SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.
Despite many Republican voters’ disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
(Score: 2) by dublet on Friday October 31 2014, @11:29AM
As someone who's lived on the European continent for their entire life, it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could be against everyone in society having access to healthcare, free at the point of access.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @11:41AM
Mostly because nothing's free. Everything you get WILL be paid for. There are a lot of people over here who just are not interested in paying for what others get.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:31PM
That's attitude is totally understandable when you see a mother with eight undisciplined kids in tow, no father(s) in sight, paying for her groceries using food stamps, while bitching to her friends on her brand new iPhone 6 about how she can't buy those new shoes and get a manicure because the "gubmint ain't gibin me nuff well fares".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @12:52PM
Nah, I don't need a strawman, thanks. I'm perfectly content with the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him someone else's fish and he'll vote for you." I don't want my metaphorical or actual fish, big or small, going to anyone else.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:56PM
That wasn't a strawman. I witnessed that a couple of weeks ago.
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Friday October 31 2014, @01:15PM
"No father(s) in sight" I like the way you inferred that she is unmarried and the kids have multiple fathers without knowing anything about her. My wife goes to the grocery store with my kids once or twice a week while I am at work. This statement has more data behind it than yours does --> You are a stereotyping POS.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @05:04PM
And why do you think there are stereotypes exist? My wife and I run a charity in our city and we see every stereotype you can name and the people just seem happy to try to fit it, regardless of race.
Have you seen the new show "Blackish"? A family with a father that can't have their kids acting to "white".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:03PM
A rich man, a republican and a democrat are sitting in a room with 10 twinkies. The rich man takes 8, and warns the republican that the democrat wants to take his.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:11PM
And what's to say the warning isn't valid, the overall inequality of the situation aside? What if the Democrat actually does want to take some of the Republican's twinky, to redistribute it to the "didadvantaged"?
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:55PM
The only issue is that we're kicking the poor person when we should both be kicking the Republican to get him to give up one or two more of the Twinkies. And that it's not just the Republicans doing that these days. Face it - we're an oligarchy now. This will be solved within about fifty years by another revolution. I hope I'm dead before it happens. It won't be pretty.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @03:00PM
And I note that when it comes to wealth redistribution, it is much easier to steal a twinky from the poor guy than it is from the rich guy. So many of these wealth redistribution schemes go horribly wrong.
Finally, it's worth noting that the world is experiencing a time of unprecedented global growth and prosperity. If your society is not sharing in that, then you should be asking why. My view is that wealth redistribution is one of the reasons why. Power shifts from those who make twinkies to those who can steal twinkies.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @05:42PM
No, power shifts to those who hoard Twinkies, for eventually they shall have the only Twinkies.
Power accretes until it is dispersed. It seems as universal as a law of nature. You can choose to get rid of these accretions when they're small and tractable or you can wait until there's going to be a bunch of collateral damage when it finally gets taken down. The bigger the accretion, the bigger the explosion. And you, my friend, are sitting on a powder-keg of power accretion previously unimagined in the world, holding the match of improved access to information extremely close to the fuse of unmet needs. I wish you the best in our mutual upcoming skyward journey.
That is all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @09:53PM
No, power shifts to those who hoard Twinkies, for eventually they shall have the only Twinkies.
It didn't work that way in the early part of the 20th Century in the US. What happened over the past few decades is simple. The balance of power between developed world labor and developed world capital shifted in favor of the latter. This is solely due to economic globalization and stiff competition with developing world labor. It stop when most of the world's labor gets employed and elevated to near developed world standards. I see that happening in about thirty years for the world outside of Africa.
Rather than steal "twinkies" from each other, which concentrates power in the hands of those who control the theft, the developed world should be thinking a lot harder about how to make its labor and other assets more valuable and less costly. There is no reason that the developed world shouldn't have very high employment rates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:08AM
Twinkie@ is a registered trademark. If you make your own Twinkies, you will be arrested. That is why it is better to kick the Republican and take some of his: he has a license!!
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Friday October 31 2014, @01:50PM
Gosh! I've actually never heard anyone talking like that in a grocery store.
You don't need anything else than the parent post to show that classist rhetoric also hurts our society. Note the use of vernacular to tag the victim of this verbal abuse with traits of stupidity and laziness, even though we all know there are people who are poor through little or no fault of their own. I like the "eight kids" thing, too, reinforcing the meme that the lower classes are breeding too much (even if you check average birth rates, the differentials are minor - besides, if the benefits of marriage accrue mainly to the well-off, why bother with it if your not?). And I especially like the "daddy not around" part - maybe he's working at one of his three part-time minimum-wage jobs, huh? But, no, we see a poor person and assume that they're in that position because they want to maintain this state because "it's so easy" - lets see you survive on what a welfare mom gets, if you think it's so easy. We judge them and find their "effort" or "morals" wanting, even if we don't actually know what they are. We actively fight to keep them in that position by limiting help to the bare minimum allowed for survival and assume that our munificent "charity" will somehow help this person escape what their life has become. Attitudes like the parent post show fuel that hatred. Because once we make the poor sub-human, we can do what this always boils down to for all of you Scrooges out there - reducing the "surplus population".
I'd call the poster of the parent post a troll, but I really think he believes this.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday October 31 2014, @06:33PM
...I'd call the poster of the parent post a troll, but I really think he believes this.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a massive logical disconnect from reality among conservatives, particularly poorer conservatives. There appears to be a belief that their taxes would disappear if they could just get rid of those minorities living it up on welfare and food stamps. Those fears are happily fed by the Republican Party leaders. They also fan, for the same reasons, the flames of social controversies like gay marriage and abortion, despite the fact it affects no one but the participants. Add that to the massive right wing propaganda campaigns against the ACA, the IRS, unions, government regulation (particularly the EPA) and Federal ownership of land and you pretty much have the Republican platform.
The goal of course is to eliminate the costs and risks of benefiting from living in our society for the wealthy, despite the fact they already benefit the most from that society. Almost every one of the items attacked by the Republicans benefit the poor and rural whites the most. Maps of food stamp use and increases of the insured under the ACA tend to show red states with the highest benefits. Those Federal lands, aside from the benefit to wildlife and biological diversity, are where millions of Americans hunt, fish, camp, hike or just enjoy the scenery. They don't seem to realize that turning it over to private ownership will result not in increased opportunities for those activities, but in increased "no trespassing" signs and/or massive environmental degradation. Unions are pretty much why workers have any benefits at all, union or not. People also forget why, but you don't have to search too hard to find the reasons the EPA was created in the first place. Do people really want to go back to the days of smog, rivers catching fire, rivers and bays too polluted to support fisheries, gas clouds descending on cities, etc? Most government regulations have not been created for the hell of it, they have been created to address issues caused by various abuses. They don't always get it right, but we could be working to make the faulty regulations work instead of eliminating all restraints on abuses.
The Democrats are moral cowards, they are too afraid of being attacked for their beliefs to stand up for them, so I can understand the lack of enthusiasm voters have for them. They should be attacking the Republicans for rolling back the liberal capitalism that helped the nation reach its greatest prosperity. Instead, they try to weasel into the vacuum in the middle caused by the Republican shift to the further right.
The Republicans however, are absolutely despicable, rolling back the modest social, environmental and economic gains that created the middle class, trying to drag us back to the decades preceding the Great Depression, wiping out the middle class and leaving the vast majority of people at the whims and mercy of the wealthy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @10:42PM
Just because you haven't personally experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Maybe there aren't many people like that in your wealthy white suburban environment, but in other areas it's very common to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:28AM
Just because you see it doesn't mean its common. People see rare things all the time.
(Score: 1) by boris on Friday October 31 2014, @01:03PM
Nothing is free, but in a single payer system you have a few less middle men to pay such as the insurance company. How can having more middle men be more inexpensive? Also, US healthcare is absurdly expensive compared to Europe. What fixes that? The Free Market?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @01:12PM
In a single payer system you also have no choice but to pay and no say in how much you pay. You allow the government, notorious for not being able to do anything with money but waste it, to administer a huge chunk of the economy. I'll still pass, thanks.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:55PM
In the current system, the cost of services is completely made up. The cost of an MRI doesn't depend upon how much it costs to run the machine, it is priced upon the highest value that an insurance company will pay for a scan. Tell me the labor cost of the tech and running the machine costs the $5k/person they charge, so if they run 20 people through the machine in a day, you gonna tell me it costs $100k/day to run the machine??? You'd be off by two orders of magnitude. Since they can't charge different rates to different people, the uninsured are on the hook for the full $5k.
Other than cries of socialism from people who apparently don't know what the word means, I have a very hard time seeing why health service costs are not regulated like electricity rates, water, rates, etc. Many of the same arguments for classifying ISPs as common carriers applies to health care services, but you don't hear too many people around here call that socialism, largely because they feel that in their own pockets as opposed to caring about some ficticious "welfare queen".
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:26PM
I've no problem regulating healthcare. I've damned sure no problem regulating insurance agencies. I have a big problem with moving us to pay for it or go to prison, because that's what's effectively being said.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dublet on Friday October 31 2014, @04:25PM
Yet the evidence indicates that the UK government is doing a better job that the US private sector.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html [independent.co.uk]
The UK NHS costs $3,405 per capita and the US system $8,508. For worse care. The relevant table: http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9542817.ece/alternates/w1024/Davis_Mirror_2014_ES1_for_web.jpg [independent.co.uk]
(Note that this was before the Affortable Care Act.)
According to the study, the UK “outperforms all countries” in the management of chronic illness. “The widespread and effective use of health information technology (HIT) in the UK plays a large role in the country’s high score on the chronic care management indicators, as well as its performance on system aspects of preventive care delivery.”
Britain also apparently leads the way in stellar levels of patient communication, alongside Germany. This relates to whether patients reported that they always or often got a clear, understandable and timely response from their doctor.
Customer feedback was also something that the UK excelled in, with 84 per cent of physicians receiving patient satisfaction data, compared with 60 per cent in the US which ranked third in that category.
[...]
Contrary to popular opinion, the report claimed that it is a "common mistake" to associate universal health coverage with long waiting times for specialised care.
“The UK has short waiting times for basic medical care and nonemergency access to services after hours,” it says.
“The UK also has improved waiting times to see a specialist and now rates fourth on this dimension with the US ranking third.”
Overall, it was said that the UK provides “universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:29PM
Good for them. It makes me happy they're doing well. They don't apparently have a government that trips over itself to see who can sell their vote the fastest when they're not horribly mismanaging the 2-3% they actually try to spend on what it should be spent on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 31 2014, @06:47PM
if they're not interested in being a part of society, then they need to GTFO. they sure as shit like taking what others have paid for, such as driving on society's roads, etc, but scoff when it comes their turn to contribute.
the whole point of society is that everyone pitches in (pays taxes) to provide the things that are essential for society to flourish (roads, education, internet, etc). it can be debated what specifically is essential for society to flourish (ie, does everyone need food? shelter? healthcare? roads? running water? etc? are the benefits of providing it worth the cost?), but it is still a requirement that everyone who wants to take part in society must pay their fair share.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:20PM
There's been society where you get to keep most of what you earn for most of this nation's history. It's only recently that you lot have decided that you can spend my money better than I can on everything.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday October 31 2014, @11:50PM
"its always been that way" doesn't mean its the best way, or even a good way. if you want to be a selfish prick and keep everything to yourself, saying fuck everyone else, then nobody is stopping you from moving away from everyone and living off in the wilderness by yourself, but if you want to participate in society then you have to follow society's rules, which includes following the laws and pitching in your fair share; if you won't pitch in your fair share then you're just a mooch, suckling off society's teats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @12:26AM
OK, I'll bite.
How much, precisely, is to be extracted from me, now and forevermore?
Go on, name your price.
Because I have found that however much people promise me, with their hands on their hearts and tears in their baby blue eyes, is all they want to take, it turns into a bigger number with more government debt which turns into more interest payments which I then have to pay for ....
In case you're having a hard time getting the hint: this is exactly why I, and many others, are getting sick of the ever-ratcheting government-sponsored level of financial strip-mining.
So give me a final, guaranteed figure or hunker down for implacable resistance.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 01 2014, @06:17AM
thats between you and the people in your area. as things like "inflation", "privatization", and "corruption" exist, and as everyone's needs and cost:benefit analyses are different, its impossible to give a single figure that will be valid for everyone, everywhere, forevermore.
the rest of your post reads like a strawman.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02 2014, @03:26AM
OK. Great. It's a flexible number with no foreseeable cap. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.
Implacable resistance to rising budgets shall therefore be the approach of choice.
Want something done? Find room in the budget, or learn to do without.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:19AM
I never said it's always been that way. I said it's been that way successfully in society for a long time; witness a society without taking money for charity at gunpoint. What we currently have is a small minority that through mass stupidity gained power and did something that society did not, and still does not, want.
Now YOU have a choice: to listen to the dictates of your collective society and vote for someone who is in favor of repealing the ACA or state plainly that you do value your own rights above those of society and vote for someone in favor of keeping it. You can't have it both ways.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 01 2014, @05:37PM
no, thats not my responsibility, thats the responsibility of society's representatives, the responsibility of the government. its also the responsibility of government to provide the things which society needs to be prosperous regardless of that society's wishes. there's a lot of people who don't want their money going to pay for roads, but modern society can't function without them. there's a lot of people who don't want their money going to support the army, but a society has to be able to defend itself otherwise it will simply be conquered.
every other first-world country in the world and lots of 3rd-world countries have proven that universal healthcare is well worth the benefits and is significantly cheaper than the US "healthcare system" scam. when people who can't pay for it go to the ER, it comes out of the public's pocket at a significantly higher cost; i can't understand why people want to continue paying so much more for so little benefit when its possible to pay significantly less for a hell of a lot more benefit.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:04AM
End of discussion, tyrant wannabe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:47AM
end of discussion, since abusive ad hominem strawmen are the only things you seem able to use.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @03:15AM
Hmm, do history much? Heard of "tithing"? Non-optional! Even when below subsistence level!
(Oh, and, "We're coming for your capital gains, Chuck!")
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Friday October 31 2014, @07:40PM
an enemy soldier in a prison camp has more comfort than the average citizen... =)
dude, have you noticed lately, that the complexity of things kind of increase?
for the moment, I am without job, but am not uneducated... what I know have been elite stuff just some decades ago...
since the low hanging fruit has been taken, there is nothing simple I can found a bizniz on...
I ask you this:
When my savings run out, you wish me to commit suicide?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday October 31 2014, @08:18PM
If you're relying on low-hanging fruit to start a business, you've no business in business. You, my friend, are a wage slave. Live with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Saturday November 01 2014, @05:35AM
The main question was this: when I become unemployed, and run out of money, should I commit suicide?
Generally, the high hanging fruit takes lots of manyears to pick... A new compiler, some specific signal processing library, replacement for some component that is in use today, say, X windows - you are a dev, yes? You know these take many years to make...
Then, there are some other things around, but everyone can't be an android dev or java consultant...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 01 2014, @11:11AM
You seem hung up on suicide. Seek help. What you should do is the same thing the rest of the world does when they aren't fit for one reason or another to be a business owner, get a job.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Saturday November 01 2014, @10:50PM
yes, yes, but if I can't get a job, and funds have run out?
why not answer? what should I do then?
are u willing to contribute "walfare" and medication for me until my situation improves?
face it, otherwise, i have to become criminal, or perish.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @12:03AM
Nope. And I'd never interfere with your right to choose to end your life, if that's what you really feel is necessary either. Having gone through plenty of that particular sort of mental badness myself, I know exactly where someone in that situation is coming from. Do you?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:36AM
My experience is not relevant here, on the other hand your words are:
"Mostly because nothing's free. Everything you get WILL be paid for. There are a lot of people over here who just are not interested in paying for what others get."
---
"Nah, I don't need a strawman, thanks. I'm perfectly content with the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him someone else's fish and he'll vote for you." I don't want my metaphorical or actual fish, big or small, going to anyone else."
If someone does not have, than that person have reached the end of the line, and these options exist:
1: someone contributes with some fish, maybe, so that the other can get back on the feet...
2: prostitution, criminality
3: emigration
4: death
So, do you or do you not want to contribute with some fish?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 02 2014, @01:02PM
Not at gunpoint, no, and that's exactly what taxes are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Sunday November 02 2014, @08:05PM
"Not at gunpoint, no, and that's exactly what taxes are."
My intention is not to troll you, but here is the point:
- the meek, nice, sensitive or those incapable of violence and killing (there is more to it) will die
- those who are insensitive or are to afraid of death will become prostitutes
- the rest are going to take to arms...
And at some point, we realize, that evolution did not only eliminate the incompetent - as certain groups wish to put it.
Evolution also eliminates the kind of people that you would rather more like to look in the eyes, then yourself.
And at the end, you will end up at gunpoint anyway.
As I said, I do not intend to troll, but you strike me as someone who is not stupid, but rather hard for the wrong reasons and about the wrong things.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 03 2014, @12:33AM
That's their call. I will not pay someone to not rob me. They're welcome to try though. The difference between them and me is I am on the side of liberty while they are on the side of give me your shit.
Personally, I'm with Patrick Henry; give me liberty or give me death. I flatly refuse to live as anything but a free man. You're right that people are going to start dying sooner or later but it won't be the outcome you're looking for. There will be no Bolshevik revolution in the US. Look to the history of this nation if you want to see where we'll come down on overly burdensome taxation. Enough of us haven't changed that the result will be identical to that of two hundred years and change ago.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:24PM
Your opinion could very well change if you were ever to be taxed at only 25%, rather than the 70% or more taxation rate you've only ever experienced. You'd soon come to like having greater control over how the money you've earned is spent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:35PM
This always seems to be the argument for people who haven't looked at the numbers.
The American tax payers pay £3700 per person per year for health care, plus insurance on top of that. In the UK for example universal healthcare cost the tax payer $3200 per person per year.
So you're not controlling what you spend your money on, you're spending more money to get less because you're paying for the inefficiencies of having hundreds of insurance companies doing administration, and thousands of hospital and doctors all doing the same, plus lining the pockets of share holders and executives in all those miriad companies.
Your argument would work if you were paying less, but each and every person in the US is paying more for private healthcare than they would under a public healthcare system. And the worst thing is that the republican's and the insurance companies have got you all convinced that saving money and having better access to healthcare is against your best interests.
How many turkey's have to get eaten before you all stop voting for Christmas?
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Friday October 31 2014, @02:30PM
The extra money which the U.S. puts forward means that we don't have to have pages describing our health care such as:
http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/Waitingtimes/Pages/Guide%20to%20waiting%20times.aspx [www.nhs.uk]
Says something that the top search result for: http://www.google.com/search?q=us+health+care+wait+for+MRI [google.com] is for Canada, no?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @02:45PM
> The extra money which the U.S. puts forward means that we don't have to have pages describing our health care such as:
No, the reason we don't have pages like that is because for a lot of people the wait list is infinite. Everybody on the highway can drive fast when it isn't rush hour.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday October 31 2014, @12:49PM
The fear among people who have private health care is that under a public system, the quality of care would go down for them. I do not necessarily believe that but I can see how others would. It also makes it very easy for moneyed interests to create resistance to change by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
It's not that the public are generally against giving people access to health care. A few years ago there was a strong push to expand Medicare benefits (the health care program for the elderly). It's that the public is against massive change to a system they're highly dependent on, yet is working well enough for a plurality (say 40%) of the population.
There is also fear that the overall cost to society would go up, and that the cost to individuals who are benefiting from the current system would go up disproportionately. Again, I am not sure I believe that, but it is mighty hard to prove what would or wouldn't happen.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @01:57PM
"Obmamacare" is not free healthcare. It is insurance. You pay for insurance.
It is not even 'cheap' healthcare. As 'insurance' covers everything. So even if you didnt want to use insurance it is in your best interest to use it. Now it is 'must carry' even if you do not really need it. To put it in perspective I probably will start really needed healthcare in my 60s. I am in my 40s. My employer pays about 12k a year as they are in a decent group. I have heard of plans costing as much as 3k a month. If I just saved the money and put it into a simple market matched fund I would probably have 1.1 million in that 20 years. Easy enough to pay for most procedures. Instead I have to give money to pay for others who need it now because we have jacked the price so high they can not afford it anymore.
What used to cost maybe 100 bucks now costs 10k. Far outstripping inflation.
We do not have the healthcare system you have. We have an insurance system. Having recently had to pick another dentist (old guy wanted to retire at 70 weird...). I can tell you the quality vs cost you get is wildly different depending on what group insurance plan you are in. Went into one place and it was 'omg you have the worst teeth I have ever seen I cant help you' (in plan). Next dude 'oh you just need a little work but it will cost you 10k' (in plan). Next guy it was 150 for the exact same procedure (out of plan). I paid cash. Because I got better quality than want offered by my insurance.
We have picked a path where we are on our way to extremely higher costs. None of the providers want to deal with the insurance companies. Many will give you a substantial discount if you pay cash up front. Most nurses I get the reaction of 'oh thank god I do not have to call them want 20% off?'. All you have to do is ask. Involve the insurance company though? Oh they charge the max rate they can.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @02:45PM
As someone who's lived on the European continent for their entire life, it never ceases to amaze me how anyone could be against everyone in society having access to healthcare, free at the point of access.
First, let me whine about the use of the term, "access". Everyone has "free access" to health care in the US. You don't have to pay to schedule an appointment with a doctor or walk into a hospital. They just don't have "free consumption". I think the language games surrounding the health care debate are rather silly.
Second, who is paying for this? Free "access" isn't free. Health care isn't like food. There is no real limit to how much health care you can consume except what your funding source can afford. And I've never heard of a sensible public health care scheme to limit consumption of health care. The usual games for limiting health care consumption are to delay demand via waiting lines or bureaucracy. There isn't an obvious point at which to set health care consumption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @05:04PM
I'd prefer to live in a free society where you can choose whether to pay for health insurance or not. In the UK you're forced to pay, even when you don't want to.
I'd rather take a risk and not pay for health insurance. I keep myself healthy and in good shape, don't engage in any dangerous activities and never vis the doctor.
If I get into an accident, get cancer or something else...well shit happens. I'd rather concentrate on living instead of worrying about dying, so I'd rather spend my money enjoying myself rather than waste it on "free" healthcare.
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Friday October 31 2014, @07:24PM
well *that* would be fine, but what we HAVE, is a health insurance entrenchment and profitability law...
in effect, PUTTING THE FOXES IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE...
(let's not ponder the IDIOTIC 'legal basis' on which this MANDATORY FINE/TAX is levied upon us, NOR how it opens up the door to fucking kongresskritters requiring virtually ANY EXPENDITURE they damn well please to saddle us with...)
i am 100% for single-payer, universal healthcare type plan, THIS IS NOT IT...
i am NOT buying this shit for the simple reason it is shit: the SHITTIEST 'bronze' plan will cost me 1/4 my take home pay, WITH A $6250 deductible... short of lopping off an appendage or getting the "Big C", i will NEVER receive any benefits from paying ONE QUARTER OF MY TAKE HOME PAY... NEVER...
FUCK.
THAT.
SHIT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 01 2014, @04:46AM
In Oz, we pay around 2% of our income as the "medicare levy" (which is really a tax).
10% of this funds the administration of the system, the rest pays for medical services.
Someone I know quite well who has no other insurance was recently injured (minor but painful).
First visit to emergency : free
Follow up visit to GP next day : $30 (Medicare paid the rest)
Daily visits to have the bandages changed and wound inspected : free
Total cost of bandages and medication : approx $50
Total medical expenses for an injury that put him off work for a week were less than four hours at minimum wage.