Conquer Club

So this is one of the more recent happenings, but if anyone is somewhat keeping on this, how do you feel about Obamacare now vs what the Republicans are offering in place?

Personally, both are equally terrible bills.

Obamacare was plagued with problems to begin with. A lot of people didn't want it because it would hurt more than help, it wasn't affordable for those with a low income, and it was required for everyone to have it. The bill sucked away the nation financially and it's been a waste of time for everyone. Not to mention the fact they pushed this bill under everyone's noses and passed it anyways despite the problems in the outlying bill to begin with.

What the republicans are pushing is essentially the same thing, under the guise of "The American Healthcare Act". Basically what Trump has promised for a repeal is now left with this heap of garbage. This healthcare plan doesn't tackle any of the same problems that Obamacare has had, in some cases it actually makes them worse. It's a clear kick in the nuts.

Here's my suggestion : Completely throw out both healthcare acts. One was already passed and has been terrible to begin with. Just go back to the drawing board and actually do (your) job that everyone is paying you to do, instead of these half assed legislations.

-Sorry for the lack of sources, meant to be more of a gripe session really.

The problem with health insurance is the same problem with college tuition. You have private or non-gov't entities being allowed to exploit the much larger fiscal resource of the federal loan/insurance company rather than an individual's measly finances, which they inevitably do, and over time they'll just continue to charge more because they can get away with it. It's a feedback loop.

Any system that relies on insurance will eventually fail the consumer, just like college tuition will keep increasing while any gender studies/art history student is allowed access to huge debt to go to school rather than go vocational.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The problem with health insurance is the same problem with college tuition. You have private or non-gov't entities being allowed to exploit the much larger fiscal resource of the federal loan/insurance company rather than an individual's measly finances, which they inevitably do, and over time they'll just continue to charge more because they can get away with it. It's a feedback loop.

I have no idea how healthcare commissioning works in the US but are you saying that healthcare providers delivering government-funded healthcare are allowed to charge the government however much they feel like? Do public commissioners not set targets for minimum delivery level/maximum cost?

mrswdk wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The problem with health insurance is the same problem with college tuition. You have private or non-gov't entities being allowed to exploit the much larger fiscal resource of the federal loan/insurance company rather than an individual's measly finances, which they inevitably do, and over time they'll just continue to charge more because they can get away with it. It's a feedback loop.

I have no idea how healthcare commissioning works in the US but are you saying that healthcare providers delivering government-funded healthcare are allowed to charge the government however much they feel like? Do public commissioners not set targets for minimum delivery level/maximum cost?

shhhh, working collectivism is taboo in USA. Better to continue creating faulty systems to turn the people against even the slightest bit of socialism.

Meanwhile, in China the government and people are still gladly abiding by Deng Xiaoping's maxim: 'it doesn't matter what color the cat is, so long as it catches mice'. Private or state-owned - as long as it works, why does it matter?

All hail the pragmatic and industrious Chinese as they continue their unassailable rise to international geopolitical and economic domination via their effective and harmonious internal system of achievement and awesomeness

One problem that I'm not sure they can solve is, in order to have a functioning system in place they need some savings or what ever you want to call a reserve of funds.

Eventually in theory you have to have some people paying more into it than they are using. That extra funding is where the payment to the hospital/doctors comes from to pay for an expensive surgery needed by someone that can't afford to just pay for said surgery. Hence the socialism label.

That socialist part is what modern westerners hate. No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor. In order to pay for the guy who also pays $100/month and gets a $300,000 cancer treatment.

The system needs at least 58 people paying the $100/month to cover a $300000 bill per year before administration costs.

Instead everyone is thinking, "I need to get my money's worth here." As soon as they are signed up, off to the doctor they go, who then has to tell the patient, "There is not enough money in reserves of Obamacare yet to pay for your ingrown toe nail treatment."

2dimes wrote:No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor.

Presumably you don't have health insurance then.

2dimes wrote:One problem that I'm not sure they can solve is, in order to have a functioning system in place they need some savings or what ever you want to call a reserve of funds.

Eventually in theory you have to have some people paying more into it than they are using. That extra funding is where the payment to the hospital/doctors comes from to pay for an expensive surgery needed by someone that can't afford to just pay for said surgery. Hence the socialism label.

That socialist part is what modern westernersonly americans hate. No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor. In order to pay for the guy who also pays $100/month and gets a $300,000 cancer treatment.

The system needs at least 58 people paying the $100/month to cover a $300000 bill per year before administration costs.

Instead everyone is thinking, "I need to get my money's worth here." As soon as they are signed up, off to the doctor they go, who then has to tell the patient, "There is not enough money in reserves of Obamacare yet to pay for your ingrown toe nail treatment."

Fixed it for you bro. The rest of the western world seems to be doing just fine. No mass protests against social security.

mrswdk wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The problem with health insurance is the same problem with college tuition. You have private or non-gov't entities being allowed to exploit the much larger fiscal resource of the federal loan/insurance company rather than an individual's measly finances, which they inevitably do, and over time they'll just continue to charge more because they can get away with it. It's a feedback loop.

I have no idea how healthcare commissioning works in the US but are you saying that healthcare providers delivering government-funded healthcare are allowed to charge the government however much they feel like? Do public commissioners not set targets for minimum delivery level/maximum cost?

Idk, maybe they do. That's a useless factor, though. I'm sure a target will be set, then in a couple of years, when everyone's adjusted, they'll up the target to account for increases in cost. The point being the same- without tying the cost to the average wage of the consumer, costs will inevitably get higher, where in any other field costs lessen over time.

To illustrate with an anecdote, my father had knee surgery after hyper extending his knee. He has gov't insurance because he works for the gov't, so the procedure was covered. For a simple outpatient procedure that took only a couple hours, his insurance was billed like $40k-50k. When he asked for an itemized receipt, which they didn't want to give him, the cost from the surgery itself, including anesthetics, doctor time, etc, or all costs related to the surgical department, was about 4 or 5 grand. The rest was for "administrative cost" and "room cost," of which he stayed maybe an hour or two.

waauw wrote:

2dimes wrote:One problem that I'm not sure they can solve is, in order to have a functioning system in place they need some savings or what ever you want to call a reserve of funds.

Eventually in theory you have to have some people paying more into it than they are using. That extra funding is where the payment to the hospital/doctors comes from to pay for an expensive surgery needed by someone that can't afford to just pay for said surgery. Hence the socialism label.

That socialist part is what modern westernersonly americans hate. No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor. In order to pay for the guy who also pays $100/month and gets a $300,000 cancer treatment.

The system needs at least 58 people paying the $100/month to cover a $300000 bill per year before administration costs.

Instead everyone is thinking, "I need to get my money's worth here." As soon as they are signed up, off to the doctor they go, who then has to tell the patient, "There is not enough money in reserves of Obamacare yet to pay for your ingrown toe nail treatment."

Fixed it for you bro. The rest of the western world seems to be doing just fine. No mass protests against social security.

Doing fine? Isn't the NHS failing, with u.k. far right politicians wanting to privatize it?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

waauw wrote:

2dimes wrote:One problem that I'm not sure they can solve is, in order to have a functioning system in place they need some savings or what ever you want to call a reserve of funds.

Eventually in theory you have to have some people paying more into it than they are using. That extra funding is where the payment to the hospital/doctors comes from to pay for an expensive surgery needed by someone that can't afford to just pay for said surgery. Hence the socialism label.

That socialist part is what modern westernersonly americans hate. No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor. In order to pay for the guy who also pays $100/month and gets a $300,000 cancer treatment.

The system needs at least 58 people paying the $100/month to cover a $300000 bill per year before administration costs.

Instead everyone is thinking, "I need to get my money's worth here." As soon as they are signed up, off to the doctor they go, who then has to tell the patient, "There is not enough money in reserves of Obamacare yet to pay for your ingrown toe nail treatment."

Fixed it for you bro. The rest of the western world seems to be doing just fine. No mass protests against social security.

Doing fine? Isn't the NHS failing, with u.k. far right politicians wanting to privatize it?

-TG

The UK has a lower debt/GDP ratio than the US, despite having a better social security system. And right wing parties always want to privatize, regardless of the economic situation.

The NHS's challenge is that the UK's population is getting fatter and older (i.e. more people need more treatment) but the budget it receives from the UK Government isn't growing fast enough to match this. So in order to avoid exploding in a cloud of debt 20 years down the line, local NHS departments are now drawing up 'Sustainability and Transformation Plans' setting out how they're going to rearrange and/or cut services in order to save money.

Americans are also getting fatter and older, so healthcare in the US has the exact same problem. The difference in the US is that rather than cut services, insurance companies appear to be continuing to offer the same level of coverage and just charging people more instead. Insurance premiums in the US have gone up by like 20-25% between 2016-17 alone, so whereas healthcare in the UK currently costs just over $2,400 per person, in the US a health insurance premium for a single person is $6,521.

There's nothing actually wrong with the structure or operations of the NHS, it just doesn't get given nearly as much money as the insurance companies pumping Americans for every last cent they have and is therefore starting to reach the point where it can't just indulge people every time they feel like going to A&E because someone trod on their foot.

waauw wrote:The UK has a lower debt/GDP ratio than the US, despite having a better social security system.

more ≠ better

more


better


more
Unemployment benefit eligibility, UK: unemployed for any reason
Unemployment benefit eligibility, US: unemployed except for just cause termination or resignation

better
Average weekly unemployment benefit, UK: $97
Average weekly unemployment benefit, US: $314

UK Universal Credit $330+ per week more and better

$$$ WiNiNg $$$

mrswdk wrote:UK Universal Credit $330+ per week more and better

$$$ WiNiNg $$$

ya but you forfeit every type of tax credit if you take it; you can still take a $6300/year ($121/week) standard tax deduction in the U.S. if you're taking unemployment

so -

U.S. Unemployment + Standard Deduction = $435/week
UK UC = $330/week

plus cost of living in the U.S. is cheaper than in the UK because Americans were smart enough to put their country next to Bolivia and Paraguay where there are lots of factories and hard-working 12 year olds; stupid Brits put their country next to France and Spain where betiko won't wake-up long enough to bake you a baguette unless give him a week at a spa

saxitoxin wrote:

mrswdk wrote:UK Universal Credit $330+ per week more and better

$$$ WiNiNg $$$

ya but you forfeit every type of tax credit if you take it; you can still take a $6300/year ($121/week) standard tax deduction in the U.S. if you're taking unemployment

lolwut. A $6300 tax break on $0 income i.e. a saving of $0?

plus cost of living in the U.S. is cheaper than in the UK because Americans were smart enough to put their country next to Bolivia and Paraguay where there are lots of factories and hard-working 12 year olds; stupid Brits put their country next to France and Spain where betiko won't wake-up long enough to bake you a baguette unless give him a week at a spa

Yeah but every time some country like Poland gets rich enough to stop doing night shifts cleaning toilets the EU just expands and lets in someone like Romania, so it's fine.

Like our neighbor to the south having trouble transitioning, if you are on unemployment benefits here you pay income tax.

Unlike them, you don't get a specific tax break. And our government renamed that program to "employment insurance" to make is sound more positive. Yay?

mrswdk wrote:

2dimes wrote:No one wants to be the guy paying $100/month and not going to the doctor.

Presumably you don't have health insurance then.

In my country it has not been optional for over half a century.

I didn't mind when we paid a premium but a lot of people here did. I minded that they called it "free health care" when everyone paid a premium. Our Provence stopped billing for Alberta Health, at the time there was more than enough revenue from things such as the tar sands to cover the costs. Now the new government is introducing a "carbon tax" the money for "free healthcare" has to come from somewhere.

2dimes wrote:Like our neighbor to the south having trouble transitioning, if you are on unemployment benefits here you pay income tax.

So the government pays people unemployment benefit and then takes some of it back off them in income tax?

lool. Suppose you gotta keep the bean counters busy somehow.

mrswdk wrote:So the government pays people unemployment benefit and then takes some of it back off them in income tax?

lool. Suppose you gotta keep the bean counters busy somehow.

Basically, yes. I suspect it's the ol' $3.99 looks cheaper than $4 trick in reverse.

"E I benifits are way more than 3 per week, they are 5 minus 2. Isn't that great?"