Hi 36° | Lo 18°

Letter: Obamacare could give us one of the world’s best systems

Our health care system is not the best in the world. We have high infant mortality and many other problems. It is the most expensive and least cost-effective system. And tens of millions have no health insurance or good health care.

Private insurance has not solved the problems. It is a business, and if you want to make a profit, you need to deny care to many, one way or another. It does provide health care that works well for most people. If we are not in that group, we are in trouble.

But we have improved the health care system: Medicare improved it for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor and disabled, and CHIPS (Children’s Health Insurance Program) for children without insurance. Everyone but the ignorant and uncaring accept these programs as effective, efficient government programs. The Affordable Care Act and expanded Medicaid helps the rest of the uninsured, those who lost jobs or cannot afford insurance, have pre-existing conditions or are denied insurance because they are too ill. It could give us one of the best health care systems in the world. If we destroy it and replace it with nothing, we are either foolish or don’t care about others. If we hate President Obama, that’s fine. But to cut off our nose to spite our face and then bleed to death makes no sense. None at all.



Legacy Comments38

Boehner is a very smart politician and he is trying to save off a debacle in the coming elections, but I don't think he can pull it off if history is any guide. There are two kinds of people you can not reason with ; religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries. He is up against both.

There are more than two kinds of people. How about progressives? Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin never reason, only bully. Conservatism is a way of life, progressivism is an ideology.

Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING Obama stands for could be for the "best". Susbstitute "best" with "worst" as in "worst" president in history.

Obama has done very well considering the untiring effort on the part of reactionaries to block every effort he has made. If you look at the geography of the Red States you will see that they have a history of religious fundamentalism and a electoral political reactionaries. He has had to deal with both. I am not happy with his foreign policy but at the same time I know the Republicans would be worse. He did make a terrible mistake in trying to include his enemies in his efforts. There are two kinds of people you cannot reason with and they are religious fundamentalists and political reactionaries. He gave us the best health care program that he could. We all know that single payer would be the best but he was not allowed to do that.

Rather than discuss the issues at hand, progressives always revert to branding people "reactionaries", "religious fundamentalists". This is simply an effort to force people into falling in line totally with everything that Obama and Democrats want. The health care plan will cost tens of millions more than they are current paying. Period. That is a fact. That is not "the best" for anyone but a tiny minority who will be subsidized by people who have taken responsibility for their own health care for decades. Obama should be impeached over his lies, scandals and lack of leadership.

A President should not be impeached when only the opposite party is for it. If a president deserves impeachment the whole country should be for it. With the criteria you gave, Bush 2 deserved impeachment. Have I missed the post where you where going to name the countries that hated their socialist health care?

Poll: 52% of Young Adults Want Obama Recalled, 57% Oppose ObamaCare


A MUST READ OF THE DAY - Is Health Care A Fundamental Human Right or a Service? By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ....

Well, that settles it then.

I seriously doubt you will even tweak your ill fated socialist philosophy based on FACTS

If you have studied many different health care systems in many parts of the world, know their results, know how happy people are with their systems, and know the ranking of the USA system compared to many others, and if you know all the details on relative costs, and still think we have the best system in the world, that is fine. I doubt that is the case, and most people who have extensive knowledge like that feel reform of the system is necessary. If you do not know all the above, then the shoe fits. Wear it!

If Obamacare was truly a “world-class” system, then why does the government have to cancel everyone’s existing plan, and force them, at the point of a gun, to join it? Surely, an informed public would rush to join such a system. Perhaps it is really a third-world-class system. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare were truly a “world-class” system, why are good doctors running away from them in increasing numbers? And, please don’t call me ignorant and uncaring again; we’re neighbors, and I’m paying for your Medicare handout.

"cancel everyone's existing plan?" That's a pretty gross exaggeration. It's a very small percentage of the total who have had their plans cancelled, and as already documented here and other places, for good reason - most of them are substandard, and not much better than no insurance at all. The system needs everyone to have meaningful insurance if its going to accomplish the goal of reducing the overall cost of health care for everyone.

It was not my intent to grossly exaggerate. What we've seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg, the cancellation of personal plans. The cancellation of Employer plans, which represent approximately 80% of the private insurance coverage in America, has been delayed until January, 2015. It turns out, just last month, the US Department of Justice filed a brief in an Obamacare related case, which included the following admission, "Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that....a majority of GROUP health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013." That means they will be cancelled. The DOJ apparently hasn't got the word to Obama yet, because he's still lying about it. I failed to mention, if this is truly a "world-class" system, one wouldn't think the government would have had to willfully deceive the public to pass it.

Evidently FOF you seem to be under the impression that most of the plans being cancelled are substandard and the % of those being cancelled is small. That is not the case. All but 2% of insurance policies issued in the US are deemed unacceptable under the ACA mandates.

Source for your claim? It's the least you can do when you make such an assertion--now back it up. This is one of many links that says otherwise.

Juan Williams on Fox backs President Obama at every turn. I suggest you do your own homework Bruce. Anytime anybody gives you a link on this forum, you trash it. Yet, you give only liberal links and that is okay. Simple really, you have no desire to investigate anything that does not go along with your political beliefs. That my friend, is tunnel vision.

Thanks for the non-responsive response, and the gratuitous rant. I'll take that as a 'no' for any source for your claim regarding the ACA and current polices. Which means that readers should assume you made the figure up out of thin air. And then didn't have the grace to acknowledge a mistake--intentional or otherwise.

What is the point of giving you any link Bruce, you trash all of the links given to you that do not agree with your agenda. FYI I did not pull the 2% out of my hat. It was based on several studies done by insurance companies. Some of these studies listed state by state which insurance plans will have all the requirements that the ACA mandates. NH Insurance plans have 40% that do not hold up to the ACA standards, with 60% that meet those requirements. Besides insurance companies doing studies there has also been other studies done by Forbes, Business Week, etc.

Your new figure--40%--is a far cry from your earlier figure of 98%. Even this figure needs to be qualified--it's 40% of a subset of all those with insurance. Those in the individual insurance market are 5% of all the insured, between 10 and 15 million people. Within this group, there has always been a lot of turnover--in the past a high percentage of people in this market would move into employer-based insurance. It is not yet clear, and won't be for some time, how many people currently in employer-based plans will eventually enter the individual market should their companies decide to forego covering employees. But it is likely to a significant percentage. The consolation here is that their new coverage will almost surely be better than their former policies--and come with a subsidy. Trader Joe's, for one, is no longer offering health insurance for its part-time employees. Finally, it's worth pointing out the irony here: this aspect of ACA is a 'market-based' solution--exactly what conservatives extol in every other context. And the system they defend--employer-based coverage--is largely the result of efforts in the post-war era by one of their favorite whipping boys-- organized labor.

So, Bruce, some real life experience here. My company share with us the true cost of insurance should the employer mandate have gone into effect in 2014. It would not only cost the company twice as much but our premiums would go up 1.5X and deductibles would double. I surfed over to the Obamacare website and could not get rates as you have to completely register to see what it would cost so I found the Kaiser Permanente site where it does show you the same information and you just have to plug in your statistics. What I learned is that if the company decided NOT to cover employees, my premiums would double under Obamacare and my deductible would go from $600 to $12,000. There would be no subsidies. I then took an hourly, non-salaried, employee and they would also pay MORE! It will NOT "sure be better than their former policies". Again, you use statistics and do not take into account the facts on the ground as they unfold..... My other point is that most employers will keep their policies as they know how damaging Obamacare will be to their employees. You mention Trader Joe's and you see that the rank and file people are the most affected and most damaged by Obamacare. It has been estimated that more than 120,000,000 people will lose the coverage they like, doctors they have been seeing for years and most of all their "choice" so that the 15% of the population which is not insured can have coverage subsidized by those who will lose their preferred insurance, choice of doctors, etc. That is not a free society, free country or free system.

No matter the link it will be dismissed. That is an Alinsky rule.

Three days later...still waiting for a source for your 2% claim. Anybody? Bueller?

How dare Fox have someone on who backs President Obama. I bet he has to eat lunch all by himself.

only a partisan leftist has not read in many different sources the facts as presented

Then perhaps you'd like to provide a source for Rabbit's claim that "all but 2% of insurance policies issued in the US are deemed unacceptable under the ACA mandates." We anxiously await.

Still waiting for a source for the 2% claim.

No, the substandard argument is a canard. The requirements for Obamacare are so specific that they don't meet the narrow requirements. People are realizing 2-3 times the premiums and 5 times the deductibles. That is not an improvement. Next year about 100,000,000 people will realize the same thing with employer insurance. This entire Obamacare program is a disgrace and it is a disaster. If you were intellectually honest you would stop parroting the "substandard" talking points. Not true.

The Government is not who it is that is canceling plans. The insurance industry is who. This isn't something new, it's been going on now for a few years on a smaller scale. Now all the sudden the insurance companies are doing it to almost everyone, and finally people are seeing the very problems the ACA is trying to solve. The main problem is thinking that profit margin motivated boardrooms are those we should place our trust in, when it comes to making our system better. Look, go try to find retired Americans on Medicare who will give up their healthcare. Go suggest to a Vet that he or she should do without their coverage. These are both single payer, socialized medicine systems in place already, right here in the USA. Nobody covered by them is going to give up what they have. The answer for the rest of us isn't going to be found in greed driven board rooms. It's in putting us all on the same single payer, everyone is covered, system.

May I humbly suggest that the reason old people in America won't give up their Medicare isn't because it's great medicine, but because 90% of their medical costs are being paid by a government handout?

Hopefully when you are old enough you will refuse Medicare. Medicare is not medicine it is insurance which I paid for with my payroll taxes for over 50 years of working, I also pay a monthly premium for my Medicare and a co-pay. If not for Medicare I could not afford any insurance. Why is it when others need it you Repubs call it a "handout", but when you guys take help it is because you deserve it?

If you are truly destitute, and depend on Medicare, I apologize for offending you. And I appreciate your paying what you do. I believe firmly that Medicare needs to be preserved for all those who cannot provide for themselves. However, as currently structured, Medicare is financially unsustainable. Nobody in America pays enough in Medicare taxes and premiums to cover the true cost of their own medical care in retirement, even if the government were saving our taxes, which they’re not. So, Medicare for retirees depends heavily on taxes paid by current workers. When the number of retirees increases, and the number of workers decreases, this will become an untenable burden on the workers. We need to train the next generation to save enough to pay for their own medical care in retirement, and not depend on the government to provide it.

I am not "destitute", but you obviously do not know how much health care insurance costs for someone in their 60's and older even if they are in good health. Lucky for you to make enough to pay for your own insurance after retirement. Lucky for me to be old now and not in the future when people like me who are of no further use to our country will be thrown in some pit, I guess.

I think I’m trying to agree with you. Medical care for seniors is VERY expensive. How expensive? My estimate is about $10,000 per year, based on what I pay for insurance, and what Obamacare charges for a 64 year old in NH. That’s a big burden, no matter who pays it. Of that cost, next year Medicare recipients will pay $105 per month in premium, or $1260 per year. Thus, for every retiree in America, the retiree pays about $1000 and their working neighbor kicks in $9000. In my opinion, as a generation, we boomers have made a terrible and irresponsible mistake, by creating a system where we expect, and now demand, that our children and grandchildren work to pay for our medical care. We’re lucky there hasn’t been a revolt, yet. While it may be too late to change the benefits for us, we must plead with the next generation to not make the same mistake, but to recognize they will have medical expenses in retirement, and plan for them by saving now, rather than placing the burden on their children.

Very difficult to imagine a "doctor" describing all who may not share his view as ignorant and uncaring. How open minded of you.

DR. You are 100% correct. The Republican cry babies do nor care about those who are suffering. They are only worried about their loosing image. I used to be a strong Republican. Not any longer.

I challenge that you were ever a republican because Republicans are for self reliance not a nanny state

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.