How much will Obama-care cost?

[drawn_inward]

So, I don't think that it is mentioned in the bill. How much will it cost the average middle class schmo?

I might be wrong about it being mentioned.

Isn't it a bit scary if it isn't laid out? We're supposed to be happy with whatever they give us, and charge us?

It's like signing your name to a mortgage without knowing what the interest rate is.

Blind faith, that the government will do the right thing, is not one of my strong points.

If I'm wrong, please point out where it is mentioned. I will gladly admit that I am wrong. I just want to know what to expect. Clear cut answers not mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Dave]

I don't like the fact that they rushed it through without as much debate as I'd like. I mean, they are supposed to be a government of the people yet it's the people who have no idea of what's in this besides the inflammatory commercials by either side.

But at least they are doing something.

 

[Chibibar]

So, I don't think that it is mentioned in the bill. How much will it cost the average middle class schmo?

I might be wrong about it being mentioned.

Isn't it a bit scary if it isn't laid out? We're supposed to be happy with whatever they give us, and charge us?

It's like signing your name to a mortgage without knowing what the interest rate is.

Blind faith, that the government will do the right thing, is not one of my strong points.

If I'm wrong, please point out where it is mentioned. I will gladly admit that I am wrong. I just want to know what to expect. Clear cut answers not mumbo-jumbo.

This is my personal opinion.

I don't think the cost will make any difference (in short of making under 20$ a month or something) IF people don't have jobs to pay for it.

There are people out there right now without jobs and possibly scraping by with minimal necessities. Any amount will not be enough to help them since they would rather spend money on food, shelter, and utilities.

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

We need to build alternative energy plants.

Create jobs FIRST then worry about healthcare 2nd. IF people can afford it, then people will get it.

What I'm afraid of is that right now I have great healthcare with my community college, but if a cheaper one is available, guess which one we will go to? (it is 100% paid by my work) it could increase my co-pay (right now 20$) and other stuff just to be on "cheaper" insurance. (this is what other fears also)

 

[drawn_inward]

Yeah, I don't understand the rush either. Give it time and get a clear-cut plan. Work out the details. Don't throw a plan at us, and say, Mission Accomplished!

 

[AshburnerX]

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

Most of the bridges in this country have been around SINCE the New Deal. That's part of the reason why they are falling apart: They are old and poorly maintained. Really, we need to strip up and replace whole sections of interstate highway too. Most of it is 50+ years old.

 

[Chibibar]

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

Most of the bridges in this country have been around SINCE the New Deal. That's part of the reason why they are falling apart: They are old and poorly maintained. Really, we need to strip up and replace whole sections of interstate highway too. Most of it is 50+ years old.[/QUOTE]

See? see? that will create TONS of job. There are lots of road (federal control) out there.

 

[Bowielee]

BTW, that bridge collapse was in Minneapolis MN, My best friend commuted on that bridge every day. Thank god he wasn't on it that day.

 

[Espy]

It's gonna die in the Senate thank God. So no worries. I don't see the dems actually accomplishing anything major here. It's gonna be just like Bush on Social Security.

 

[Krisken]

It's gonna die in the Senate thank God. So no worries. I don't see the dems actually accomplishing anything major here. It's gonna be just like Bush on Social Security.

Not necessarily true. There's a lot that can get changed in the final bill.

This isn't over, by a long shot.

 

[Chibibar]

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

Basic decent insurance are around 400$ for a SINGLE person. Normal people can barely afford it. Most companies usually pay 50% or higher (mine pays 100%) of that (btw. my insurance is 700 a month just for me)

that is a month. To most lower/middle that is 50% rent (or even 80% rent to some) Government would have to make it cheaper to make it affordable to ALL (or at least a lot)

that is a huge task.

 

[Espy]

Sorry, I should clarify. The bill, as it is, won't make it through the senate (5 bucks on that). If it does, it will be so stripped down it's not going to be recognizable as the house bill and probably do little or nothing to reform the system.
Just my opinion based on what is coming out right now about it in the Senate.

 

[Krisken]

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

 

[Chibibar]

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

I don't know. I try to understand the economic on that one but here is my concern.

Currently insurance company get to pick and choose who they want to cover. More than likely the insurance would rather cover people who doesn't get sick often and pay out some (thus profit)

The current version basically want to design that EVERYONE is cover regardless of health conditions. The main problem is that people without health insurance (and even WITH health insurance) run up cost due to medical emergency and can't pay them (even with insurance it is expensive)

So..... who is going to pay that? the medical is high because of unpaid bill, hospital still need to make a profit to stay in business so I am not sure in the long run how this is "going to pay itself" when people still running up tab and the insurance company have to pay the bulk (minus co-pay that the insurer pay)

granted that the offset would be if you have TONS of people ON the plan, it kinda even out which mean a lot of people has to switch to the new plan to make this work.

 

[AshburnerX]

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

I don't know. I try to understand the economic on that one but here is my concern.

Currently insurance company get to pick and choose who they want to cover. More than likely the insurance would rather cover people who doesn't get sick often and pay out some (thus profit)

The current version basically want to design that EVERYONE is cover regardless of health conditions. The main problem is that people without health insurance (and even WITH health insurance) run up cost due to medical emergency and can't pay them (even with insurance it is expensive)

So..... who is going to pay that? the medical is high because of unpaid bill, hospital still need to make a profit to stay in business so I am not sure in the long run how this is "going to pay itself" when people still running up tab and the insurance company have to pay the bulk (minus co-pay that the insurer pay)

granted that the offset would be if you have TONS of people ON the plan, it kinda even out which mean a lot of people has to switch to the new plan to make this work.[/QUOTE]

What your forgetting is that prices will drop on the Hospital's/Doctor's end too, because they aren't raising prices to cover for people who can't/won't pay. This means treatment prices will go down.

 

[drawn_inward]

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

Why can't we get a ballpark of what we will be forced to pay? That's my straight question. I'm glad that it will pay for itself (I believe that when I see it).

I've heard some talking heads say that government subsidies will take care of the folks who can't afford it. So, those who can afford it, will have to pay for the plan and pay a shit-ton of taxes to cover folks that don't make enough. It seems like some people in the middle are getting ready to get screwed.

 

[@Li3n]

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

They don't need to, they can just offer better service...

 

[Krisken]

@drawn_inward-Ok, as for the cost-
Current incarnation according to the Washington Post is a 10 year, $894 billion cost. A surtax to be applied to those who make over $500 thousand a year. Businesses would be required to provide health insurance to employees, though employers with an employee payroll under $500 thousand a year would be exempt.

So, at the moment, if you make less than $500,000 as an annual salary, you won't be paying extra.

Keep in mind though that once the Senate starts work on it that could all change.

 

[drawn_inward]

Thanks.

 

[Krisken]

Thanks.

Absolutely!

I understand there is a lot of misinformation coming from all sides of the issue. Everyone has a stake in the outcome, so facts tend to get a little distorted and the pro crowd tend to focus on the positive aspects and the con crowd tend to focus on the negatives. It doesn't help that both sides are using distortions in inaccurate information to make their case and scare people into their corners. While this certainly energizes the bases of each side, it doesn't do much in regards to improving healthcare.

 

[Chibibar]

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

They don't need to, they can just offer better service...[/QUOTE]

yea, but they would have to be LOWER prices than the government to keep up.

I mean right now the price is "comparative" toward everyone else, but like I said, it is around 400-700$ per month per person. Company pay X dollars and employee pay Y dollar which equal to Z (in this example 400-700$)

now if they provide better service, well, then the people would have to pay more cause the company are not going to pay more (well depends on the company)

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

While Li3n is right about lowering cost, but there is a "debt" already in place so the cost won't go down until they debt from old system goes away.

 

[Covar]

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Unless they're a member of Congress.

 

[Krisken]

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?

 

[Covar]

I just feel that if it's good enough for the rest of the country it should be good enough for Congress.

 

[Chibibar]

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/QUOTE]

well... if that same healthcare is available to us at a good price (say like 100 a month or something)

Sign me up!

 

[GasBandit]

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/quote]

1) We won't be getting what they have in congress, not by a long shot
2) When calculating the cost of the bill, it depends on 250 billion dollars the CBO wasn't allowed to calculate because it is supposed to come out of medicare/medicaid cuts and "cost reductions." When have you EVER known the government to spend LESS money? When have you ever known the government to cut an entitlement program once established? When have you EVER known a government project to come in under (or even ON) budget?
3) We're spending over a trillion dollars to scrap an entire system, in which more than 70% of the people in the system were satisfied, in order to attempt to insure approximately 40 million people, and from all reports there will STILL be at least 18 million uninsured even with Obamacare. Surely there were alternative methods we could have used which wouldn't bankrupt the nation, put 1/6th of the US economy directly under government control, eliminate choice in medical coverage, and put government even more in charge of the life of the citizen?

But then, helping people get medical coverage was never the point of this excercise - increased government control and a permanent democrat majority were the real aims here. After all, just like they scare the old people every election year with "Republicans want to take away your social security so you starve to death in the cold, cold street," now they'll be able to say "Republicans want to take your health care away so your children die coughing and moaning in your arms."

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

 

[Krisken]

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/quote]

1) We won't be getting what they have in congress, not by a long shot
2) When calculating the cost of the bill, it depends on 250 billion dollars the CBO wasn't allowed to calculate because it is supposed to come out of medicare/medicaid cuts and "cost reductions." When have you EVER known the government to spend LESS money? When have you ever known the government to cut an entitlement program once established? When have you EVER known a government project to come in under (or even ON) budget?
3) We're spending over a trillion dollars to scrap an entire system, in which more than 70% of the people in the system were satisfied, in order to attempt to insure approximately 40 million people, and from all reports there will STILL be at least 18 million uninsured even with Obamacare. Surely there were alternative methods we could have used which wouldn't bankrupt the nation, put 1/6th of the US economy directly under government control, eliminate choice in medical coverage, and put government even more in charge of the life of the citizen?

But then, helping people get medical coverage was never the point of this excercise - increased government control and a permanent democrat majority were the real aims here. After all, just like they scare the old people every election year with "Republicans want to take away your social security so you starve to death in the cold, cold street," now they'll be able to say "Republicans want to take your health care away so your children die coughing and moaning in your arms."

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.[/QUOTE]

 

[Chibibar]

Gas: yup. I totally agree. I heard the government is "trying" not to make it depend on taxes, but lets get real here. We. the people, will end up paying in form of taxes, premiums, and probably some other way to get this healthcare (IMO)

 

[GasBandit]

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."

 

[AshburnerX]

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."

No, pretty much everyone knew it was going to end in a crash. They were just hoping it wouldn't happen until they got their money out. Too bad for them.

 

[Chibibar]

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

 

[Krisken]

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."[/QUOTE]
Those things aren't even close. Healthcare is creating legislation, while the mortgage sector went to shit because of DE-REGULATION.

If you had a solution that didn't involve "turn it all over to private industry", I might be able to take you a little more seriously. I guess i have a hard time going with economic chaos and thinking the business sector has our interests at heart (they don't).

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

It also doesn't take into account the money that will be saved due to initiatives put in place by the Bush administration (yeah, I said something positive about Bush) regarding Health Information Technology.

With the push toward electronic health records medical information will be streamlined on local and national levels. This savings will help offset costs to the bill in huge ways. I could go on and on on HIT and how it will save a fortune in healthcare costs and reduce wait times significantly, if you want.

 

[Chibibar]

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

 

[Krisken]

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?

 

[GasBandit]

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."[/quote]
Those things aren't even close. Healthcare is creating legislation, while the mortgage sector went to shit because of DE-REGULATION.

If you had a solution that didn't involve "turn it all over to private industry", I might be able to take you a little more seriously. I guess i have a hard time going with economic chaos and thinking the business sector has our interests at heart (they don't).[/quote]That you think the public sector DOES shows incredible naivete. The difference is, if a private company does poorly, the idea is you can find one that treats you better. With government that's a little trickier.

Actually, the mortgage sector didn't go to pot because of deregulation, it went to pot because of government using it as a tool to social-engineer the insolvent into homeownership.

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

It also doesn't take into account the money that will be saved due to initiatives put in place by the Bush administration (yeah, I said something positive about Bush) regarding Health Information Technology.

With the push toward electronic health records medical information will be streamlined on local and national levels. This savings will help offset costs to the bill in huge ways. I could go on and on on HIT and how it will save a fortune in healthcare costs and reduce wait times significantly, if you want.

You really think E-health records are going to save hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars? That's beyond farfetched. HIT is more about safety than savings, anyway.

No, pretty much everyone knew it was going to end in a crash. They were just hoping it wouldn't happen until they got their money out. Too bad for them.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd made a career out of doing exactly what I said, shouting "STFU IT'S FINE YOU JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE" every time somebody spoke up about the problems coming.

 

[Krisken]

Well, this was a fun thread. You guys can have fun with it, I guess.