TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

mojo84 wrote:He didn't actually purchase it. It was just a symbolic stunt to make people think he is participating. His healthcare is taken care of by the military docs at our expense. Not sure about his family's though. Maybe that is who signed up on it.

Yes, I know it's a stunt. Doesn't mean he didn't purchase a policy that won't get used, though. If he SAID he purchased a policy, and he actually didn't, then he's lying again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@AP: He didn't use the website and won't use the insurance, but President Obama signed up for health coverage: http://apne.ws/1c28dJy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those interested in how our Healthcare system compares to other countries with single payer systems.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4486943/c ... are-models" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

03Lightningrocks wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I firmly believe a lot of the reason we're in this situation we're in now is because we started expecting insurance to cover routine and minor medical expenses.

Zackly right--insurance USED TO be something you bought "just in case" you had an unexpected problem and needed assistance with the bucks. But now it's morphed (warped?) into something entirely different hasn't it.

What we have had instead is "group healthcare" where you pay monthly and an "insurance company" e.g. Blue Cross has negotiated discounted services and pays providers for those because you're a card-carrying, dues-paying client of their.

This arrangement shouldn't be called "insurance" IMHO. And as for the Affordable Care Act, I do prefer the alternate names people have used, for example in this very thread...

I believe we are in the situation we are right now because we somehow permitted the socialist party to take control of Washington by claiming to be Democrats. Then we permitted a muslim terrorist, who is determined to bring down the American way of life, to become the supreme leader. But hey, that is just the way I see it all.

We didn't permit it, we're just outnumbered by the idiots and the moochers.

VMI77 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

TomsTXCHL wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I firmly believe a lot of the reason we're in this situation we're in now is because we started expecting insurance to cover routine and minor medical expenses.

Zackly right--insurance USED TO be something you bought "just in case" you had an unexpected problem and needed assistance with the bucks. But now it's morphed (warped?) into something entirely different hasn't it.

What we have had instead is "group healthcare" where you pay monthly and an "insurance company" e.g. Blue Cross has negotiated discounted services and pays providers for those because you're a card-carrying, dues-paying client of their.

This arrangement shouldn't be called "insurance" IMHO. And as for the Affordable Care Act, I do prefer the alternate names people have used, for example in this very thread...

I believe we are in the situation we are right now because we somehow permitted the socialist party to take control of Washington by claiming to be Democrats. Then we permitted a muslim terrorist, who is determined to bring down the American way of life, to become the supreme leader. But hey, that is just the way I see it all.

We didn't permit it, we're just outnumbered by the idiots and the moochers.

And that is only going to get worse.

I think we can turn it around if we ALL get aggressive about getting the message out. People have to realize their quality of life is better with a job and being self sufficient rather than living off of government handouts. Well, unless you are the guy I've been seeing on news reports in California that has figured out how to live better than I on government handouts and such. That guy needs to be locked up.

mojo84 wrote:I think we can turn it around if we ALL get aggressive about getting the message out. People have to realize their quality of life is better with a job and being self sufficient rather than living off of government handouts. Well, unless you are the guy I've been seeing on news reports in California that has figured out how to live better than I on government handouts and such. That guy needs to be locked up.

I would like to believe you are correct, but having worked with inner city ministries over the years I'm afraid you may not be. It is very difficult to break the cycle when handouts are the only thing a "family" has known for multiple generations.

Here's the guy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/333731333100 ... t_id=86924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84 wrote:Here's the guy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/333731333100 ... t_id=86924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sickening

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Here's the guy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/333731333100 ... t_id=86924" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sickening

I don't see what the problem is. This guy is just following the Democratic plan to avoid "job-lock". It's the new "American Dream", to follow your heart and spend the days practicing in a band, and smelling the flowers (or surfing).

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/pelos ... heir-jobs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although I'm not necessarily supportive of this program, I've got to cite where we've been headed:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media ... ief_v2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I know that many of us would like to roll-back to pre-Obamacare, but have a look at page 3. That trend line simply isn't sustainable. It essentially means that you'll have to be very well to do to afford healthcare and that everyone else will be on government rolls or we'd have to decide not to treat conditions due to financial reasons.

I'll give you that the impact of Obamacare may very well make it worse, but doing nothing really isn't an option either...


And as much as we'd like to blame the Democrats - this problem has existed through many decades, both Republican and Democrat...

cb1000rider wrote:It essentially means that you'll have to be very well to do to afford healthcare and that everyone else will be on government rolls or we'd have to decide not to treat conditions due to financial reasons.

The fundamental problem is that the medical profession is exempted from monopoly and restraint of trade laws. The whole system is a government facilitated rip-off. Unless that changes, yep, only the rich well be able to afford healthcare and those who are on the government tab will not be treated for certain conditions because it costs too much. Already happening in the UK.

cb1000rider wrote:Although I'm not necessarily supportive of this program, I've got to site where we've been headed:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media ... ief_v2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I know that many of us would like to roll-back to pre-Obamacare, but have a look at page 3. That trend line simply isn't sustainable. It essentially means that you'll have to be very well to do to afford healthcare and that everyone else will be on government rolls or we'd have to decide not to treat conditions due to financial reasons.

I'll give you that the impact of Obamacare may very well make it worse, but doing nothing really isn't an option either...


And as much as we'd like to blame the Democrats - this problem has existed through many decades, both Republican and Democrat...

The health care cost increase is due to the lack of adequate competition, excessive government regulation that both stifles competition and and favors certain companies and health care industries, and the outlandish cost to educate health care carrers. The health care career cost is almost totally the rsult of the lack of competition among educational institution and government funding of educational loans.

My opinion.

In the end, the governemnt is responsible for the factors leading up to the passage and implementation of barry care.

This has been the plan all along.

VMI77 kind of beat me to it.

Anygunanywhere

VMI77 wrote:he medical profession is exempted from monopoly and restraint of trade laws. The whole system is a government facilitated rip-off. Unless that changes, yep, only the rich well be able to afford healthcare and those who are on the government tab will not be treated for certain conditions because it costs too much. Already happening in the UK.

Break it down for me. Locally, there are probably 50 or more "family practice" doctors. I'd say that's a reasonable level of competition.

However, they don't compete.... I can't really can't shop around due to insurance.

It seems like there's a real problem with the insurance implementation.
If I walk into a family practice doctor, no insurance, but able to pay, I'm likely to spend $200-$250 for a few minutes of that doctors time.
With insurance, the payment to the doctor drops to about 60% of that - say $120 or so... Even though having insurance costs the doctor much more to process than having cash.
My out of pocket with insurance? Maybe $20 or so... Not counting the $750 or so that my employer and I are spending every month for that coverage.

It just seems very backwards to me. Dental care is the same way.

However, I can go down to Mexico and for some procedures where the standard of care and technology are on par, I may pay 75-85% less than the prevailing cash rate...

I don't claim to have a solution, I'm just claiming that the only thing worse than Obamacare would be allowing the status-quo for another 2 decades. And I might be wrong on that - both may implode.

Who is advocating that nothing should have been done?