Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cary

20% of Obamacare waivers went to Pelosi

Recommended Posts

The Mason

The Health Care Reform Act requires companies that offer health insurance to spend a minimum percentage on health care. The theory is that companies should pay for health care, not administrative costs. The waiver allows these companies a 1 year reprieve from meeting this requirement. In most cases, the companies are in high-turnover industries where there are frequent changes to which employees are covered and high administrative costs as a result.

 

What is the big deal with that?

 

I thought it was comical that the article posts the menu prices of some of the restaurants. $59 for a steak dinner and $35 for a crab dinner seems pretty reasonable for San Francisco prices. In his fervor to paint the waivers as political favors for the wealthy businesses in Pelosi's district, the author neglects fails to mention that McDonald's received a similar waiver shortly after the HCRA was passed. Last I checked a Big Mac value meal in San Francisco was about $8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

I have two problems with it.

 

1. The government can't do anything and be cost effective. So you know it is going to be a big hole that we just throw more money into it.

 

2. Why should I have to buy healthcare that I can't use living in the Philippines?

 

The majority of those people that don't have healthcare now (if you subtract the illegal aliens) are young people who don't want to spend the money on it while they are young and healthy, especially knowing that they can go to the hospital and get treated even without healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
calidude

Lets not start calling people names. Not a smart maneuver if you wish to stay a member here.

 

 

just speaking the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tom_shor

The Health Care Reform Act requires companies that offer health insurance to spend a minimum percentage on health care. The theory is that companies should pay for health care, not administrative costs. The waiver allows these companies a 1 year reprieve from meeting this requirement. In most cases, the companies are in high-turnover industries where there are frequent changes to which employees are covered and high administrative costs as a result.

 

What is the big deal with that?

 

I thought it was comical that the article posts the menu prices of some of the restaurants. $59 for a steak dinner and $35 for a crab dinner seems pretty reasonable for San Francisco prices. In his fervor to paint the waivers as political favors for the wealthy businesses in Pelosi's district, the author neglects fails to mention that McDonald's received a similar waiver shortly after the HCRA was passed. Last I checked a Big Mac value meal in San Francisco was about $8.

 

High turnover because every time the immigration guys drive by they have to hire new staff. ;)

 

just speaking the truth

 

That's funny. You should do stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

I really don't know what the fuzz is all about, politics aside for a moment please..

 

As far as i see, the USA is about the last developed nation which does not have a government healthcare system.

 

Anywhere in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia there is such a system. In addition to the possibility for the wealthier to insure themselve in a private system too. And there are very good Public as well as private hospitals.

 

The systems there could be taken over without the flaws the original nations have made and it surely would function.

 

ok, government sucks, but in reality one just ahs to look around in the USA and see, that a lot of things are run by the government and work fairly well.

public transport, police, fire department, the armed forces, public utilities,infrastructure and so much more.

 

It costs, but one gotta think for the next generations too. your kids or your friends kids could need an urgent expensive treatment or being chronically ill for some reasons. what about the dna coming into the system more and more. i would not be so sure, that all private healthcare providers would insure someone, who is genetically at risk to cost more than the others.

and they will find out and get your dna. legal or not.

 

and then there is the great concept of solidarity ( i am sure that is in your constitution too ), we humans have to take responsibility for the weaker ones too, and not egoistically seek only our own benefit, because some day somewhere we are also in need.

 

and to those who claim, that this is socialism or worse, nope, its not, its called christian and promoted widely by J.C., an attitude US conservative politicians love to use so much, but fail to show in reality.

 

as i said, i don't really now the fuzz about it, its neither a new concept, nor anything to be afraid of.

 

 

(Currently in my homecountry national HC system costs about 14 % of the gross salaries, half of it is covered by the employer. The entire direct family is insured with the employee, meaning wife and if he has 12 kids, last time i checked, its the most expensive HC system in Europe and underwent lots of reforms and critic, but if asked directly, no German ever wanted to abolish it. When one owns more than somewhat 3500 euro gross salary per month he can go into a private system, but only 50 % do that, mostly young and single ones. Nobody has ever been denied any medical treatment, regardless of age or illness. My mother has been treated on her eyes for about 2.2 million Euro over the past 20 years, she never paid any cent into an insurance, was just covered by my late father and will always be until the end of her days. Horrorvision ? )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mike

just speaking the truth

That was deep, and very very thorough! Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cary

Guenther;

 

Already in the States we have I guess you would call it it partial universal healthcare right now. Speaking for the state of California we have whats called the County. Everyone and I do mean everyone under the sun goes there and they are treated. Whether you have money or not. But due to the fact that so many people go there daily only the seriously injured are seen first and everyone else has to wait a long time. Supply and demand. Too many patients for the doctors there. And the doctors are there 7 days a week day and night.What Obama claims he wants is already in place. Its just like the RH bill here in the RP. The backers of that bill are using bait and switch by saying its for contraceptives when we all know that right now you can go into any Mercury Drugs and say I want to buy and the person behind the counter will say how many pieces? I bring up this example because its very similar. What is it about the RH bill that will bring to the RP thats not already here? Answer, legal abortions. Same thing for Obamacare. Obama says he wants everyone to be treated, etc. Well thats already in place. Again those who have the gunshot will be seen first over the guy thats got the burnt hand. Obamacare is another bait and switch to enlarge Big Brother even further. And as i stated in an earlier post, if this is so great why is it that Congress exempt itself and its staff? The answer is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

As to proof of my statement that the government can't do anything cost effectively, a news report this morning stated that the US Post Office announced that it is running a deficit of $433,000,000 per month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3stripes

Well, between Reagan running large deficits and Bush's increase in govt size, it was a hard act for Obama to follow

 

Maybe, just maybe Americans will sometime soon be careful who they elect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

Guenther;

 

Already in the States we have I guess you would call it it partial universal healthcare right now. Speaking for the state of California we have whats called the County. Everyone and I do mean everyone under the sun goes there and they are treated. Whether you have money or not. But due to the fact that so many people go there daily only the seriously injured are seen first and everyone else has to wait a long time. Supply and demand. Too many patients for the doctors there. And the doctors are there 7 days a week day and night.What Obama claims he wants is already in place. Its just like the RH bill here in the RP. The backers of that bill are using bait and switch by saying its for contraceptives when we all know that right now you can go into any Mercury Drugs and say I want to buy and the person behind the counter will say how many pieces? I bring up this example because its very similar. What is it about the RH bill that will bring to the RP thats not already here? Answer, legal abortions. Same thing for Obamacare. Obama says he wants everyone to be treated, etc. Well thats already in place. Again those who have the gunshot will be seen first over the guy thats got the burnt hand. Obamacare is another bait and switch to enlarge Big Brother even further. And as i stated in an earlier post, if this is so great why is it that Congress exempt itself and its staff? The answer is clear.

 

I am aware of that Universal HC also, it is always used as a bad example by people like Michael Moore (he is entertaining, but not very objective !) and other critics. and i really would like to take Obama, the democrates, republicans or anything else out the argument.

 

its just a fact, that it works fine in other countries. of course it will be very painful to impliment in the US at first.

All those private doctors and hospitals suddenly get standarised charges for procedures and control by Gov. Of course also the private insurers would be very affected, if not bankrupt (They got huge lobbies !)

 

but i also assume, that the general health would certainly improve on the long run, as i know from many US people and the statistics that there are too many pills, too many procedures and too many treatments. instead of improving the patients overall health - in reality gets kept at a sick stage, so that regular doctor visits are necessary. a similar system one can observe here in the Filipinos under the wealthy population.

 

the reasons are obvious, money. A healthy guy doesn't bring any cash, and the costs of being a medical practitioner are very high. alone the insurances eat them up.

 

so while the enemies of the existing system defend it due to the costs, in reality they get sicker and sicker to support an even more costly private system.

As i mentioned earlier, the costs are there and they are enormous, somebody pays them, and that is the people. And to be honest, i rather trust a bankrupt but elected government with thousand of control systems of independent controllers, than a private and profit oriented health business. Its logic !

 

if you wish, i could find some statistics per patient and overall health, but i guess, everyone can find that also.

 

might be worth to think about other possibilities than just defend political views written by professional spin artists.

 

i just think, its the better solution. Without politics involved, personally i don't even have an opinion about obama, honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cary

Guenther;

 

The States have Medicare, the government already is paying the doctors. But just like with Social Security they are robbing from Medicare to pay for other pet projects. As a results many doctors no longer accept Medicare because the payout is not even close to their expenses. Another thing as you mentioned there sre a lot of pills and tests. All true. All true. But there is reason for that, lawsuits. The doctors are now gunshy because they have been sued so much that now they intentionally tell their patients to take 5 tests when they really only need two so that they are not sued. And I am sorry but there is no way to exclude Obama from this because Obamacare is his baby lock stock and barrel. When he went on his nationwide tour of ramming this down our throats, the doctors, both those that agreed with him and those that did not begged him to include tort reform in his package. He refused/ Why? Because the lawyer lobby was and still is a major supporter of this and they do not want the lawsuits to stop. Again doctors that agreed with Obama even wanted tort reform and he said no. Many times.So as a result fewer doctors are refusing to take Medicare payments anymore, that causes more patients to the County and extend the waiting even longer.No one, atleast publicly is against providing healthcare, affordable healthcare. The debate is how do you do it. And Guenther as you read my earlier post in this thread, Obama's Medicare guy admitted in Congress after Obamacare was passed that it would not lower costs at all. Rather it would raise them. so again what is really the benefit of this bill since all of its promises are already being done in the current system? Big Brother gets bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RogerDuMond

Well, between Reagan running large deficits and Bush's increase in govt size, it was a hard act for Obama to follow

 

Maybe, just maybe Americans will sometime soon be careful who they elect

Presidents don't allocate money, Congress does. Hopefully the new congressmen stick to their pledges and we can eliminate the deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cipro
As far as i see, the USA is about the last developed nation which does not have a government healthcare system.

 

Anywhere in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia there is such a system. In addition to the possibility for the wealthier to insure themselve in a private system too. And there are very good Public as well as private hospitals.

 

Unfortunately it's not all honey and roses anywhere. For instance in Germany and the UK, doctors often complain about the low pay and long hours, and in fact many German doctors leave and relocate to America if they can ... for more money and better conditions. I have several German nationals who are surgeons sitting within a few meters of me every day, in fact.

 

Also, most of the worlds R&D budget for medicines and medical devices is paid for by Americans. In fact, a huge German drug company who sells internationally has less than 10% of it's sales and almost half it's profits come from .... America. If you want truly state of the art care for many conditions you have to pay privately, in most cases, if you can get it at all.

 

Another example is a fairly well known, in fact the industry leading, maker of surgical robots whose headquarters are in Switzerland, has almost all R&D and the vast majority of sales in .... America. At least one member here has in fact had work done by the robots this company produces. it is the "standard of care" for many thoracic procedures in America, but the vast majority of installations are not yet world wide. In fact it's just that foreign customers are finally starting to demand the standard of care Americans have had for years that is driving European and Asian adoption.

 

 

 

 

The States have Medicare, the government already is paying the doctors. But just like with Social Security they are robbing from Medicare to pay for other pet projects. As a results many doctors no longer accept Medicare because the payout is not even close to their expenses.

 

I have no issue with minimal life saving intervention and minimal preventive measures like free vaccinations. Once that's sorted out we can wait for the dust to settle and see what else to do, but until then people should be on their own or at the mercy of friends and relatives.

 

Also your point with regard to tort law is well made.

 

 

 

 

As to proof of my statement that the government can't do anything cost effectively, a news report this morning stated that the US Post Office announced that it is running a deficit of $433,000,000 per month.

 

IIRC the issue with the USPO is that they are now suddenly required to participate in the US government (badly run) pension plan instead of, as before, funding their own (solvent) plan. This is siphoning off an assload of funds from the one previously well run dept of the government.

Edited by locktite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

Unfortunately it's not all honey and roses anywhere. For instance in Germany and the UK, doctors often complain about the low pay and long hours, and in fact many German doctors leave and relocate to America if they can ... for more money and better conditions. I have several German nationals who are surgeons sitting within a few meters of me every day, in fact.

 

 

 

mmmh, i can not let that stand uncommented, as there is one fundamental error. SOME doctors complain about long hours and low pay. The majority follows their original call, namely to practise medicine in order to help people and not to get rich. this is a given fact before they even enrol in a University since the nineties. expected salaries and chances to get a job are widely explained to them beforehand. Not to mention the chances of having an own clinic, which are regulated by their nukber. currently the approximately waiting time to take over a clinic is about 10 years. No new ones are allowed, in Germany you have a doctor on every streetcorner, mostly specialist ! in the province (if you can call it province in highly densely Germany) you may can get one, but those "jobs" are not desired much.

 

The fundamental error you also state is "MANY", how much are Many ? 20, 200 , 2000 ? Currently we have about 80.000 students of medicine, its most unlikely any of them will stop, because they all are the top notchers of the preparatory schools (numerus clausus system) Since universities are free, they could study anything else too with definitely more chances of making money. the income of medical professioners is ranked at place 34 in Germany. A Vet makes more money !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranded Shipscook

As to proof of my statement that the government can't do anything cost effectively, a news report this morning stated that the US Post Office announced that it is running a deficit of $433,000,000 per month.

 

Thats the same anywhere else. namely in the Philippines also. But the trick of the administrations is not to make money or profits, but to provide jobs to the population.

Thats why all government apparatus is overblown with people.

 

A good trick indeed to polish the statistics. And humanly nice, although the intend is different. Who else will give jobs to them ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..