Obamacare

[das_nut]

How do we measure the "cheaper" part of Obamacare? If it goes up less than what was predicted, is it "cheaper"? Or does it have to fall in total price?

And not all of us think that Obama's healthcare system is necessarily better. It's no permanent fix. The US massively overpays for healthcare, and does not get outcomes comparable with other countries:

We really should be looking at other nations and figuring out another healthcare system to adopt.

 

[beancounter]

It is a 2.3% tax on GROSS PROFITS of the entire company, not on the cost of goods.

You OP says the "gross cost" of medical devices, not gross profit. Gross profit is sales minus cost of good sold. The gross cost of an item is either it's cost of goods sold (or cost of manufacturing the item)

Even if the 2.3% is on gross profit, for most companies gross profit is around 20% of sales. Also, the fee is only on medical devices, so if this company sells other types of products, it would only be that part of the gross profit that relates specifically to the medical devices, not the entire GP.

I wish I had the time to dig up the company's financials, so I could run the numbers, but I'm fairly certain, that the add'l 2.3% wouldn't come close to reducing the company's profits (net income) to an unsustainable level.

Also, when looking at Financial statements, we must keep in mind, that accounting net income and cash flow are not the same thing. It is quite possible for a company to simultaneously have a net loss, and a positive cash flow. There are a lot of estimates and assumptions that go into preparing F/S.. and I can say from personal experience that accountants can be very (legally) creative with the numbers.

 

[mlp]

And not all of us think that Obama's healthcare system is necessarily better. It's no permanent fix. The US massively overpays for healthcare, and does not get outcomes comparable with other countries:

Agreed.

My hope is that it will lead to gradual modifications and improvements. In the current political climate, it was the best/only thing that could be passed, so it was either that or maintaining the status quo.

There's a large segment of the population that isn't concerned about things until they themselves are directly affected. For instance, people who have never personally experienced what life without medical insurance can be like tend to think that things are pretty hunky dory as they have been.

I hope that the new healthcare law will spread the pain around a sufficient number of people so that political momentum can be built to create a less profit driven and more cost efficient system, even if some of those millionaires and billionaires will stop getting richer at the expense of the general population.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

We really should be looking at other nations and figuring out another healthcare system to adopt.

But 'Murica is the best at everything!

Adopting a different system would be admitting our current system is fucked up and someone else did it better.

 

[mlp]

But 'Murica is the best at everything!

Adopting a different system would be admitting our current system is ****ed up and someone else did it better.

Not only that, but people here have an amazing capacity to worry about the financial wellbeing of the wealthy.

 

[ledboots]

As long as there is no major reform of the pharmaceutical industry and the current medical insurance model, Obamacare is like putting a Band-aid on gangrene. And I am too poor to afford insurance, in case that should matter to my opinion.

You will have to pay a penalty of a couple of thousand dollars to the government, then, unless you are low-income enough to qualify for Medicaid.

 

[yakherder]

Obamacare seems to me to be an attempt to fix the symptoms, not the causes. Just an arguing/dividing point in the short term, a couple superficial changes in the mid term, and jack **** in the long term.

If people can't be bothered to take their own health into their own hands, then all the medical reform in the world isn't going to decrease the overall costs or increase the overall effectiveness. I blame the citizens more than I blame the government. Bunch of lazy people throwing their health down the toilet via personal choices and then complaining that the system is inadequate for pulling them back out. There are of course exceptions to this generalization, but those exceptions are a minority.

 

[ledboots]

Not only that, but people here have an amazing capacity to worry about the financial wellbeing of the wealthy.

The "wealthy people's" company saved my and countless other people's mother's lives. I love them all.

 

[yakherder]

Of course it's easy for me to remain uninterested for purely selfish reasons. Between Canada and the U.S. military, I've got more health insurance than I know what to do with .

 

[ledboots]

Frankly, it baffles me that someone who has worked in an industry, even at its lowest levels, for decades (i assume, based on age) would have so little understanding of the workings of the industry.

You think a registered nurse is the lowest level of the health care industry? Nice. I hope your job is President of the World.

 

[beancounter]

STEWARD POST

Everyone, please remember to play nice.

Thank you.

 

[mlp]

You will have to pay a penalty of a couple of thousand dollars to the government, then, unless you are low-income enough to qualify for Medicaid.

Currently, Medicaid is available for low income people with disabilities sufficient to qualify for SSI, elderly poor over the age of 65, and some poor families with children. Basically, if you're not sufficiently disabled, not old enough, or don't have dependent children, you're not eligible for Medicaid , no matter how poor you are.

The healthcare act fills in many of these gaps, making more people eligible for Medicaid.

Also, this post of yours says something contrary to what you said earlier. If you're going to post misinformation, you should at least try to make it consistent within a given thread.

To clarify:


The penalty for not obtaining insurance will be the greater of: a flat dollar amount per person that rises to $695 in 2016 and is indexed by inflation after that (the penalty for children will be half that amount and an overall cap will apply to family payments); or a percentage of the household’s income that rises to 2.5 percent for 2016 and subsequent years (also subject to a cap).



If you do the math, that means you have to have an income of $40,000 before you could possibly be penalized $1,000; you'd have to have an income of $80,000 before you could be penalized $2,000; you'd have to have an income of $120,000 before you could be penalized $3,000. I don't know what figure you had in mind when you told PJ that she would be penalized "thousands", but I assume you were talking about a penalty in excess of $2,000.

 

[mlp]

You think a registered nurse is the lowest level of the health care industry? Nice. I hope your job is President of the World.

Didn't mean anything personal - just meant you're not one of the money crunchers or the people who actually profit from screwing other people.

 

[Moll Flanders]

If people can't be bothered to take their own health into their own hands, then all the medical reform in the world isn't going to decrease the overall costs or increase the overall effectiveness. I blame the citizens more than I blame the government. Bunch of lazy people throwing their health down the toilet via personal choices and then complaining that the system is inadequate for pulling them back out. There are of course exceptions to this generalization, but those exceptions are a minority.

I don't know enough about the health care system in the US but I think it is an unfair generalisation to put the blame on the citizens. We have the NHS in the UK and there are obvious flaws in the system but I have had a lot of (expensive) treatment for my mental illness in England but the fact is that I didn't choose to have this illness and it wasn't down to any of my personal choices. I wonder what treatment, if any, I would have been offered if I had been born in the US?

 

[Eleven]

I don't know enough about the health care system in the US but I think it is an unfair generalisation to put the blame on the citizens. We have the NHS in the UK and there are obvious flaws in the system but I have had a lot of (expensive) treatment for my mental illness in England but the fact is that I didn't choose to have this illness and it wasn't down to any of my personal choices. I wonder what treatment, if any, I would have been offered if I had been born in the US?

You'd have been kicked to the curb and subsequently blamed for the rash of gun violence.

 

[Moll Flanders]

You'd have been kicked to the curb and subsequently blamed for the rash of gun violence.

 

[beancounter]

Didn't mean anything personal - just meant you're not one of the money crunchers or the people who actually profit from screwing other people.

Is that supposed to be some underhanded insult against me?

 

[yakherder]

I don't know enough about the health care system in the US but I think it is an unfair generalisation to put the blame on the citizens. We have the NHS in the UK and there are obvious flaws in the system but I have had a lot of (expensive) treatment for my mental illness in England but the fact is that I didn't choose to have this illness and it wasn't down to any of my personal choices. I wonder what treatment, if any, I would have been offered if I had been born in the US?

Perhaps. I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on the government either though. Part of the problem with a democracy as diverse as ours is that we can never agree on a solution, so nothing decisive ever really happens.

But to answer the question, there is plenty of treatment available. It's overpriced though, regardless of where the funding comes from, compared to other places. If you were on Medicaid, you might get those options. If you had decent insurance, you'd have plenty of good options. If you had no insurance, you'd still get life saving treatment if necessary, you'd just then be in debt for the rest of your life.

I also don't like the idea of the bulk of the burden falling on employers which, I concede, is indeed a problem that has little to do with the overall cost, but again is hardly the fault of the government. This will not change with Obamacare.

The government is like a big puppet being simultaneously controlled by 300 million arguing people. I guess I just get frustrated sometimes. But you're right, it's not fair of me to blame everything on the people.

 

[mlp]

If you had no insurance, you'd still get life saving treatment if necessary, you'd just then be in debt for the rest of your life.

You get life saving treatment if it's sudden onset, such as an accident or a heart attack, the kind of thing that brings you into an ER with need for immediate treatment.

For things like cancer, you don't, unless you can pay for it (upfront, if you don't have insurance), unless it's causing something that does require immediate treatment, and by that time, it's almost always too late.

 

[Alice-Bee]

You get life saving treatment if it's sudden onset, such as an accident or a heart attack, the kind of thing that brings you into an ER with need for immediate treatment.

For things like cancer, you don't, unless you can pay for it (upfront, if you don't have insurance), unless it's causing something that does require immediate treatment, and by that time, it's almost always too late.

This makes me very disapointed in humanity.
Health is not something to be pricetagged. If a person cannot afford to pay for cancer treatment, their fate is to die. I have no words.