't have time because I was busy trying to make a living. He found me a new policy that will save me $1700 per year in premium, leaves me with a ridiculously small copay, and includes a supplemental policy that pays me $500/day in cash to use for hospitalization copays or anything else I like if I am hospitalized (no minimum number of days or bogus "observation" status matters). I'm happy about that. (I am over 60 but not old enough for Medicare yet.)

    The other nifty thing I learned the other day is that all members of Congress and their staffers are now required to leave the Federal employees health plan (for which they paid next to nothing in premium) and get their insurance through the DC exchange unless they are covered by spouse employers or prior pension plans, etc. You may remember that one early squawk about the ACA was that Congress was exempt. They are definitively not exempt.

    Note that as employees themselves, they do have employer subsidies for their plans, as does anyone with qualifying employment. However, as most of Congress is older than 51, the beginning age when underwriting results in higher rates, they have been surprised. One was quoted as being outraged that his premium went up 102%. Upon reading the fine print, however, we discover that his monthly premium went from $218 to $437. Everybody make pitying noises [ here ].
  11. by   FranEMTnurse
    Quote from VivaLasViejas
    Dudette, I love ya, but have you tried to buy health insurance for yourself lately? I tried to put my husband on my employee health insurance plan last year, but they wanted almost $1,000 per month!! And he and I both are basically uninsureable because of pre-existing health conditions, so private insurance is out of the question. I can't afford that.......can you?

    I have yet to see any documentation that promises health insurance will be made affordable to consumers with medical problems under Obamacare---available, yes, but not within the reach of middle- and low-income families. Nor is there anything in Obamacare which attacks the actual cost of health care, or addresses the need to limit medical malpractice awards and put an end to frivolous lawsuits. So until they take this POS legislation back to the drawing board, I---along with millions of other Americans---will continue to resist the mandate and to protest it to the highest court in the land.
    I fear for my children and grandchildren. As these costs continue to rise, there is no guarantee that their salaries are going to increase enough to meet these costs, nor is there any guarantee of enough new jobs in the future.
  12. by   SE_BSN_RN
    Quote from wooh
    So which is your alternative for those who can't afford it:
    1) Make someone else pay for their medical care.
    OR
    2) Not breathe aka DIE.
    But this is exactly what the "subsidies" do. It makes someone else pay for those who can't afford it....thus making it cheaper for those who can't. And more expensive for those who can.
  13. by   SE_BSN_RN
    Quote from wooh
    I thought conservatives were against the responsible people (those who have car insurance) having to pay for the irresponsible (those who go without car insurance). So this would make the ACA a conservative DREAM. Everyone has to take responsibility for their own health insurance instead of counting on someone else to pay for their irresponsible lack of insurance.
    Um. No. What would make this a dream is setting limits on what hospitals/doctors/etc/etc can CHARGE, rather than making EVERYONE get insurance, whether s/he can pay or not. What would make this a dream is by capping what insurance companies can charge for premiums (yes, I know 80% has to go back to health care, but who is going to enforce that??) I don't know about you, but I sure don't like being told I have to buy something.

    When my kids were born, we paid 30% more for our hospital stay to "cover the uninsured." Why is that? And, they STILL can't afford health care coverage. If we were to get coverage from the exchange our monthly premiums (WITH a subsidy, would be $1200.....because I "need" maternity coverage, even though I won't be having kids anymore, and so does my hubby, LOL) This whole ACA wasn't very well thought out. The intention is good, but who wrote the bill? Not enough medical professionals!

close