AmberCutie said:
I just really hope that at some point in the near future they use the Obamacare precedent to then tackle actual universal healthcare like 90% of the rest of western civilization has.
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll
- Thread starter Bocefish
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
I just really hope that at some point in the near future they use the Obamacare precedent to then tackle actual universal healthcare like 90% of the rest of western civilization has.
Lulz. I'm getting too drunk to follow all the links and mumbojumbo. Has anyone explained like I'm 5 why Obamacare is evil yet? Please don't make me post on reddit. I trust you guys more, but no one is replying directly yet.
Mirra said:
I really don't understand the objection to vouchers. In most cases voucher will result in more money per student not less.
Let's say your school districts receives in $10,000/year (roughly right) in funding from state and local source for each child in your school district. Currently there are 10,000 students in the district at $10K student that gives the school district a budget of $100 million. Now you happen to live in area in that is experiencing population growth so in a two year the number of students is expected to hit 11,000. The school district new budget will be $110 million. Now the district could hire more teacher, add more schools, administrators to accommodate the growth or it could hand out voucher. A typical voucher will provide $5,000 to a low or middle income family toward tuition toward a private or parochial school. Let say 1,000 student take advantage of the voucher. The school district will spend $5,000 x1000 = $ 5 million. Subtracting the 5 million from 110 million budget leaves the school district 105 million and since enrollment remains at 10,000 they don't have to hire new teachers or build news schools. So now the district can spend an average of $10,500/pupil.
Because some parents are willing to to pay additional money for their children's education it leaves more money for the public schools. Some of the biggest supporter of the voucher system are not rich Republican but rather poor families trapped in failing schools looking for away out.
Just Me said:Bocefish said:
You do understand what overstatements and false impressions are? You are really posting something that contradicts you?What is it you are exactly against then?
Maybe you're fine with a bunch of Washington bureaucratic appointees in charge of what health care you can get, but I'm not!
Bocefish said:Just Me said:Bocefish said:
You do understand what overstatements and false impressions are? You are really posting something that contradicts you?
Maybe you're fine with a bunch of Washington bureaucratic appointees in charge of what health care you can get, but I'm not!
And you think insurance companies are better? These panels already happen, in the insurance companies. I can post you long lists of health care they have denied people based on nothing but their bottom line. They are supposed to be non-profit but that does not mean they are not out to make money. I would much rather some bureaucrat that is not after his own self interest to make those decisions over an insurance company. :roll:
1. Private schools are not held to the same standards as public schools in regards to teacher qualifications, curriculum, and use of funds.HiGirlsRHot said:
2. Those who can afford private schools and want to send their children to private schools largely do so already. Those who would switch to private schools with the voucher would be those who could afford it already or could nearly afford it and are excited to reap the benefits of their new tax credit.
3. Your numbers would have to be different for every state and school district in the country so they are not a very good representation. The implementation of the voucher program as you've explained it is also only one of a few variations with various dollar amounts associated with it so it is not a very reliable representation of what may or may not be implemented for each state.
Go on... pull the other one. :icon-lol:HiGirlsRHot said:
Many of the poorest areas with the worst schools in South Carolina (where I have lived my entire life) don't have private school systems. Most of the private schools also don't have transportation available for students whose parents cannot arranged to take them to school every day which is especially true in the poorest areas where parents often work multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
As a beautiful Australian, we've had government healthcare for my entire life and I wholeheartedly endorse it. It doesn't cover everything, and some doctors choose to charge more so if you visit them there will be a gap payment between what the doctor charges and what the government reimburses - which is fine, you still get subsidised but perhaps pay a little more if you want to see a certain doctor.Shaun__ said:
We also have private health insurance on top of that, optionally, which includes more things and pays back more per year etc than the government one will. Because I have private health insurance cover I get a small tax rebate on the Medicare (govt health) section of my tax return. Obviously it doesn't cover the whole private policy but it's not intended to, it's my choice to pay more and get extra cover and in return I pay slightly less tax toward the govt subsidised Medicare.
That seems like a good compromise to me. Free healthcare to all citizens, and optional private cover on top.
We have a similar system for private schools. Everyone pays tax toward public schools etc. If you send your kid to a private school you get some money back in the form of a tax rebate. Personally I don't think this is particularly necessary but it's one of those things the government throws to upper middle class families at election time.
Why thank you Shaun__ I am flattered...Shaun__ said:
Actually.....
Our healthcare system is not the bed or roses as one might think.
Most people do not have a family doctor as most of them do not take any new patients (unless they are immediate family). My family doctor has over 5000+ patients (he has 2 assistants and his wife an RN works for him). On average it's a 3 week wait to get into see him if I need to see him about something. He also works only 4 days a week and on the 5th day he works emergency at a local hospital (due to lack of emergency room doctors on staff). I also know a few friends who have more than 2 family doctors for this reason.
We suffer from terrible wait times for preventative diagnosis (CT MIR CAT scans), non and emergency care as well as surgery’s. Because of the wait times at walk-in clinics a lot of people go to emergency rooms where you can wait anywhere from 2 to 12 hours for any kind of care (unless it is an actual real emergency). Most hospitals have limited non-emergency care facilities due to staffing cuts. There have been a few cases recently where people have died before they got the emergency care they should have gotten due to lack of staff and overworked staff. Where I live 34% of the provincial tax dollar and 10% of the federal tax dollar we pay goes toward healthcare so in essence I pay as much as the average American with healthcare (based on the people I know in the US and what they pay per month).
Our provincial government (owned and corrupt by unions) has stopped any and all attempts to let doctors open up 3rd party preventative diagnosis centers (CT MIR CAT scans) where the public can pay for (if they wish or if insurance will cover(yes we also have medical insurance)). One doctor even said he was willing to serve the public by accepting 35% of his business from the local hospitals and family doctors and charge the government the standard provincial charge for the treatment/diagnosis care; he was denied so he opened up a clinic (early heart disease detection and diagnosis) south of the border that also caters to Canadians wishing to pay for it.
Many people in my shoes (middle class) talk about the possibility of a two-tiered healthcare system in the near future due to the healthcare strain the baby-boomers will inflict on us in the next 15-20 years.
Having said all this I still believe a government run healthcare system if run properly benefits the population better than a complete private pay-for system. The problem is it is not being run properly anymore and that needs to be fixed sooner than later.
:twocents-02cents:
JickyJuly
Inactive Cam Model
- Apr 13, 2011
- 5,442
- 35,009
- 293
- Twitter Username
- @JickyJuly
- MFC Username
- JickyJuly
- Streamate Username
- Jicky
- ManyVids URL
- https://www.manyvids.com/Profile/461355/JickyJ/
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://www.clips4sale.com/store/99705/jicky
I don't understand why we can't just copy universal healthcare from some other country that's already got it right. Are our politicians so egotistical that they need to come up with complex, pointless new ways to do something that has already been implemented successfully elsewhere? Hopefully we can all, at the very least, agree that the American healthcare system is broken as it stands. Last year, my husband was dropped from his Medicare due to a small error, and we spent nearly a year dishing out ALL of the money we had to keep him on his meds and seeing doctors. In a civilized society, people should not have to choose between having enough food, risking eviction or needed medical care.
I get where some people are coming from with the fear of overreaching government interfering with healthcare, but let's be realistic. Government is already all over our stuff (abortion, bcp, vaccinations, fda) and they're in bed with pharmaceutical companies which isn't good for any of us.
I get where some people are coming from with the fear of overreaching government interfering with healthcare, but let's be realistic. Government is already all over our stuff (abortion, bcp, vaccinations, fda) and they're in bed with pharmaceutical companies which isn't good for any of us.
schlmoe
V.I.P. AmberLander
:shock:Jupiter551 said:
This makes it painfully obvious that Australian healthcare does not cover any sort of vision care.
I say vote NO to Australian-Style healthcare!
AmberCutie said:
Well there better not be any 5 years olds on this forum Amber. I'd hate to have explain how mommy plays with her toys on the internet to a 5 year old!
Fundamentally I have two objections, the process that was used to pass and legislate ObamaCare and secondly because ObamaCare is an insurance reform, not healthcare reform.
The process is important only because if we look at almost all of the major reform over the last 50 years they were passed with bi partisan support, things like Civil Rights reform in the 60s, tax reform in the 80s, welfare reform in the 90s, weren't viewed as partisan legislation despite large and vocal opposition by many. This is in part because even though one party was the primary proponent roughly 2/3 of Congress supported them. In contrast if you look at something like the Bush Tax cuts which was passed on mostly party line vote, there is still significant opposition to the tax cuts a decade latter. The last minute horsetrading to get a few moderate Democrat votes to get ObamaCare was pretty disgusting although not unprecedented. However receiving no Republican votes, makes ObamaCare almost unprecedented (meaning I can't think of any exceptions) piece of major legislation. This virtually guarantees continued opposition by Republicans for years to come both at the Federal and State level, regardless of the merits.
The partisan nature of the bill is even more surprising because, unlike something like abortion, there is actually wide spread agreement that our current healthcare system is badly broken and if we don't get a health care cost under control we are screwed. The US system delivers a fairly mediocre result and is the most expensive in the world. Almost nobody disagree with that. There is also widespread agreement is that a big part of the problem with America health care is that rewards activity (ordering lab tests, performing procedures) and does not reward activities like preventative medicine to keep healthy people well, and focuses instead of curing sick people. To be fair to the US healthcare system, if you are sick with rare difficult disease you want to be in the US. As a result we have a system were a few percent of the population incur more than 1/2 the health care cost. Despite the President rhetoric when he talks about the Cleveland and Mayo clinics and how great they are (and Mitt Romney says the same thing) there is nothing in Obamacare that encourage any cost savings. (Other than some arbitrary restriction that keep healthcare cost payments rising at slightly above inflation)
You and I are unusual because we both purchase our own health care insurance. The vast majority of Americans get insurance from the employers, which frankly doesn't make much sense because of job mobility and also cause if you lose your job you also lose your insurance when you can least afford to pay for it yourself. So Obamacare does nothing to change that screwy situation. The one thing it does do is it discourages business with say 30-49 employees to expand because once they get to 50 they have to start offering insurance.
I understand why you like Obamacare cause it saves you $400 month. Since, I also purchase my insurance I've looked at the impact of Obamacare on myself. It turns out that by doing a bit of income shifting, every other year I should be able to qualify for an subsidy to purchase insurance. Now one of the things Obamacare does is raises the bar for what the minimum things insurance must cover (like free contraceptives). It turns out my current "silver" Kaiser policy is below the minimum so I don't know if Kaiser will continue to offer it (it is grandfather in) or drop it and only offer the gold, and Platinum plans. On the years when I qualify for a subsidy, I'll be buying the gold plan since it will be basically a free upgrade from my silver plan. So Obamacare is going to encourage me to spend more on health insurance the opposite of what we should be doing.
So Obamacare money saves you $400.month,and it also saves me $150/month how great is that! But here is the catch you are top young 100 MfC model (congrats) and I have done well for myself and retired early to Hawaii. I'm happy to take the subsidy since the government offered it to me but I really don't need it. While I certainly don't understand your finances, I do think it is safe to say that your financial situation is better off than girl with cam score <1000. At which point you have to ask yourself, if you and I two American are saving money under Obamacare and we have higher than average household incomes (50K). Where in the hell is the money coming from? it is not like your bladder pills suddenly cost $0, nor did my blood tests suddenly cost $0 event though that is what my out of pocket expense. Who is paying for all of these great new benefits? I think there are only 3 answers, we are going to see higher insurance premiums, higher taxes (true all ready for $>250K folks), or most likely we are going to borrow the money from the Chinese and leave the bill for our kids.
So my answer to a 5 year old on why it is bad, is because Obamacare does nothing to fix the big problems with health care,and you shouldn't spend money you don't have.
Well I may be incorrect but I thought it's partly very slightly higher taxes across the board (and obviously the less income you have the more you will benefit from $0 blood tests etc) and also that when healthcare is standardised a lot of the bureaucracy, confusion, administration charges for various funds etc are removed. In a real sense, having thousands of different insurance providers with thousands of different plans, and fees, and so forth doesn't save money overall - it is a huge complex multi-limbed beast that costs a great deal of money to keep under control. Centralising and standardising can reduce costs and divert money to actual medical care where it should be.HiGirlsRHot said:
Bocefish said:
They pay for their healthcare with taxes, and we pay for ours with insurance payments and direct payments to the provider. We of course pay way more, but people like you seem incapable of seeing things like that. They look at taxes and say fuck that shit, so I ask you why do you give a fuck who you pay if the result is better access to affordable care for people in this country. Look at the chart I posted below, and look at where America and Canada are on it. The Canadians pay less than us and live longer.
Jupiter551 said:
In theory the only new taxes under Obamacare is .9% increase to the Medicare tax for those making >250K, and misc things like a tanning bed tax, and unearned income tax increase of 3.8% above 250K. I don't care dig up the revenue for these but it isn't huge and the shenigans involved in budgeting ObamaCare, are too hard to describe in less than 5 pages.
Now there is a an argument to made that standardization saves money, and there are plenty of examples such as Australia and many European countries where it seems to work, and even place like Switzerland where the system still uses private insurance companies. Frankly a pretty decent argument for single payer. But that would be true health care reform and not health care insurance reform.
However, Obamacare does nothing to get rid of thousand insurance plans, we will still have all the same ones we have today (they are almost all grandfathered in), but we also have new insurance plans offered by private insurance companies through state exchanges and as well potentially insurance plans offered by the states and also sold by exchanges. If anything we are likely to see more insurance plans not less.
So while Obamacare does raise additional revenue through taxes, the arguments for savings via efficiencies are very weak.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Seriously, no one would say that the Affordable Health Care Act is anywhere near perfect, it's a cobbled together bunch of compromises but it's the "foot in the door," just like Social Security began. Rather than getting into the minutia of the act, I'm more interested in who's going to inhabit Congress and the White House over the next 20 or more years to gradually amend it and make it a stronger, truly good system.
Nordling
V.I.P. AmberLander
Jupiter551 said:
Yeah, way more. I think the last generation of die-hard "commuphobics" are dying off. lol
Major changes in American society seem to be most likely during times of greatest stress. Social Security would probably never have been created were it not for the Depression. The first attempt at health care reform, "Obamacare" was passed during the nearest to a depression we've had since the 30's. And it's been attempted by nearly every administration since Teddy Roosevelt.
I hope you're right but it sure seems like a lot of younger ones have been cultivated to me.Nordling said:
More from doctors...
A friend of mine in Ontario had to wait almost a year for knee surgery. She now has back problems from waiting so long and can't afford the co-pay for physical therapy. Now she has another 6 months wait to see a specialist about her back. Great system, eh.
If you think government run health care won't spiral out of control with corruptness and exploding prices/fees, then you're a fool. The quality of care will go way down while wait times go way up. It may look and sound good now, but that's the proverbial dangling carrot selling point before it falls to shit with increased fees, wait times and lower quality care.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcsiegel/ ... ient-care/
A friend of mine in Ontario had to wait almost a year for knee surgery. She now has back problems from waiting so long and can't afford the co-pay for physical therapy. Now she has another 6 months wait to see a specialist about her back. Great system, eh.
If you think government run health care won't spiral out of control with corruptness and exploding prices/fees, then you're a fool. The quality of care will go way down while wait times go way up. It may look and sound good now, but that's the proverbial dangling carrot selling point before it falls to shit with increased fees, wait times and lower quality care.
Bocefish said:
Your friend can not afford the co-pay for therapy, so how the hell would your friend have done in America with no insurance? She would not have been able to even have knee surgery at all, but maybe she would have gone to the emergency room and been able to get free samples of pain killers from a sympathetic doctor if she was lucky. Is that what you want for people in our country? I assume you have insurance, and you do not give a damn about the millions of people who do not.
Shaun__ said:
Ever heard of Medicaid?
Thanks to Obama, 6.4 million more people are in poverty.
So there are only two people to vote for in your election? Do others get counted out in earlier rounds? Or is it "To be in politics, you can only exist in one of two parties" over there and there is no chance to have any other representation (like, in the UK, Screaming Lord Such and the Monster Raving Looney party?).
Yes, real political party which you can vote for if they stand in your area - with policies such as:
Yes, real political party which you can vote for if they stand in your area - with policies such as:
ScarletVixen
Cam Model
Bocefish said:
You have no clue how the world works do you? All you know is your stupid talking points, like how people are not poor because they have microwaves and refrigerators. Or people have healthcare, because they can go to the emergency room.
You have never had to see family members sick and hurt without being able to get help due to paperwork have you? It disgusts me that republicans got the damn plan they said they wanted in the 90s and still bitch about it.
Shaun__ said:
You don't know anything about me, what I've seen or done, who I think is poor or any of the other bullshit you're spewing, so kindly stfu about what I know or don't know. Medicaid is available for single parents, but not every single parent qualifies. However, after looking at the eligibility requirements, she would probably qualify. You can take your holier than thou attitude and stick it!
Bocefish said:
I am an atheist, so I am as unholy as you can get. What I am is compassionate to those less fortunate than me. You know you are in the wrong, and nothing you say is going to change that. This is just like that homophobic bullshit you spewed in that other thread. People have an unalienable right to life, and the government is charged with securing it for us. Ensuring healthcare is well within the responsibilities of a government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
- Question
