moreluck
golden ticket member
Because my proof (letter in hand) is more real than yours.
Obamacare
- Thread starter Lue C Fur
- Start date
Oh my. And I guess you moved on from denying climate change then? Suddenly all about proof...fascinating.
moreluck
golden ticket member
change the subject ....typical liberal ploy.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
moreluck
golden ticket member
Find a new M.O.
HBGPreloader
Well-Known Member
You mean junk policies like obamacare that millions od people can't afford or afford to use and doesn't eliminate the threat of medical bankruptcy?
No
Many policies that were cancelled provided essential insurance for those healthy individuals who didn't need regular visits to their doctors for the following...
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
Aspirin use to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages
Blood Pressure screening for all adults
Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
Depression screening for adults
Diabetes (Type 2) screening for adults with high blood pressure
Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
Hepatitis B screening
Hepatitis C screening for adults at increased risk, and one time for everyone born 1945 – 1965
HIV screening for everyone ages 15 to 65, and other ages at increased risk
Immunization vaccines for adults — doses, recommended ages, and recommended populations vary:
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Herpes Zoster
Human Papillomavirus
Influenza (Flu Shot)
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Meningococcal
Pneumococcal
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
Varicella
Lung cancer screening
Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
Tobacco Use screening
When I was younger, I maintained such a policy and it cost significantly less than a regular policy. It provided coverage catastrophic illness, such as emergency care and hospitalization. I paid out of pocket for checkups and regular visits to my doctor.
And, thanks to the affordability of such a policy, I didn't have to depend on the government and Taxpayers for anything.
Yea for you. But you aren't most Americans. You act.like the system as ir was was just fine. It wasn't. We're moving toward fixing it. ACA is definitely flawed but there's no reason it can't be improved.
HBGPreloader
Well-Known Member
Admittedly, the system was far from perfect before obamacare.
But, you whould think that, after more than 6 months of debate, thousands of pages of legislation, countless rules and regulations, a half trillion in new taxes and nearly 2 trillion in new spending, it certainly could have turned out better.
Right now, there are tens of millions who are forced to do without and pay for obamacare. And, the ultimate insult comes when they can't even afford to use the insurance that costs them thousands of dollars per year.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
And to think all of that was done when something like 85% of Americans already had insurance and were happy with it. So, we completely crap on those 85% and pile on more debt, taxes for everyone (that actually works), and a monetary penalty for anyone that refuses coverage? Why not take a different approach? I'll tell you why.....because it was never really about insurance. It was about getting even more government even more involved in everyone's lives.
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
Typical teapublic response..Tsk,tsk....
And the alternative was to continue to do nothing and have health care costs go up. No. We are on the road to making a flawed system better.
And make no mistake about it; this is market reform. I've had insurance purchased from the exchange for 16 months or so. Not once have I written that check to "Obamacare". BCBS gets a fair sized check from me every month though.
Yes reform is needed. But not at the expense of jobs many employers will not put on any new people, because of it
Also part time employees,such as my wife have gotten their hours cut back so they do not qualify.
You can not force businesses to take on more financial burdens,they Will only cut back on personell.
Are you kidding me? Business is going to be huge winners with this. I expect within 15 years there will be no more employer based insurance.
No kidding. Those employers who do not offer benefits are not gonna to start offering them. They will just cut the work force so they do not have to pay.
If our current President worked harder on getting me jobs and worried a little less about the healthcare issues, we would be better off
More jobs = higher demand and better benefits. Less jobs and these companies are grabbing you by the short ones.
Think about it
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
My .02
Obamacare saved my daughter's life. She has a chronic debilitating health condition and was able to get that condition stabilized enough to continue her employment by being able to go back onto my health insurance until she turned 26.
Obamacare is saving my wifes company money. She is the Finance and Human Resources manager for a company that employs 23 people. She writes the check to the insurance company that covers her employees. The cost to her company has decreased by 8% under Obamacare and the coverage being offered has improved.
Is Obamacare perfect? No. But it is an improvement over what was happening before. It would be a lot better if the Republicans had been able to put partisan politics aside and cooperate with the Democrats on the issue of improving our nation's healthcare system. But most Republicans would rather see people die from lack of insurance than to allow "the Kenyan" to take credit for anything.
Obamacare saved my daughter's life. She has a chronic debilitating health condition and was able to get that condition stabilized enough to continue her employment by being able to go back onto my health insurance until she turned 26.
Obamacare is saving my wifes company money. She is the Finance and Human Resources manager for a company that employs 23 people. She writes the check to the insurance company that covers her employees. The cost to her company has decreased by 8% under Obamacare and the coverage being offered has improved.
Is Obamacare perfect? No. But it is an improvement over what was happening before. It would be a lot better if the Republicans had been able to put partisan politics aside and cooperate with the Democrats on the issue of improving our nation's healthcare system. But most Republicans would rather see people die from lack of insurance than to allow "the Kenyan" to take credit for anything.
It's far more insidious than that. The companies who offer insurance will now find a path out of providing it. Blame it on Obama if you want, but it's companies doing smart business.
It's alot more than that. Bring us good jobs and benefits will follow.
Force corporates hand and they will offshore
Wrong. Free a company like UPS from having to pay healthcare benefits and they will stop talking about tax breaks. We'll probably not, but imagine the freed up capital.
Press release from University of Michigan:
Nixoncare vs. Obamacare: Comparing the rhetoric and reality of 2 health plans
(Images credit: University of Michigan)
ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today's Affordable Care Act includes. After the first plan failed, he did it again three years later.
And just like today's heated rhetoric from opponents of the ACA, also called "Obamacare" after the president who introduced it, Nixon's plans were met with inflamed opposition from the other party.
In a new article in the journal Pediatrics, a team from the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the University of Michigan Medical School compares the reality, and the rhetoric, of two efforts to improve the nation's health by reducing the number of people who lack health insurance.
"It's not that one is right and one is wrong," says author Gary Freed, M.D., MPH, a U-M pediatrician and health policy researcher. "But more that this is a chance to address the appropriate place of political rhetoric when it comes to improving public health, and the dangers of elevating blind partisanship over meaningful debate about important issues for our nation's health."
Looking at this comparison of the plans, Freed says, it's easy to see that Nixon's proposals were far more "liberal" than what passed under the Affordable Care Act during President Obama's first term. Yet, he notes, the rhetoric directed against the ACA - as "a radical liberal plan," "socialized medicine" and a "job killer" - seeks to paint the law in extremely inflammatory tones.
At the time of Nixon's proposals, those seeking a single-payer plan, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, scoffed and said that his plans did not go far enough. The Democrats' early-70s health proposal was far more liberal than anything the party has proposed in recent times, and they heaped scorn on the Republican plan.
Freed notes that the approach Nixon took, which preserved the insurance industry's role in health care, would have covered more people than the ACA does.
At the time, Nixon put forth this rationale for his plan: "Those who need care most often get care least. And even when the poor do get service, it is often second rate...This situation will be corrected only when the poor have sufficient purchasing power to enter the medical marketplace on equal terms with those who are more affluent." Employees around the nation supported Nixon's plan as a welcome alternative to the single-payer proposals.
Both the Nixon plans and the ACA were driven by a desire to provide health coverage for the uninsured segment of the American people, says Freed, and to keep health care costs from continuing to rise out of control.
"It would be a very different country today if the Nixon plan had passed," says Freed. "Instead, we had 30 more years with one-third of the population uninsured," even after the expansion of Medicaid to cover near-poor children in the late 1990s.
"We need to put health care in a historical perspective, and not go to extremes for political purposes," says Freed. "I would hope this history will help policy makers think about what the policy is trying to accomplish for the American people, and not turn a blind eye to proposals simply because they're proposed by one party or the other."
Freed, who is the Percy and Mary Murphy Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health at the U-M Medical School, is also a professor of Health Management and Policy at the U-M School of Public Health and a visiting professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is a member of the U-M Child Health Evaluation and Research unit and the U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.
Freed and co-author Anup Das note these key elements of the two presidents' plans:
President Richard Nixon's National Health Strategy (1971)
Source: University of Michigan Health System
Journal: Pediatrics
Nixoncare vs. Obamacare: Comparing the rhetoric and reality of 2 health plans
(Images credit: University of Michigan)
And just like today's heated rhetoric from opponents of the ACA, also called "Obamacare" after the president who introduced it, Nixon's plans were met with inflamed opposition from the other party.
In a new article in the journal Pediatrics, a team from the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the University of Michigan Medical School compares the reality, and the rhetoric, of two efforts to improve the nation's health by reducing the number of people who lack health insurance.
"It's not that one is right and one is wrong," says author Gary Freed, M.D., MPH, a U-M pediatrician and health policy researcher. "But more that this is a chance to address the appropriate place of political rhetoric when it comes to improving public health, and the dangers of elevating blind partisanship over meaningful debate about important issues for our nation's health."
Looking at this comparison of the plans, Freed says, it's easy to see that Nixon's proposals were far more "liberal" than what passed under the Affordable Care Act during President Obama's first term. Yet, he notes, the rhetoric directed against the ACA - as "a radical liberal plan," "socialized medicine" and a "job killer" - seeks to paint the law in extremely inflammatory tones.
At the time of Nixon's proposals, those seeking a single-payer plan, led by Senator Ted Kennedy, scoffed and said that his plans did not go far enough. The Democrats' early-70s health proposal was far more liberal than anything the party has proposed in recent times, and they heaped scorn on the Republican plan.
Freed notes that the approach Nixon took, which preserved the insurance industry's role in health care, would have covered more people than the ACA does.
At the time, Nixon put forth this rationale for his plan: "Those who need care most often get care least. And even when the poor do get service, it is often second rate...This situation will be corrected only when the poor have sufficient purchasing power to enter the medical marketplace on equal terms with those who are more affluent." Employees around the nation supported Nixon's plan as a welcome alternative to the single-payer proposals.
Both the Nixon plans and the ACA were driven by a desire to provide health coverage for the uninsured segment of the American people, says Freed, and to keep health care costs from continuing to rise out of control.
"It would be a very different country today if the Nixon plan had passed," says Freed. "Instead, we had 30 more years with one-third of the population uninsured," even after the expansion of Medicaid to cover near-poor children in the late 1990s.
"We need to put health care in a historical perspective, and not go to extremes for political purposes," says Freed. "I would hope this history will help policy makers think about what the policy is trying to accomplish for the American people, and not turn a blind eye to proposals simply because they're proposed by one party or the other."
Freed, who is the Percy and Mary Murphy Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health at the U-M Medical School, is also a professor of Health Management and Policy at the U-M School of Public Health and a visiting professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is a member of the U-M Child Health Evaluation and Research unit and the U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.
Freed and co-author Anup Das note these key elements of the two presidents' plans:
President Richard Nixon's National Health Strategy (1971)
- All employers required to provide basic health insurance, including a range of specific coverage requirements
- Employees required to share the cost of insurance, up to a cap
- Insurance companies can only vary benefit packages to an extent
- Special insurance programs at reasonable rates for self-employed and others
- Replace most of Medicaid for poor families with a completely federal plan open to any family below a certain income level; cost-sharing rises with income.
- All employers must insure all full-time employees, with employee cost-sharing up to a cap, and federal subsidies to aid employers.
- Replace Medicaid with a plan open to anyone not eligible for employee health insurance or Medicare, as well as those who can't afford their coverage
- Employers with more than 50 employees must offer affordable insurance with a minimum set of benefits to most employees, or pay extra if their employees qualify for a tax credit to buy insurance on a marketplace instead.
- Smaller employers can buy through a special program, and smallest employers can get a tax credit.
- "Affordable" coverage is that which costs less than 9.5 percent of household income. Subsidies and tax credits available to many.
- Medicaid expanded by offering states funding to cover individuals earning up to 133 percent of poverty level (fully at first then tapering back to 90 percent over time).
- Minimum package of insurance benefits for all newly eligible individuals.
- Pays providers equal rates for caring for Medicaid and Medicare patients
Source: University of Michigan Health System
Journal: Pediatrics
Similar threads
