Health Care

[Rosedamai]

Just in case anyone wanted to ask-LASIK in Korea costs about $1300 in total

[WereJace]

Just in case anyone wanted to ask-LASIK in Korea costs about $1300 in total

Here in Saskatchewan, it apparently starts at $500, though I haven't looked too deeply into it to see if that includes aftercare, etc.

[Rosedamai]

Here in Saskatchewan, it apparently starts at $500, though I haven't looked too deeply into it to see if that includes aftercare, etc.

Oh, that's including the doctor's fees, aftercare, and everything

[Mommy_Kitty]

Here in Slovenia we have rather good health care, we monthly pay insurance wich is around 28€ and children have free insurance till they are still in school, and for that we have free medical treatment, so anything that is not cosmetical is payed from this, eye tests are free to along with variouse surgeries on eyes, but not LASIK as this is cosmetic, and glases are not free either. Ortodontists are free to as long as it is something that does not go into cosmetics, so crowns and fillings are free as long as there is basic materials used, for gold crowns and things like that you need to pay yourself.

Clinics and Hospitals are mostly not private as they are public, owned by our country, like police and military, and even if it is set up like this doctors here can earn from 4000€ and up to 15000€ a month in paycheck, and if you think this wuld not be enough to make a decent living than i dont know what will.

 

And as for all the lawsuits that are there in america i think it is stupid and unfair becouse people only look for a way to get "easy money". To me it is normal that if i was operated on i will have a scar where they made a cut into my body, for gods sake they were trying to save my life and not to make me look better, and if the scars are so annoying i can go to plastic surgeon to cower them up.

 

Princess Artemis you say you dont want to pay fore something that others will use, but we all pay taxes, and part of that money goes into military, but i`m fully against military and i`m being forced to pay for it, and i wuld rather pay double the amount of money we pay now for health insurance becouse i know that lives will be saved becouse of it.

[Vhale]

Sure they are forcing a degree of communality. I can live with that.

I don't think it's forcing it, rather recognizing that it already exists and we are already paying for it. Unless we're willing to let people just die on the streets, we can't stop giving care at ERs. And ERs aren't cheap. So, I think more people are asking, why are we paying so much for so little, when other countries are doing just fine.

 

It makes me upset that Obamacare IS Romneycare, because to me, that means this whole ordeal SHOULD have been bipartisan. States Rights is a red herring. There is no reason why the two should not have sat down and worked things out, instead we get nearly 400 filibusters. Or, we have states wasting millions of dollars getting sued over voterid, personhood and immigration laws

[Princess Artemis]

Princess Artemis you say you dont want to pay fore something that others will use, but we all pay taxes, and part of that money goes into military, but i`m fully against military and i`m being forced to pay for it, and i wuld rather pay double the amount of money we pay now for health insurance becouse i know that lives will be saved becouse of it.

You are being forced to pay for a military you are philosophically against. How does that feel to you? That your hard-earned money is being taken from you to support something you abhor?

 

In any case, I did not say I didn't want to pay for something that others will use. I never said that anywhere; if I felt that way, I wouldn't think charity was good. https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/ and http://www.caringvoice.org/ are both good charities in the health care field. Can't say I am particularly cheerful about my family doing so at gunpoint though, no. We have some weird luck with our health and don't need to have the government take from us by force, take its cut, then redistribute it back to us and everyone else as well "for our own good". That's terribly inefficient.

 

Here in Saskatchewan, it apparently starts at $500, though I haven't looked too deeply into it to see if that includes aftercare, etc.

 

In the US, LASIK can be got for as low as $250, I believe, but that is without any after care. The price I mentioned was average for the procedure done with a stationary laser, any medication needed, and a year's after care.

 

The word people in this thread have been looking for is elective, not cosmetic. It didn't change how I look in the least, so LASIK cannot possibly be cosmetic. It certainly can be elective though.

 

I don't think it's forcing it, rather recognizing that it already exists and we are already paying for it. Unless we're willing to let people just die on the streets, we can't stop giving care at ERs. And ERs aren't cheap. So, I think more people are asking, why are we paying so much for so little, when other countries are doing just fine.

 

It is forcing when the government is reaching into pockets to pay for it or else.

 

I do believe there are ways to fix the problem at hand (and there certainly is one) without giving it to the Federal government and saying, "Take care of us : ("

 

How are state's rights a distraction? In the United States of America, the States are the important part. USA != Federal Gov't. States are almost but not quite like countries. Saying that the rights of states are merely a distraction seems...disrespectful of what they are.

[~Kat~]

Something I did not think about below.

 

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum seized the opportunity at an Ohio campaign event for Mitt Romney on Wednesday to warn Catholics that supporting Obamacare is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church.

 

"We have a president who, for the first time in American history, is directly assaulting the First Amendment and freedom of religion," Santorum said, referring to the provision in Obamacare that requires most employers to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. "He is going to tell you what to do in the practice of your faith. He is forcing business people right now to do things that are against their conscience, that they will have to -- if you're a Catholic -- you’ll have to go to confession … to confess that you are complying with a government program that is a sin in the Catholic church."

 

The argument that President Barack Obama is forcing Catholics to violate their faith by paying for birth control, a common Republican talking point, is problematic. Data shows that 98 percent of Catholic women who have had sex and are of child-bearing age have used an artificial method of contraception that is against the teachings of the church. Many Catholic universities, including Wheaton College, which is suing the Obama Administration over the law, already covered contraception before the law was announced.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/r..._n_1790820.html

[Fuzzbucket]

Something I did not think about below.

 

Former presidential candidate Rick Santorum seized the opportunity at an Ohio campaign event for Mitt Romney on Wednesday to warn Catholics that supporting Obamacare is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church.

 

"We have a president who, for the first time in American history, is directly assaulting the First Amendment and freedom of religion," Santorum said, referring to the provision in Obamacare that requires most employers to offer insurance plans that cover contraception. "He is going to tell you what to do in the practice of your faith. He is forcing business people right now to do things that are against their conscience, that they will have to -- if you're a Catholic -- you’ll have to go to confession … to confess that you are complying with a government program that is a sin in the Catholic church."

 

The argument that President Barack Obama is forcing Catholics to violate their faith by paying for birth control, a common Republican talking point, is problematic. Data shows that 98 percent of Catholic women who have had sex and are of child-bearing age have used an artificial method of contraception that is against the teachings of the church. Many Catholic universities, including Wheaton College, which is suing the Obama Administration over the law, already covered contraception before the law was announced.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/r..._n_1790820.html

Since when do you have to confess for "supporting a government" ?

 

When you think of all the other appalling things governments all over do, the queues outside the confessionals of the world should stretch round the globe and then some.

[Princess Artemis]

The argument that President Barack Obama is forcing Catholics to violate their faith by paying for birth control, a common Republican talking point, is problematic. Data shows that 98 percent of Catholic women who have had sex and are of child-bearing age have used an artificial method of contraception that is against the teachings of the church. Many Catholic universities, including Wheaton College, which is suing the Obama Administration over the law, already covered contraception before the law was announced.

It is indeed problematic. Given that Obamacare has in place the ability to refuse it based on religion (which the Amish and Mennonites will use, given that they do not pay into Social Security and also do not draw out of it), it seems perfectly logical that Obamacare forcing (and that is the key word) religious institutions to pay for contraception in violation of their religion ought be addressed similarly.

 

What Wheaton College may or may not be doing by choice in contravention to their religion is a whole 'nother universe from the Federal government forcing them to do, in contravention to the First Amendment.

 

Separation of Church and State: It's A Two-Way Street.

 

That said, Santorum has a big mouth.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Princess Artemis

[Drachenlied]

I should not and WILL NOT pay for someone else!!! if you allow insurance to cross state lines then there will be competition among companies and prices will lower naturally. I am done talking to a closed minded communist... I DO NOT OWE ANYONE FOR ANYTHING, I WORK FOR ME AND MINE!!! YOU WORK FOR YOU AND YOURS!!! DO NOT TOUCH MY MONEY!!!

 

I get called a communist by someone for stating that Obamacare isn't bad. I drop a link that explains Obamacare, and ask them to read it. And I get called closed minded.

 

Sure. Whatever you say. I support people's well being, and will willing pay taxes so others don't have to DIE because they can't afford insurance. ou support your own money and don't care, even if it's your own family. This is greed at it's finest.

[Fuzzbucket]

I support people's well being, and will willing pay taxes so others don't have to DIE because they can't afford insurance. You support your own money and don't care, even if it's your own family. This is greed at it's finest.

Amen !

[Vhale]

It is forcing when the government is reaching into pockets to pay for it or else.

 

I do believe there are ways to fix the problem at hand (and there certainly is one) without giving it to the Federal government and saying, "Take care of us : ("

 

How are state's rights a distraction? In the United States of America, the States are the important part. USA != Federal Gov't. States are almost but not quite like countries. Saying that the rights of states are merely a distraction seems...disrespectful of what they are.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. As I said before, we're already paying for it. In Texas the money used to fund non-insurers in the ERs is taken out of my property tax. So is funding for schools etc. There's no checkbox for which hospital your tax payer dollars support, or which schools. It's taken and it goes. In that sense, we already have universal health care, and it's extremely inefficient.

 

Personally I see the ARGUMENT about states rights as a distraction because I rarely see it brought up except as an excuse to remove ACA. Why would we remove it just to put it back? I could easily answer you by saying it seems disrespectful to the government to ignore it's authority. But then we'd be arguing about something totally un-health care related. Hence, a distraction.

 

Anywho, originally came back to this because I found a comment that is supposedly by someone from Australia that compares the system there to the US. I can't vouch for how accurate it is but it looked interesting.

 

I would like to make a comment on the US health care universal health care and in particular the current state of funding for organ transplantataion in the US.

 

l obtained my medical degree 33 hears ago, have been a lung transplant physician for 16 years and a full-time intensivist for 5 years prior to that.  I have worked in the UK, the US and mainly in Australia.

 

I apologise for the spacing of this comment.  CNN won't allow me to edit my post.

 

1.1  Australia has both universal and private healthcare.  In Australia all organ transplants are performed in the public system.  There is hard data from International Registries documenting that 1,3,5 and 10 year survival rates for lung and kidney transplants in Australia are superior to those in the US (in fact the best in the World).  The 10 year survival for a  kidney transplant recipient is 43% in the US as compared to 59% in Australia.  I should mention that Canada also has very  impressive outcomes.  According to data from the International Society For Heart & Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) 2010 report, the 3 year survival rate for a double lung transplant recipient was 67.5% in the US and 77.6% in Australia.  At 3 years the survival rate was 66.9% across the entire ISHLT registry. 

 

Organ and in particular lung transplants are among the most costly interventions in medicine.  The cost of the operation with a relatively uncomplicated recovery  for a double-lung transplant $350,000 (double-lung).  In the US a double-lung Tx costs approximately $550,000. 

 

In Australia, this cost (and every aspect of their care till death) is borne by the state.

I should mention that patients pay a small nominal fee for non-transplant related drugs.

 

The New England of Journal Medicine (which is arguably the most respected journal of clinical medicine in the world) published an editorial this year detailing the problem of kidney transplant recipients in the States having their funding for their immune-suppression ceased after 3 years (by Medicare), potentially resulting in the inability to procure them.  This would obviously endanger the graft and increase mortality.

 

The article concluded by stating: 

 

"Perhaps a more compelling argument in favour of lifelong immunosuppressant drug coverage is that transplantable kidneys are lifesaving gifts made possible by living donors or by families of deceased persons and are of immeasurable benefit to society. Current U.S. policy devalues this gift, potentially jeopardising the U.S. organ-donation system by discouraging volunteers. Providing lifelong immunosuppressive drug coverage could help preserve this altruistic tradition.

 

There are similar instances of insurance companies ceasing or reducing funding for immune-suppression.

 

A 2010 report showed that 68% of US lung transplant centres reported "deaths and graft losses attributable to cost-related non adherence".

 

A 2001 study in the American Journal of Transplantation documented a direct relationship between loss of insurance coverage and allograft failure. 

 

This is totally unacceptable and would never happen in Australia.

 

From a transplantation perspective, there is little point of giving someone new lungs/kidneys (or any other solid organ) if immunosuppression is going to be ceased because of lack of affordability.

 

Organs are a limited resource…they do not grow on trees.

 

1.2  The Department of Transplantation at California Pacific Medical Centre in San Francisco published an article related to this problem in 2010 (Bramsted A et al.  Progress in Transplantation.  2010; 20: 178-185):

 

"More than a 25% of all transplant ethics consultations…involved the restriction of transplant-related interventions for reasons rooted in insurance or finance.  We argue that the influence of these variables is most likely unique to the United States (among developed nations).  As the United States lacks universal health insurance and cannot guarantee health care to all its citizens, individuals seeking an organ must rely on personal insurance policies, cash, or equity to proceed through the transplant process, and this inevitably favours the wealthy over the poor for getting on the waiting list.  Because transplantation and immunosuppressive therapy are so costly, persons who are underinsured or completely uninsured are hindered in their access to this lifesaving technology."

 

In Australia the decision to list a patient for transplantation is never influenced by their financial or insurance  status.

 

1.3  Regarding the implications of the ACA for organ transplant recipients:

 

"It is theoretically possible that the ACA’s insurance exchanges will include lifetime coverage for immunosuppressive drugs.  It is not clear exactly what type coverage will be offered and whether such lifetime coverage will be offered…" (from the AMA website March 2012).

 

2.1  Outcomes for intensive care admissions are often better in Australia than the US (one of the reasons being that in the US there are far more 'open' units as opposed to 'closed' units, than in Australia.  A 'closed' ICU is one in which patients are transferred to the care of a full-time, board certified, intensivist who is responsible for day-to-day management of the patients, including all admissions and discharges, orders, and clinical management.  In an open ICU, the day-to-day management decisions are taken by the primary physicians, who are very commonely not certified critical care physicians.  There is strong evidence that survival is improved in the 'closed' system model (with up-to a 40% reduction in ICU mortality).  Most European intensive care units are also closed.

 

A 2004 report suggested that the implementation of a predominately intensivist led model of ICU management in the US could save over 50,000 lives annually.

 

In 2004 the lack of qualified intensivists and inadequate provision of closed units actually prompted critical care physicians from the American College of Chest Physicians, the American Thoracic Society, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine to publish and issue a white paper to the Federal Government (including the NIH, NIA and NHLBI)  addressing this and several other issues regarding the deficiencies of optimal care in US ICUs (Chest 2004).

 

According to a 2010 report only 35% of ICUs in the US were operated using the closed high-intensity model.  Only 20% of ICUs in Michigan were closed.  In contrast, 95% of Australian intensive care units employ the closed high-intensity model and are run by intensive care specialists certified by the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine (JFICM).

 

3.  I certainly think that services like Palliative Care (my wife is a Palliative Care specialist) should be funded as much as possible by the state.  The limited studies that have analysed palliative care outcomes across countries strongly suggest that Australia has superior end-of-life care as compared to the US.

 

Having spent over 3 decades caring/treating for often very sick patents I feel that dealing with the dying/death of a loved one (who may be the sole bread-winner for the family and often under physically and psychologically painful circumstances) is traumatic enough without having to worry about how you're going to pay the bills.

 

4.  I personally think that in the developed world, to not have universal health care is unethical and immoral.  The private system does obviously however have it's benefits, both for the privately insured patient and for the system as a whole e.g reducing waiting times for investigations and elective surgery which in turn can reduce the burden on the public system and in turn, improves care quality of care for those solely dependent on government funded health care. 

 

The entire health care system in the US would need to be completely overhauled to enable a quality universal health care model to be implemented in a cost effective manner.

 

 

 

The Australian Health System is FAR from perfect but then I doubt any system is or ever will be. 

 

Thank you for reading this 'rather long' post.

 

Professor A W

MBChB, FCCP, FRCP, FRACP, FJFICM, FFICANZCA, PhD

[Kestra15]

A brilliant post by that doctor, and Amerylis and I certainly, between us, have directly experienced, heard of or researched a lot of those points and they all sound in line with our combined experiences - so this AW sounds genuine to me.

[Vhale]

For those of you in other countries with decent health care systems, remember, this is what you look forward to if you let people dismantle them.

 

One Scorpion Sting. In Mexico, antivenom can be purchased at the pharmacy for 100$. In the US, 3 hours away? If you get stung and go to the hospital, WITH insurance it will cost you 25,000$. But hey, the total bill was actually 83,000$. Yay for insurance!

 

Original Article

 

Marcie Edmonds was tearing open a box of air-conditioner filters in her garage last June when she felt a sharp sting in her abdomen.

 

The 52-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills woman had never felt a scorpion sting before that day. She had no intention of seeking medical help, but within an hour of the sting, Edmonds' mild tingling sensation worsened with throat tightness, blurry vision, darting eyes and tense muscles. She could not walk and had trouble breathing.

 

With the help of a friend, she called Poison Control and was advised to go to the nearest hospital that had scorpion antivenom, Chandler Regional Medical Center. At the hospital, an emergency room doctor told her about the antivenom, called Anascorp, that could quickly relieve her symptoms. Edmonds said the physician never talked with her about the cost of the drug or treatment alternatives.

 

Her symptoms subsided after she received two doses of the drug Anascorp through an IV, and she was discharged from the hospital in about three hours.

 

Weeks later, she received a bill for $83,046 from Chandler Regional Medical Center. The hospital, owned by Dignity Health, charged her $39,652 per dose of Anascorp.

 

The Arizona Republic reported last year about the pricey markup Arizona hospitals were charging for the antivenom made in Mexico. Pharmacies in Mexico charge about $100 per dose.

 

After the Food and Drug Administration approved the drug last year, Tennessee-based Rare Disease Therapeutics sold the drug to a distributor for $3,500 per dose. The distributor charged hospitals about $3,780 per dose.

 

The Republic polled several hospitals in November, finding that hospital charges for the serum ranged from $7,900 to $12,467 per vial. At the time, Chandler Regional declined to tell The Republic how much it charged for Anascorp.

 

Edmonds' insurer, Humana, has paid Chandler Regional $57,509 for the bill. The hospital has asked Edmonds for the balance of $25,537.

 

Chandler Regional issued a statement indicating that Edmonds' charges represented the out-of-network costs for her treatment. Chandler Regional is not part of Humana's network, so she was charged the hospital's full billing rate.

 

"We believe no one should delay seeking needed medical care because they lack insurance or have high medical costs," the hospital's statement said.

 

Edmonds, who is a counselor, knows the intricacies of health-care billing, but she believes the hospital's wholesale charges should be explained to the public.

 

She was astonished to see the amount she was charged. "Everyone I talk to says, 'You've got to be kidding,' " when she explains her bill.

 

 

And if you want some American horror stories, read the fark comments. Including one from a person who's little girl had the same issue. Sadly, they were between jobs for a short while and had no insurance when it happened. So... yah. Debt for life.

Comments

[Kestra15]

"We believe no one should delay seeking needed medical care because they lack insurance or have high medical costs," the hospital's statement said.

But when you work in a system which will charge you your life for your life...

 

For $200 I would have gone and bought the AV, administered it to her, observed her during administration and given her a bed for the night to recover.

[~Kat~]

I hope that there is not a topic already about this. I looked, and if I over looked it I am sorry.

 

Some people think Obamacare is a good thing and some do not.

 

This can be a place to see how America is coping with it and to see how many people it is helping or not helping.

 

 

 

I will start with what I put on the POLITICS THREAD.

 

Companies are finding legal ways to only keep part time workers to skirt the law as they are putting it. Olive Garden and Red Lobster are also keeping mostly part time workers as well.

 

People are talking about boycotting, but to many people like these places to eat, so I really do not think it is going to hurt them. I know I will still eat at all of these places. I also tip well if the service is good.

 

It is sad the employees that are being cut in hours will have less income, pay less taxes, and still have to pay the healthcare penalty tax, while applying for food stamps to help with their day to day living. The people that have good jobs and the rich I guess will have to pay for other people's coverage, which is not fair. Socialism, is not best for this country as people will start to see down the road perhaps. Anyone not buying their own insurance will pay a fine coming out of their tax refunds. Obamacare could bankrupt the USA in the long run, I hope not.

 

A lot of our diseases we have could be prevented. Obesity, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, smoking, eating fast foods that are mostly fried causes heart problems, diabetes, cancer, stroke, and the list goes on. All of these bad choices drive up the cost of health care for everybody. I know I have been taking better care of myself for a while now.

 

Here are some companies below laying off workers because of Obama's ... Obamacare

 

Murray Energy Corporation Annouces Layoff

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/m...26pLid%3D232844

 

Papa John's to Reduce Worker's because of Obamare

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/p...26pLid%3D232844

 

Applebee's wont hire because of Obamacare

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/z...26pLid%3D232766

[Slaskia]

TheBlaze has a list on layoffs/closings:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-b...-a-second-term/

 

Granted, this doesn't specifically say they are doing this because of Obamacare, but I imagine it is a big factor.

[~Kat~]

Slaskia, I like the articles you put on below

 

The big problem with Obamacare...is that many do not/will not see a 'reduction' in healthcare costs at all under it. In fact, in many cases, there will be an 'increase'.

 

Here's a some articles about it from doctor's PoV:

 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-809989

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/...re-doctor-take/

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/07/09/a-d...n-of-obamacare/

 

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/232510/w...ks-of-obamacare

Edited November 10, 2012 by ~Kat~

[ShinyTomato]

Frankly, I think the "hiring issues" are something that will have to be dealt with by closing loopholes in some flawed employment laws that have been ignored far too long. It's not that the people can't afford to hire, it's that they're selfish. It's worsening the issues created by Wal-Mart.

 

As a country, prtior to health care reform, our healthcare was laughable.

 

49.9 million residents, 16.3% of the population, were uninsured in 2010 [http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf]

 

The United States spent more on health care per capita ($7,146), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (15.2%), than any other nation in 2008

The United States had the fourth highest level of government health care spending per capita ($3,426)

 

[http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2011/en/index.html]

 

As of 2007, 62.1% of filers for bankruptcies claimed high medical expenses.

 

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf]

 

Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations, while paying twice as much for health care.

 

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf]

 

Life expectancy at birth in the USA, 78.49, is 50th in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. The US health system is the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health.

 

[http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/annex01_en.pdf]

 

So-called Obamacare is actually dropping the amount of government money paid for insurance. [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247231.php] while, as a contrast to the recent election, Romney's plan, would have left 45 million more people uninsured. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/romneys-health-care-plan-uninsured-obamacare_n_1935941.html] and would have in fact doubled the cost for the average family's medical insurance. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/romney-health-care-plan-double-costs_n_1922555.html]

 

That's not to say that the current Health Care Reform is perfect. It's not. I'm not claiming it is, but it's putting some stitches on a bullet wound, rather than a band-aid. Neither will work forever, but one is definitely more helpful than the other.

 

Not to mention that it would cost $109 billion to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

[http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471]

 

It is definitely helping people:

 

The share of people ages 19 to 25 who lacked health insurance fell to 27.9 percent [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/health/policy/more-young-adults-have-health-insurance-study-says.html]

 

While in 2011, the first time in four years, the number of Americans without health insurance dropped, 48.6 million people were uninsured last year, down from 49.9 million.

 

The rate of private health insurance remained stable in 2011, not declining for the first time in the last decade.

 

[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/09/number-of-uninsured-americans-drops-for-first-time-in-four-years.html]

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Frankly, I think the "hiring issues" are something that will have to be dealt with by closing loopholes in some flawed employment laws that have been ignored far too long. It's not that the people can't afford to hire, it's that they're selfish. It's worsening the issues created by Wal-Mart.

 

As a country, prior to health care reform, our healthcare was laughable.

^this^

 

Companies cannot be allowed to get away with this. End of.

[VictorianVivian]

I don't know if anyone has ever read the entire health care reform bill or not, but I have. It's extremely lengthy (we're talking 2000+ pages) and full of questionable legal jargon that is, for the most part, an plethora of confusion for the common man.

 

However, I highly suggest reading it yourself before making any sort of judgment because the media and the pages that "break it down for the common man in plain language" are woefully incorrect on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

The bill has both excellent and laughable components.

[Slaskia]

I don't know if anyone has ever read the entire health care reform bill or not, but I have. It's extremely lengthy (we're talking 2000+ pages) and full of questionable legal jargon that is, for the most part, an plethora of confusion for the common man.

 

However, I highly suggest reading it yourself before making any sort of judgment because the media and the pages that "break it down for the common man in plain language" are woefully incorrect on BOTH sides of the fence.

 

The bill has both excellent and laughable components.

I'd love to, but I am allergic to 'legalise' (as in, I can't stand reading it). I did just double check on something that 'originally' peeved me off: that federal employees were exempted from using Obamacare. Apparently that is not the case....

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011...from-obamacare/

[ShinyTomato]

I don't know if anyone has ever read the entire health care reform bill or not, but I have.

 

I have.

 

The bill has both excellent and laughable components.

 

Agreed.

 

I feel so many people are against Obamacare because they don't understand what's in it. Equally, there are people who are just as ignorantly for it. These are the types that get all their news from Fox News / MSNBC / The Blaze / Salon.

 

Here's my view: People are the most important thing in the world. People. Not money, not profit. I volunteer at free clinics whenever I can, and it's horrendous to see 82 year old women with tumors the size of golf balls show up, because they can't afford insurance and medicare doesn't cover this or that, or mothers bringing in infants who should be in the NICU, but aren't because the mother couldn't afford the thousands of dollars it takes to give birth in a hospital, let alone treatment. War widows who need six different kinds of medication just to get by for a day and give up heat and power to do it, wondering why the country their husband's fought and died for in WWII aren't taking care of them.

[Fuzzbucket]

Here's my view: People are the most important thing in the world. People. Not money, not profit. I volunteer at free clinics whenever I can, and it's horrendous to see 82 year old women with tumors the size of golf balls show up, because they can't afford insurance and medicare doesn't cover this or that, or mothers bringing in infants who should be in the NICU, but aren't because the mother couldn't afford the thousands of dollars it takes to give birth in a hospital, let alone treatment. War widows who need six different kinds of medication just to get by for a day and give up heat and power to do it, wondering why the country their husband's fought and died for in WWII aren't taking care of them.

Spot on, as usual.

[Alpha1]

Shiny's so smart. If there wasn't any women voters, we would be a corporatist-fascist society.

 

I feel so many people are against Obamacare because they don't understand what's in it.

 

If we're talking about people who label themselves as some form of conservative, I don't think so. They will believe something even if there's tons of evidence to the contrary. Case in point, taxes. I know many conservatives think lowering taxes actually increases revenue. It flies in the face of smaller government, so a lot of them will always be in denial.