Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

March to progress

August 18, 2013

With every passing day, Americans learn more and more about the Affordable Care Act....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

Scott36

Aug-19-13 8:40 AM

Bobbie2- So it was a Dem. who implemented it in Mass.?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Aug-18-13 8:01 PM

Hi enigma.. long time, no chat.. just to chime in, and admittedly with limited reviewing of the postings on this thread, isn't the notion of individual responsibility, ie, paying for your own health care, the essential premise behind the individual mandate? You know, the mandate that a republican think tank came up with in the first place? Time to shower, my better half and I have been moving items into our new home in Montoursville all weekend..

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-18-13 7:08 PM

Nice dodge Phil.

Since, IMHO, there is a ZERO percent chance of eliminating the safety net, one might think you would jump at the chance to convince others of the wisdom and fairness of letting those that choose to, opt out. It is Libertarian "plan B" is it not?

I'm frankly shocked at your none answer Phil.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Aug-18-13 6:54 PM

As it is now, everyone in our country receives medical attention at various times in their lives. So, it seems to me that we need to decide whether or not this should continue. If it is going to continue, how is it going to be paid for? But, if medical attention is going to be denied to certain people under certain circumstances, what will those circumstances be?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 6:23 PM

We have to live in the reality that exists now. How things are and how we think things ought to be are two entirely different things.

When government force is used to infringe upon our natural rights, we simply lose a little more of our liberty. I’d prefer we move in the direction of more limited and less intrusive government. Government control of our health and insurance industries certainly isn’t the direction I’d prefer.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-18-13 5:05 PM

Hey Phil, If a Ron Paul styled "let us opt out" came to pass would that satisfy you?

If you didn't have to participate in the social safety net, and not one penny of your tax dollars went to funding it, would that be good enough for you?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 4:54 PM

I said I could have been mistaken Phil. Thanks for clearing that up.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 4:07 PM

Mike. I never said insurance was akin to socialism. I only refer to socialism when discussing economics, as it’s an economic term.

There’s nothing wrong with insurance, but the industry is so heavily regulated and fraught with cronyism today that there’s no competition to keep it under control; but that’s a topic for another thread.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 3:22 PM

philunderwood-"Adding even more healthcare managers, who offer nothing in the way of actual healthcare, will only add to its cost."

I agree, and I agree Obamacare does that.

But I believe that a single payer system would reduce the number of needed administrators, eliminate the need for profit by existing insurance companies, and cover all citizens with health care.

As I've said before, I don't mind having HMO-like co pays and deductibles so those who use the system more have more skin in the game.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 3:16 PM

Then I can agree with you Enigma. I may be mistaken, but I believe it was Phil at one point, said that insurance itself was equal to socialism because someone elses money is used to pay for your healthcare above the premium that you paid. Bobbie and someone else the other day said we all ought to pay our own premium and they thought that our employers shouldn't be paying our insurance.

You and I aren't really that far off in our thinking. I, too, don't think we should be paying for someone elses health care. Other than a few things like pre-existing and coverage for our kids I don't like Obamacare either.

I just take it a bit further than you. I say everyone ought to pay into a fund to pay for healthcare, and everyone ought to be covered. I don't see it any different than paying insurance premiums.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 3:12 PM

Enigma, I agree with your position and I’d like to know where this “basic human right to healthcare” comes from unless one believes rights are bestowed upon us by the whim of whomever is running the government.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Aug-18-13 3:07 PM

Maybe I should define equal access. Take a Lamborghini. Anyone with $250,000 can buy one. That's equal access.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 3:05 PM

I agree Mike. I only brought it up as part of my assessment of how healthcare costs have risen since people who offer nothing in the way of actual healthcare have driven them up. Back in those days healthcare was between you and your Doctor and you could afford it. These days that’s not the case. Adding even more healthcare managers, who offer nothing in the way of actual healthcare, will only add to its cost.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Aug-18-13 3:03 PM

Mike, I will elaborate. Jerry said that access to healthcare is a basic human right. I believe that everyone should have equal access to health care. What I don't believe is that it is a basic human right to have your healthcare paid for by someone else. What that means is that no-one should be forced to pay for your health care. Your insurance company or employer are not being forced to pay (except under the ACA). They are paying as part of an agreement. An insurance company has a contractual obligation to pay. You paid a premium and in return, they pay whatever the policy requires. Your employer is paying as part of your compensation. I am not against someone else paying, only being forced to pay. If I voluntarily paid for another person's care, that is fine, if the government requires me to pay for someone else's care, that's wrong. I hope that explains my position.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-18-13 2:52 PM

"employer provided health insurance"

--

Your employer isn't "giving" you anything. It's part of your compensation, just like your salary. It's yours. You earned it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 2:49 PM

Phil, I remember those days too. But Dr Weaner in Montgomery only charged $5 for an office visit. And he did it all. He had his family practice, was called away to go take care of an Emergency at Muncy Valley Hospital, he delivered babies, did some surgery, made house calls, even came in to his office at 2 in the morning to see me when I was 18 and had a seizure. But those days are long gone.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 2:43 PM

enigma-"Jerry, Access maybe, having someone else pay for it, NO!"

Do you consider 'health insurance', even if you pay the premium, as 'having someone else pay for it'? Do you consider employer provided health insurance (where or not you pay a part of the premium) as 'someone else paying for it?

I could agree or disagree with your statement depending on what you consider 'someone else paying for it'.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Aug-18-13 2:17 PM

Jerry, Access maybe, having someone else pay for it, NO!

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-18-13 1:49 PM

Access to healthcare is a basic human right. Period.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 1:46 PM

Mike, when I speak of major medical insurance, I’m talking about coverage of only items like hospital stays and expensive tests. Doctor’s visits were paid for out of pocket. I’m old enough to remember those days but I doubt if those policies are even offered now. HMOs and other full coverage plans came along after the period I’m referring to.

Perhaps I should’ve said taxpayer paid or single payer insurance instead of ACA.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 12:30 PM

gavinf56-"The cost savings of HMO's are due to it being "managed" care, i.e. "..patients need a referral from the PCP in order to see a specialist or other doctor, and the gatekeeper cannot authorize that referral unless the HMO guidelines deem it necessary." Indemnity plans have no such controls, allowing the insured individual to request and get as much care as they wish."

True, which reinforces the fact that HMOs, managed care, (which includes preventative services) is a more cost effective way to treat patients.

I've never had trouble getting a referral for a specialist from my Primary Care Physician. I may have had to go to physical therapy before getting an MRI, but I've not been denied a specialist visit.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Aug-18-13 12:25 PM

philunderwood-"Not so long ago employers offered major medical insurance; then came union demands for full coverage insurance and government intervention."

As noted in another post, Major Medical plans cost more than HMO's. I've worked two jobs in the last 26 years. One was non-union, one is Union. Both offered incentives to choose the HMO option. If I want major medical now I would pay the additional cost over what my employer pays towards the HMO. It's simply a myth that major medical is more cost effective than an HMO.

philunderwood-"Those that are pro-union are also pro-ACA"

Another blanket statement that simply is not true. I'm pro union but I'm not for ACA. And it's been reported that a lot of unions aren't backing ACA and in fact support repeal of most of it.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Aug-18-13 11:26 AM

Not so long ago employers offered major medical insurance; then came union demands for full coverage insurance and government intervention. Those that are pro-union are also pro-ACA. It’s part of the same collectivist mindset. We can no longer pay for even minor healthcare out of pocket and it’s going to get much worse.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Aug-18-13 10:54 AM

Some of the unintended consequences of the ACA that many Republicans had warned about are coming true, in particular, the reduction of hours for many individuals below the threshold requiring healthcare coverage to be provider.

The more concerning aspect happening right now, is the increasing crony capitalism in providing "special exemptions" to the provisions of the bill to select groups.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Aug-18-13 10:46 AM

The cost savings of HMO's are due to it being "managed" care, i.e. "..patients need a referral from the PCP in order to see a specialist or other doctor, and the gatekeeper cannot authorize that referral unless the HMO guidelines deem it necessary."

Indemnity plans have no such controls, allowing the insured individual to request and get as much care as they wish.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web