Thread: Health care costs going up as a result of HCR

http://www.independentmail.com/news/...will-increase/

ANDERSON — Health insurance analysts say pending changes under the health-care reform act could have unintended consequences.
Lisa Hollingsworth, regional marketing manager for Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, spoke Thursday at the Anderson Area Chamber of Commerce’s Toast ’n Topics breakfast. She said the sweeping changes to health insurance coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could increase costs to consumers through both government tax increases and insurance providers premium increases.
In fact, one of the challenges facing health insurance companies is that they don’t know the detailed requirements for the 2,000-page law.
Passed on March 23, 2010, the health-care reform act changes the way people are insured with the goal being to make sure everyone in America has access to health care

http://www.infowars.com/health-insur...n-do-about-it/

Wasn’t the new health care reform law supposed to make health care more affordable for everyone? Well, imagine my surprise when I opened up a letter from my health insurance company recently and found out that my health insurance premiums were going up by nearly 50 percent. I am in perfect health and I have never had a single health insurance claim with this company. Unfortunately, after doing a little research, I discovered that I am far from alone. All over the United States, people are being hit with double-digit percentage increases in their health insurance premiums even as the health insurance predators continue to rake in record profits. At a time when millions of American families are barely making it from month to month, the last thing they need is to be figuratively kicked in the groin by the health insurance companies. But that is exactly what is happening.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6423757.shtml

President Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance - adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

Do any of the useful idots on the left get it now? You can't have someone pay your bills for you and expect that that will make your bills cheaper. On the contrary...it forces the entity that you pay to pay your bills to bill you for paying your bills. IT COSTS MORE!

It's not like he could introduce NHS - compromising with the uneducated moderates always has its drawbacks.

Originally Posted by Jacobin

It's not like he could introduce NHS - compromising with the uneducated moderates always has its drawbacks.

Wow. Again with the dismissing. Here's why you can't have a NHS:

Everyone has the right to live. We all agree to that. In fact, the right to life is probably the most highly regarding right in the United States. We see examples of that in the law. Murder holds the most severe punishment and the most severe punishment is death. So severe, in fact, that it is not even allowed in many states.

It is not a large leap of logic to say that if you have the right to live you have the right to seek medical care to extend or improve life.

Now, we need to understand what a right is. A right is something that is held by the individual. It is the ability to perform an action without interference from outside entities.

With that, if an outside entity controls all mediums to which you can exercise your right, then the right loses its status and becomes a privilege.

With a NHS, the government controls all mediums (i.e the money) to which an individual would exercise their right to life. That makes the right to life a privilege to life that is at the whim of the government.

We already see this in other foreign countries. The most notable is Britain's NICE panel. They determine what procedures can be done and to what age groups. They are a real life death panel.

Originally Posted by ksu_aviator

Wow. Again with the dismissing. Here's why you can't have a NHS:

Everyone has the right to live. We all agree to that. In fact, the right to life is probably the most highly regarding right in the United States. We see examples of that in the law. Murder holds the most severe punishment and the most severe punishment is death. So severe, in fact, that it is not even allowed in many states.

It is not a large leap of logic to say that if you have the right to live you have the right to seek medical care to extend or improve life.

Now, we need to understand what a right is. A right is something that is held by the individual. It is the ability to perform an action without interference from outside entities.

With that, if an outside entity controls all mediums to which you can exercise your right, then the right loses its status and becomes a privilege.

With a NHS, the government controls all mediums (i.e the money) to which an individual would exercise their right to life. That makes the right to life a privilege to life that is at the whim of the government.

We already see this in other foreign countries. The most notable is Britain's NICE panel. They determine what procedures can be done and to what age groups. They are a real life death panel.

*facepalm* Un autre Américain sans cervelle...

Here's how socialized healthcare is intended to work. The idea is to not compete with privatized healthcare, but to provide a basic level as a safetynet for all citizens. Hence the NICE panels for determining what treatments should be available under government coverage.

I would rather have a system like the UK's NHS, Australia's Medicare and France's Systeme de Sante than what we have in America. It's disgraceful and far more inhumane than any NICE panel.

Originally Posted by Jacobin

*facepalm* Un autre Américain sans cervelle...

Here's how socialized healthcare is intended to work. The idea is to not compete with privatized healthcare, but to provide a basic level as a safetynet for all citizens. Hence the NICE panels for determining what treatments should be available under government coverage.

I would rather have a system like the UK's NHS, Australia's Medicare and France's Systeme de Sante than what we have in America. It's disgraceful and far more inhumane than any NICE panel.

Intentions and reality are two vastly different things. Especially in the NHS/UHC realm.

Originally Posted by ksu_aviator

Intentions and reality are two vastly different things. Especially in the NHS/UHC realm.

Well then look at the reality; France and Australia are both higher on the HDI than the US, in part due to much better social welfare institutions.

And NICE panels, however you choose to spin it, are better than no universal healthcare.

Originally Posted by Jacobin

Well then look at the reality; France and Australia are both higher on the HDI than the US, in part due to much better social welfare institutions.

And NICE panels, however you choose to spin it, are better than no universal healthcare.

Not when you look at the patient satisfaction. No nation ranks higher than the United States in patient satisfaction. I ask you this...would you rather pay $100,000 for the heart bypass surgery now...or wait 6 months for the free one?

Originally Posted by ksu_aviator

Not when you look at the patient satisfaction. No nation ranks higher than the United States in patient satisfaction. I ask you this...would you rather pay $100,000 for the heart bypass surgery now...or wait 6 months for the free one?

And exactly how much of the US population has guaranteed treatment?

There is nothing which says you cannot do both. If you want to pay, that's your choice, if you can't afford it, you can still get treated.