US Government is Closed!
- Thread starter PoliticalNick
- Start date
Are being grossly overcharged!
What principle is that Wally? That if your poor you don't deserve health insurance?
The poor, the lower middle class and senior citizens (over 65) are all insured in the States. That the poor are uninsured is a common misconception.
Report: States with the worst health coverage
So given these numbers (that's 45 million without coverage) how can a program that gets all of these people insured be bad? Is it because a lot of people will move away from private insurance companies and on to the government program because it's cheaper?
US employers slashing worker hours to avoid Obamacare insurance mandate | World news | theguardian.com
Then we get guys making millions a year making decisions like this. Why? Because they don't give a sh*t about people who happen to be their employees they only care about money.
They should just ban private health insurance and go 100% government insured and force companies to pay an amount per employee no matter how many hours they work. If nothing else you would see a rise in full-time employment because they would have a few less employees.
Liberty? As in freedom? Like you are free to die quietly if your employer is too cheap to provide healthcare insurance and too cheap to pay you enough to afford your own. You are saying liberty is about leaving 45 million people without any healthcare coverage?
The poor, lower middle class, and many seniors have no insurance or too little insurance.
As for the idea of going without insurance being "liberty" let's extend that privilege to those who work for Fortune 500 companies who get their insurance subsidized by taxpayers.
I have no clue which country you live in, but it's not the United States to make these comments, or you just have some ****ed up agenda in your head. You're going to tell me that you never hear of Medicaid? Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Medicare? Medicare (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Childrens Health Program? State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shut your trap and tell everyone here how much your Insurance has been increased by, or you're one of those welfare bums everyone else has to compensate for or a senate member that everyone else has to compensate for..
pssst...hey barry.
:lol:
National Park Service Tries To Shutdown Mount Vernon, Doesn’t Realize It Is Funded Privately Not Federally
Via The Blaze:
National Park Service Tries To Shutdown Mount Vernon, Doesn’t Realize It Is Funded Privately Not Federally | Weasel Zippers
:lol:
National Park Service Tries To Shutdown Mount Vernon, Doesn’t Realize It Is Funded Privately Not Federally
Via The Blaze:
The National Park Service blocked parking lots at George Washington’s Mt. Vernon Estate and Gardens “due to a misunderstanding over the ownership of the spaces,” according to Melissa Wood, Mt. Vernon’s media director.
Mount Vernon officials approached the NPS, which removed the barricades “as soon as they realized their mistake,” Wood says, adding that the Park Service maintains the parking lots, but Mount Vernon owns the property.
Keep reading…Mount Vernon officials approached the NPS, which removed the barricades “as soon as they realized their mistake,” Wood says, adding that the Park Service maintains the parking lots, but Mount Vernon owns the property.
National Park Service Tries To Shutdown Mount Vernon, Doesn’t Realize It Is Funded Privately Not Federally | Weasel Zippers
I've never said Obamacare was bad, it just started this month, nobody knows until it is implemented. Your healthcare system was implemented in 1984, was it happily accepted by all? No, for years it was criticized, it continues to be criticized and it has many flaws nearly 30 years later.
I call these comments "gopherisms", whoever the **** gopher is, is delusional and rarely comprehends or is capable of comprehending any conversation that I have seen on these forms. It's the middle class usually without insurance, they fall between all these program I mentioned and cannot afford insurance. In many many cases alot of these are young people that don't even want it.
If Obama wanted Socialized Health Care, then he should have instituted Socialized Health care..
What he has done has passed a new legislation to "FORCE" private businesses to supply health care to everyone regardless of health.. O.K. fair enough, the Insurance companies will raise their prices to compensate, 50%, 75%, I've heard one guy 200% more in premiums.
Now, it's forcing everyone to buy healthcare.. that's not going to happen. They already stated there will still be millions uninsured..
In British Columbia companies like Save-On-Foods, Costco hire part time employees so they don't have to pay for employees health coverage, this will happen in the USA..
ObamaCare is an economy killer..
Republicans need Putin to broker this deal, Obama will buckle immediately.
Our healthcare is administered on a provincial level and it is slightly different in each province. The common factor is that there has to be basic healthcare provided to everyone which is done by the govt.
I believe my comment mentioned employed people, not welfare cases. It is the under-paid and under-employed that are the biggest gap for sure, employer is too cheap to provide the insurance and too cheap to pay a wage that will afford the employee to pay for it.
So time to do the right thing and remove for-profit insurance companies from the healthcare market. The easiest solution for universal healthcare is to have it all administered by the govt and have every employer required to pay a flat-rate premium for every employee regardless of what they make or how much they work. It just becomes like any other benefit a company is mandated to pay a premium like CPP, EI and WBC. If the company has to pay the same amount for a part-time or full time employee they will likely hire more full-time to reduce the overall # of employees but we know full-time jobs are better for the economy anyway.
Sure.. great idea..
But that is not what they are fighting over in the USA now is it.. ObamaCare comes nowhere close to that.. just the opposite, he had to gain Big Business support, Union Support and then when he got it passed.. changed it and now Big Business and Unions wanted out, Obama let them out.. but still forcing regular citizens to buy in... regardless.
I can see maybe letting big corps or unions opt to go with private insurance if they can get a cheaper deal as long as they provide it to all employees.
They just lend the Gov. money for 12 months and then get it back without any interest. No biggie. Not like the could have used it right after earning it or anything.
Obamacare vs. Canada: Five key differences
Not single-payer: Canadian critics tend to rail against “two-tiered” medicine, but in fact, the U.S. has a multi-tiered system. And despite the hype on both sides of the Congressional aisles, Obamacare keeps the same complex structure in place, while adding another layer through the introduction of health care “exchanges” for uninsured Americans. But the majority of Americans will continue to access care through a variety of health insurance plans made available or subsidized by their employer; nearly 50 million elderly and disabled through the federal Medicare program; another 60 million lowest-income through state-federal Medicaid arrangements.
Not universal coverage: Health care in Canada is based on a simple proposition: every legal resident is covered through a publicly-financed provincial or territorial plan. The individual mandate, derived from a Republican precedent in Massachusetts, stands in stark contrast to Canada’s universality principle. Even though Obamacare broadens coverage, the individual mandate relies on a fundamental insurance principle – care depends on type of coverage – and compels Americans to purchase insurance to access care. Americans now have more affordable insurance options and subsidies to cover their costs, and the lowest-income may be eligible for public coverage through the expansion of Medicaid. Still, despite the crush of online traffic as enrolment began Tuesday, only half of the estimated 40-plus million uninsured will be affected by Obamacare.
Not “national” health insurance: One of the hallmarks of health care in Canada is that, although each province and territory administers a health plan, everyone can expect to be covered for a comprehensive range of services, no matter where they live. And the federal government is expected to chip in to provincial coffers to make this happen. There’s plenty of intergovernmental friction as a result, but nothing like the fractured federalism of the United States. The implementation of Obamacare will further exacerbate regional and state differences, mainly as a result of the Supreme Court decision to curtail the federal government’s obligation for states to expand their Medicaid coverage. As a result, only about half of the states have chosen to sign on to the new Medicaid program.
Not equal access: There’s been some controversy in Canada lately over wait times and access to timely care, but this pales in comparison to the wide gulf that exists in access to care in the United States. Obamacare tries to address this in its provisions for insurance reform, such as lifting pre-existing conditions and limits on co-payment. But for all of the emphasis on affordable care, the new law reinforces the notion that access depends on how much you can afford, not how much you need. In the health insurance exchanges, the price of premiums will depend on your age, health, income, and on whether you opt for a bronze, silver, gold or platinum coverage. In Canada, access to necessary health care services is not a competitive sport.
Not cost containment: The sharpest critics of Obamacare argue it does little to address the fundamental challenge of cost control. The new law includes a review of Medicare reimbursement and the expansion of Accountable Care Organizations to reward cost-effective care. But it doesn’t grapple in a systematic fashion with the overall inefficiencies in health care delivery and financing, the administrative burden of multiple payers, providers and plans, and the cost pressures of defensive medicine. Governments in Canada know that health care is a searing financial responsibility, but they have at their disposal cost containment measures – monopoly fee negotiations with providers, global budgets for hospitals – that remain unfathomable in the American context.
Obamacare is a huge step in American health reform and, if it seen to improve the system, will represent a major victory for Democrats. Like other major reforms of the past, however, it will entrench the private nature of the system, and likely render national health insurance, or anything remotely like “Canadian-style” health care, impossible to attain.
source: Obamacare vs. Canada: Five key differences - The Globe and Mail
//////////////////////////////////
Be thankful you live in Canada, if you do...
Not single-payer: Canadian critics tend to rail against “two-tiered” medicine, but in fact, the U.S. has a multi-tiered system. And despite the hype on both sides of the Congressional aisles, Obamacare keeps the same complex structure in place, while adding another layer through the introduction of health care “exchanges” for uninsured Americans. But the majority of Americans will continue to access care through a variety of health insurance plans made available or subsidized by their employer; nearly 50 million elderly and disabled through the federal Medicare program; another 60 million lowest-income through state-federal Medicaid arrangements.
Not universal coverage: Health care in Canada is based on a simple proposition: every legal resident is covered through a publicly-financed provincial or territorial plan. The individual mandate, derived from a Republican precedent in Massachusetts, stands in stark contrast to Canada’s universality principle. Even though Obamacare broadens coverage, the individual mandate relies on a fundamental insurance principle – care depends on type of coverage – and compels Americans to purchase insurance to access care. Americans now have more affordable insurance options and subsidies to cover their costs, and the lowest-income may be eligible for public coverage through the expansion of Medicaid. Still, despite the crush of online traffic as enrolment began Tuesday, only half of the estimated 40-plus million uninsured will be affected by Obamacare.
Not “national” health insurance: One of the hallmarks of health care in Canada is that, although each province and territory administers a health plan, everyone can expect to be covered for a comprehensive range of services, no matter where they live. And the federal government is expected to chip in to provincial coffers to make this happen. There’s plenty of intergovernmental friction as a result, but nothing like the fractured federalism of the United States. The implementation of Obamacare will further exacerbate regional and state differences, mainly as a result of the Supreme Court decision to curtail the federal government’s obligation for states to expand their Medicaid coverage. As a result, only about half of the states have chosen to sign on to the new Medicaid program.
Not equal access: There’s been some controversy in Canada lately over wait times and access to timely care, but this pales in comparison to the wide gulf that exists in access to care in the United States. Obamacare tries to address this in its provisions for insurance reform, such as lifting pre-existing conditions and limits on co-payment. But for all of the emphasis on affordable care, the new law reinforces the notion that access depends on how much you can afford, not how much you need. In the health insurance exchanges, the price of premiums will depend on your age, health, income, and on whether you opt for a bronze, silver, gold or platinum coverage. In Canada, access to necessary health care services is not a competitive sport.
Not cost containment: The sharpest critics of Obamacare argue it does little to address the fundamental challenge of cost control. The new law includes a review of Medicare reimbursement and the expansion of Accountable Care Organizations to reward cost-effective care. But it doesn’t grapple in a systematic fashion with the overall inefficiencies in health care delivery and financing, the administrative burden of multiple payers, providers and plans, and the cost pressures of defensive medicine. Governments in Canada know that health care is a searing financial responsibility, but they have at their disposal cost containment measures – monopoly fee negotiations with providers, global budgets for hospitals – that remain unfathomable in the American context.
Obamacare is a huge step in American health reform and, if it seen to improve the system, will represent a major victory for Democrats. Like other major reforms of the past, however, it will entrench the private nature of the system, and likely render national health insurance, or anything remotely like “Canadian-style” health care, impossible to attain.
source: Obamacare vs. Canada: Five key differences - The Globe and Mail
//////////////////////////////////
Be thankful you live in Canada, if you do...
So bad people , with money, obviously know this, and the lawyer obviously knows this, so it's two negatives making a third negative which you view as positive. You peepeel real are freaks of nature, deniers of math and thus justice.
Thank you.