1. Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
    Dismiss Notice

Obama-Care, dead?

Discussion in 'Members Lounge' started by HarveyH42, Jan 31, 2010.

  1. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    Erm, I thought they already did. "Cash For Clunkers", price $3 Billion. TV Converter Box Rebate, price $990 million. ObamaCare...Priceless.
     
  2. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here
    Nice one. :) I doubt the $1 trillion cost estimate even begins to scratch the surface of what the actual cost will be. Maybe they meant that after 10 years, it will only cost $1 trillion to run...
     
  3. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
    Well, we can save a few trillion by getting out of Iraq, and help pay for it.
     
  4. dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1997
    Messages:
    -
    Likes:
    0


     
  5. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here

    Brilliant, stir the pot, then pull out before the job is done... Just what we need right now, backpack-bombers, and a couple of hundred thousand more people without jobs. Seems like a good idea, since we are all doomed, with another three years of Mr. spend-happy, or will your vote make it 7 years?

    You do realize, that when we pull the troops, there is going to be a huge war over there to take our place. The democracy-government Bush set up is a joke, and will fall and fail quickly. They respect the guns, not the principals, and will go along with whoever has the weapons. We will be there until the terrorist groups or civilians decide it just isn't worth getting other countries involved. If we pull out too soon, then we get to start all over again in a few years. Thankfully, I live in a small town, and not much worth blowing up.

    It is kind of interesting, that they decided to cut Medicare/Medicaid, just when the need is about to increase considerably. Not much sense in worrying about it now, it's the law of the land, and we are kind of stuck with it, and all the costly quick fixes needed to control the damage. Wonder how many lives will be lost, while we sort out this mess.
     
  6. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
    There was never any reason to be there in the first place. Iraq didn't attack us, didn't threaten to attack us. The weapons were not there. It was a big stinking lie from the very beginning. Now over 4 thousand Americans lie dead, thousands more are missing limbs or burned beyond recognition, millions of Iraqis are dead or displace. Yeah, that's a wonderful thing to stay in. We spend trillions of dollars to kill, maim, destroy and that's fine. The longer we stay, the more hatred we create, and the bigger chance we'll be attacked. Invading was the worst foreign policy blinder in the history of the country. The only thing to do is to withdraw and let them sort out their own problems. Take the resources and solve our problems at home. Seems many want to spend out future in foreign places rather then in the US where it belongs.

    Its interesting they are cutting the waste out of medicare and using the money more effectively to cover more people. Eliminating the wastful spending on programs that provide unnessary services to only a few people, so that more can receive care. Odd that anyone can complain about that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2010
  7. Hero999

    Hero999 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes:
    79
    Location:
    England
    I agree that the US should have never gone to Iraq but I think they should at least stay there to straighten out the mess they made.

    I don't know how anyone can call Iraq a democracy when it's ranked below Russia by The Economist and even Freedom house considers it to be a unfree country.
    Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Freedom in the World (report) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Iraq's government is the US's puppet and doesn't run the country for the benefit of the people, it just pretends to be a democracy to give it some legitimacy.

    The problem with healthcare in the US, is that the government can't sort it out even if it wanted to because it doesn't have enough power. In reality the power doesn't really belong in the hands of the people, but the lobbyists (in this case the insurance companies) who can poison the minds of the people with propaganda. In some respects the US is too democratic, sometimes it'd be better if the government could put its foot down and get things done, even if they might not be popular but you can't have it both ways.
     
  8. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
    But how long is that? The "war" lasted a few days, and rebulding/suppressing insurgency has lasted nearly 7 years. There comes a time when you prop up a government and defense forces, pat them on the back and wish them the best of luck.
     
  9. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here
    How many people were maimed/killed on 9/11? And exactly which Middle Eastern country were these terrorist citizen of? Believe it was around 4,000 Americans dead, for no reason. The terrorists aren't from any single country, nor do they seem to have a permanent home. Most of the Middle Eastern countries make some attempt to keep it under control, some don't have the resources, some have sort of an arrangement out of fear. It's just better to keep them moving, and busy on their own continent, rather than over here, blowing things up, and killing people. That whole area has been a war zone for as far back as I can remember, doubt there has been an entire year of peace in generations.

    Why are there so many uninsured people? Do all of them actually want or need insurance? Why must the government even be involved in such personal choices? Why do people feel the government is obligated to provide all the freebies? Guess if you pay taxes, any new spending is a bad thing, and if you don't work and live off the freebies, it's a great thing.

    I still believe that insurance is a luxury, that you should work for, if you want it, not handed out for free. Health care is a completely different issue, and they should have focused more on those costs, so more people could afford to see a doctor, out of pocket, without carrying insurance. It would have been better to require all employers to offer affordable insurance, for those interested. I agree with some of the reform, but those good points are buried under a bunch issues I don't agree with at all. There should be some individual freedom to make the choice. Healthy young people, don't tend to need a whole lot of health care, and insurance isn't a high priority.

    About 50 million people with no health insurance, out of 308,948,623 total population, about 16%. Out of that 16%, how many want, need, or are even trying to get insurance. Just seems like a low number, for such a huge mandate...
     
  10. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
    I know this much, absolutely ZERO of the terrorists were citizens of Iraq. The big lie that's still being told is that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11. Not a single citizen of Iraq was involved in the planning or execution of the attacks. By lying about the citizenship of the attackers and using it as an excuse to invade a sovereign country and murder its citizens, that only creates more hatred and produces thousands more terrorists, who fan out across the globe and execute more attacks. Global terrorism generally increased during the times of peak fighting in Iraq, in Bali, in Riyadh, in Madrid, in London, In Mumbai, etc. Thousands who are displaced by war now have nothing better to do than to take up arms. The effect will last way beyond the war, and we'll live with the results for years.

    To the subject about how insurance will take away all the incentive to work.. I decided to compare unemployment numbers from countries where government provides medical care ( or at least subsidized it ) to the US. I used 2008 numbers so as to avoid the recent economic meltdown, generously provided by the US banking system:

    Canada 6.00
    Denmark 3.50
    Sweden 4.50
    United Kingdom 5.40
    United States 4.60
    So, in spite of all the “sky is falling” gloom and doom, economically developed countries that provide or subsidize med care have about the same unemployment as the US. The evidence is clear; Having medical insurance doesn’t take away the incentive to work.
     
  11. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
    Here are some numbers from 2009, and rankings:


    88 United Kingdom 8.00

    96 Canada 8.50

    109 United States 9.40

    Good thing the US didn't have health care, and is sooooo much more incentivized to go to work than countries who do have it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2010
  12. canadaelk

    canadaelk Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    772
    Likes:
    29
    BrownOut:

    Where did you get your unemployment statistcs from? The former gov. of Alaska? And what is an unemployed? Does that include the people who gave up looking for work and live on the streets?

    Just asking!

    Here in Canada we do not go bunkrupt when we get sick nor do we need to choose between treatment and poverty or worse!
     
  13. BrownOut

    BrownOut Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes:
    60
    Location:
    Huntsville, Alabama USA
  14. Hero999

    Hero999 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes:
    79
    Location:
    England
    Could it be because they can't afford it?

    Could it be because they feel that if there were to get insurance, the company wouldn't pay up when they needed it?

    I agree, health insurance should be a luxury. Basic healthcare shouldn't require insurance and should be free to everyone that needs it.

    Yes, reducing the price to something near zero would help.
     
  15. tcmtech

    tcmtech Well-Known Member Most Helpful Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,657
    Likes:
    429
    Location:
    Sawyer, North Dakota, USA
    That was my two primary reasons to drop my coverage and I know far too many others who did the same for the exact same reasons. These are also likely the same or similar reasons that the other 50+ million Americans are in the same situation as myself now.

    Spending upward of 30% of your annual take home pay for something your rarely use is stupid. Then when you are in an unfortunate situation where it is needed you are far more likely to get shafted or put through such a stupid run around that you end up worse off than had you never went. :mad:

    I have been to the emergency room while under a 90% coverage policy and got shafted because the fine print said I had to be in the emergency room for more than three hours for any of the 90% coverage to be effective. $2089 out of my pocket because I came out less than a half hour too soon. WTF? :mad:

    I am not the only one who has been through this as well and I understand it has happened to many others with different insurance policies provided by other companies as well.

    Its a very common thing here to get screwed because of fine print. And lately much of this fine print is so fine that the insurance agents who write up the policies they sell dont even know about them until after they process your claim and try to help you. :mad:
     
  16. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here
    Supposedly, this new law clears up a lot of the fine print issues. Kind of doubt it though, insurance companies are out to earn money, not help people or pay claims (if they can avoid it). Just another, of many points about this new law that bugs me. A law to force everyone to use a particular for-profit service. They can't deny coverage, and we can't refuse either. Will the insurers still get to pick and choose which treatments they will cover, or basically pills over surgery? I have dental and vision care through work, will this be included, or cut.

    Surprised you didn't make the three hours in the Emergency Room, must have been a slow day... I got a cut on my forearm, at a previous job, over 20 years ago, but wait almost 2 hours before seeing any doctor, which upset me a great deal. I had a blood soak towel wrapped around it, and was a little concerned I nick a vessel, which is why I went. The bleeding had stopped, but the doctor put in 5 stitches anyway. I removed them myself a week later, simple enough, cut the knot on one end, grab the other knot and pull it out. Only took a couple of minutes, and free. Pretty sure I was at the hospital well over three hours, but maybe the don't count the time you fill out forms, or watching some fat guy get wheeled by, with a stubbed toe.
     
  17. canadaelk

    canadaelk Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    772
    Likes:
    29
    You all get well soon!
    Eh!
     
  18. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here
    Just read a news article about young (20's) people complaining about higher premiums, so that older people and high risk people get cheaper insurance. Was kind of thinking that this isn't entirely fair either. Already mentioned that a healthy young person, who really doesn't need much medical care, and insurance isn't as high a priority, as college or buying a home, should be forced to buy insurance. But seems even worse, that they'll pay even more for something they won't likely have any use. Older people usually already own their home, been to college, and have/had a career for many years, where young people are just struggling to get established, and now face another financial challenge. They won't have much savings to get them through between jobs, and being the new guy, will be top of the lay-off list, so can expect to be one of the 'lucky' ones a few times.

    Seems like the standard, is the government is giving out tax credits, to help offset the insurance costs. Which, doesn't seem like much, if you don't have much income to be taxed in the first place.
     
  19. HarveyH42

    HarveyH42 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,442
    Likes:
    18
    Location:
    Not Here
    Well, looks like Obama-care II was signed yesterday, don't have time enough this morning to find and download the final versions. It would be nice if somebody combined them into one document, so much to cross-check. Guess the revisions would be the first to read, then I can remember what was changed or added in. Wonder just how much pork was added, since it was slipped onto Obama's desk so quietly.

    I think it's going to be interesting how this thing plays out. Still skeptical that it's going to make it, and doubtful it's going to be much of an improvement, since the insurance companies are still the ones who will end up with the money, and health care will still be about the same, just more people seeking treatment and free drugs. Might be easy to get insurance, but will it be as easy to get to see a doctor? A private physician can only handle so many patients, so would guess that most people will be turning to hospitals and emergency rooms, which is more expensive...

    Still seems like sort of a bummer for young adults, just trying to get started in life, having to sink money into to something the don't want or need, so us older guys can pay less. Well, actually, I don't see my premiums going down, except maybe down the toilet. Pretty sure we will all pay more. Still kind of think that out of the 16% of the population, there are relatively few that really need help on medical costs, and have no where to turn. Unfortunate events strike everyone's lives, some worst, that others, but most everybody finds some way to get past the challenges, and move on. That's sort of why we are human, we solve problems. This new law doesn't do much, except shift the burden off on other people to deal with. About 30% of my paycheck goes to payroll deductions now, wonder what sort of increase I'll see in the coming years.
     
  20. Hero999

    Hero999 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes:
    79
    Location:
    England
    I went to see the doctor to day because I was worried about a lump on the back of my neck. I called up the surgery, arranged an appointment in five minutes, drove to the other side of the village and waited in the surgery for a minute. When i was called into the doctor's room he looked at the lump and told me it was a cyst and that I had nothing to worry about and that I should come back and see him if it irritates me. We chatted for a couple of minutes and I went home.

    It didn't cost me a penny. If I had to pay, I'm not sure I would've gone but it it had turned out to be cancer then it would've cost me more to have it removed and it might even have been too late. I'm glad that I could get an appointment for free in five minutes of me ringing up.

    I don't see why the younger people should be paying more?

    That's now how these insurance schemes normally work. What should happen is everyone should pay roughly the same, the younger people the same as the old. It's true that the young will not need the insurance until they are older but if they've being paying into a scheme all of their lives then there will be lots of money in the pot for when they really need it.

    My only problem with the US scheme is that the government are forcing people to buy a product from a private company. If it were a non-profit scheme run by an independent body, then I'd support it.
     
  21. PatM

    PatM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    218
    Likes:
    10
    Location:
    Wauwatosa Wi
    That sounds good in theory.
    In reality there will be no money in the pot.
    When Social Security was founded it was supposed to work the same way.
    In reality, the politicians saw this huge chunk of money, and drained it off to balance the budget.
    This went on for decades.
    Now they are saying that there is no money for the young people and the fund will run out before they get old enough to draw from it.
    Anytime there is a huge chunk of money, the politicians will figure a way to grab it for something else.
    Here in Wisconsin, we paid for many years, with extra licensing fees for automobiles so that money would collect to pay for road repairs.
    Our present Governor drained the fund to balance his budget.
    We now have one of our major interchanges closed down for emergency repairs that will cost upward of $20 million dollars.
    The interchange will be completely rebuilt in about 3 years, when it should have been replaced 4 years ago.
    $20 million wasted, traffic rerouted for the next 2 months and all because the money wasn't there when it should have been.
    The young people shouldn't think there will be ANY money left when they need it for medical care when they get older.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2010

Share This Page