Affordable Care Act - Good or Bad?

[CalvinJam]

The Son of Man, the leader and teacher of the New Nation of Islam, will discuss the merits of the Affordable Care Act [[also known as "Obamacare") tonight with Republican columnist, Jack Kerwick.

Mr. Kerwick is firmly against the Affordable Care Act, calling it an "alien monstrosity" that is against everything the Founding Fathers of America stood for.

The Son of Man has said that by supporting the Affordable Care Act, we are supporting and aiding our fellow man and woman.

This discussion will air live in Detroit, Michigan on WHPR 88.1 FM & UHF TV33/Comcast 20. The broadcast will start at 9 PM eastern time.

If you are NOT in Detroit, you can still listen by calling into this teleconference call:

[[712) 432-0075
access code: 912932#




For more information, please call [[601) 870-2744.

Please pass this message along. Thank you.



Find out more about the Son of Man and the New Nation of Islam:

www.thenewnationofislam.com

On Youtube: NewNationofIslam
On Facebook: TheNewNationofIslam

[professorscott]

The Son of Man, the leader and teacher of the New Nation of Islam, will discuss the merits of the Affordable Care Act [[also known as "Obamacare") tonight with Republican columnist, Jack Kerwick.

Perhaps good, perhaps bad. Too complicated to tell, yet. The question I have is: relevant topic for a Detroit discussion board?

[firstandten]

Perhaps good, perhaps bad. Too complicated to tell, yet. The question I have is: relevant topic for a Detroit discussion board?

Not really unless you have a strong Detroit angle to this thats worth debating.
There has been plenty of discussion of this over on the Non-Detroit side however.

[Shollin]

In a somewhat related note, this law is modeled off of what was passed in Massachusetts. It was signed into law by one Mitt Romney who claims he will repeal a law he favored while governor. Anyways, all hell hasn't broke lose in Massachusetts.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt|FRONTPAGE|s

[Goose]

In a somewhat related note, this law is modeled off of what was passed in Massachusetts. It was signed into law by one Mitt Romney who claims he will repeal a law he favored while governor. Anyways, all hell hasn't broke lose in Massachusetts.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120705/POLITICS01/207050365/Massachusetts-health-law-working-costs-spiral?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s

yeah the Republicans are a bright bunch of idiots... they are running the guy that LOST to the guy that LOST to Obama last time, the same guy that Obama modeled Obamacare after....

this is the best they got??? very sad bunch of losers indeed.....

[gazhekwe]

Is this one of those Yay or Boo games?

Students can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. YAY!

People don't want to buy insurance, they would rather risk having to ask us all to pay for their costs in emergency. BOO!

[Wesley Mouch]

Is this one of those Yay or Boo games?

Students can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. YAY!

People don't want to buy insurance, they would rather risk having to ask us all to pay for their costs in emergency. BOO!

See, this is a Detroit thread. Just like Detroit -- people like all the goodies [[kids on insurance till 26) but don't realize that the goodies come with costs.

Do you really suppose the insurance company actuaries don't know how much it costs to pay out for health care for those young adults -- and that they don't know exactly how much to increase everyone's insurance to pay for that?

So this is a BOO! I don't want to pay for your kids coverage. Thanks ever so much.

[[I am in favor of 100% socialized, government-paid doctors a la Britain, for basic care for everyone -- with ZERO private insurance involvement. You can get your private insurance for viagra, abortions, etc. on your own -- but let the basic care be social.)

[Wesley Mouch]

Is this one of those Yay or Boo games?

Students can stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26. YAY!

People don't want to buy insurance, they would rather risk having to ask us all to pay for their costs in emergency. BOO!

See, this is a Detroit thread. Just like Detroit -- people like all the goodies [[kids on insurance till 26) but don't realize that the goodies come with costs.

Do you really suppose the insurance company actuaries don't know how much it costs to pay out for health care for those young adults -- and that they don't know exactly how much to increase everyone's insurance to pay for that?

So this is a BOO! I don't want to pay for your kids coverage. Thanks ever so much.

[[I am in favor of 100% socialized, government-paid doctors a la Britain, for basic care for everyone -- with ZERO private insurance involvement. You can get your private insurance for viagra, abortions, etc. on your own -- but let the basic care be social.)

[Scottathew]

I'm on the fence about healthcare.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to purchase insurance. However, many people choose not to purchase insurance, run up hospital bills, and then we all pay for it. So there are good arguments on both sides there.

One major issue will be the limited amount of healthcare. Once we increase access to healthcare the cost of it will go up, and the quality will go down. Wait times will increase.

However, the flipside of that argument would say that healthcare will be less accessible only to those who already had it. For those that never had access it would be an improvement. Some would argue that its selfish to withhold healthcare from other people just so I can have better access. Also, I would imagine in time [[decades), the supply of healthcare would increase and some of these concerns would be eased.

It's a very noble thing to do, but we have to implement it right. I'm still very on the fence.

[firstandten]

I'm on the fence about healthcare.

Being on the fence implies that there is a choice. Our current private insurance/employer based/market based health care system was on the verge of imploding and had to be reformed. You may not like the reforms but an IM is key to most health care plans that are in existence.

What should put you on the fence is the choice between what we have now and some sort of single payer plan that many countries have. If that choice were to happen I would fall off the fence to the side of single payer.

[Shollin]

I'm on the fence about healthcare.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to purchase insurance. However, many people choose not to purchase insurance, run up hospital bills, and then we all pay for it. So there are good arguments on both sides there.

One major issue will be the limited amount of healthcare. Once we increase access to healthcare the cost of it will go up, and the quality will go down. Wait times will increase.

However, the flipside of that argument would say that healthcare will be less accessible only to those who already had it. For those that never had access it would be an improvement. Some would argue that its selfish to withhold healthcare from other people just so I can have better access. Also, I would imagine in time [[decades), the supply of healthcare would increase and some of these concerns would be eased.

It's a very noble thing to do, but we have to implement it right. I'm still very on the fence.

If you read the link I posted, health care premiums did not go up in Massachusetts.

[gazhekwe]

Wesley Mouch said: I don't want to pay for your kids coverage.

As far as the kids staying on the parents' plan, the PARENTS pay for that. They pay premiums for their kids to stay on their insurance.

[Zacha341]

I figured at some time the um' 'son' would weighs in on this, but in general it's early to fully determine what kind of social governmental structure this plan will initiate per the thousands of pages of rules, guidelines, processes, requirements, costs, services provided, directives, exclusions and other ponderous legal writ.

Like tax law, the details will be revealed over time specific to individuals and broad to the requirements of the program which will have certain mandates and obligations, fiscally speaking.

I almost wonder if the [[SOM) will delve into any of the particular [[or alleged) pages or sections floating about online...?

[313WX]

And this is a Detroit-specific or related thread in WHAT way again?

[Scottathew]

If you read the link I posted, health care premiums did not go up in Massachusetts.

Hmmm... Perhaps that's from insuring EVERYONE, including young and healthy people that it helps keep the cost down. I wonder if it would carry over large-scale.

[JBMcB]

Massachusetts isn't a great benchmark to see if this scheme would work on a nation-wide level:

It's fairly homogenous - not a large variety of socioeconomic variety

It's relatively affluent - lots of large employers and high-paying jobs

It started out with a high level of the insured - The statistic I heard was that somewhere around 92% of all citizens already had some kind of health care, the new scheme increased that to 98%

It's geographically small and densely populated

If they can get a similar system up and running in California or Texas, I could see it working everywhere else. Massachusetts isn't a good indicator of effectiveness.

This all ignores the other problem with the federal reform - it does nothing to address the high cost of health care, it only puts a band-aid on the insurance problem. Health care costs continue to rise, and forcing people to buy it isn't going to do anything to decrease the price [[why would an insurer lower costs - people *have* to buy their product now)

[firstandten]

This all ignores the other problem with the federal reform - it does nothing to address the high cost of health care, it only puts a band-aid on the insurance problem. Health care costs continue to rise, and forcing people to buy it isn't going to do anything to decrease the price [[why would an insurer lower costs - people *have* to buy their product now)

Health care cost will continue to rise because of the fee for service model that we have. ACA will move away from that model for people with Medicare.

The other issue is insurance coverage affordablity and assessablity. In order to make a broken system a little less broken the IM was needed. However if a public option was part of the exchange to compete with the private insurers then that would have been a gamechanger in terms of the price of insurance.

[beachboy]

This all ignores the other problem with the federal reform - it does nothing to address the high cost of health care, it only puts a band-aid on the insurance problem. Health care costs continue to rise, and forcing people to buy it isn't going to do anything to decrease the price [[why would an insurer lower costs - people *have* to buy their product now)

One American state has for over 40 years excellent universal
healthcare based on a wellness model ... Hawai`i. Patients
have small co-pays for basic healthcare [[colds, flu, sniffles,
cuts, etc.) and basic Rx. Diet/exercise programs are provid-
ed to maintain wellness so you can meet spec on your vitals
[[blood pressure, BMI, sugar level, HDL, LDL, etc.) If you are
sick, you go to the Dr., then recover at home or have a short
stay in the hospital/clinic [[private or govt-run). For residents'
major medical, a variety of options are provided at modest
cost to patients [[negotiated with major insurers by Govt of
Hawai`i). If you don't buy insurance, you pay out-of-pocket.

Employers pay for their employees' insurance [[most of it).
If you want to do business in the Islands, then you should
help your workers.

Personal responsibility, with some care for the less fortunate.

Hawai`i has the healthiest, longest-lived population of any
state in the US.

Why can't we adopt this model on the Mainland?

[mwilbert]

The ACA is almost certainly good for Detroit. Detroit is a city with a large population of poor and working-class people and a lot of medical providers. The ACA means that the poor people will have more access to health care, that the working class with incomes up to a few hundred percent of the poverty line will get large subsidies to buy insurance, and that the medical providers will get compensated for a lot of care they don't get paid for now.

The costs of the ACA are mostly paid for by taxes on relatively rich people, on reductions in payments to insurers providing Medicare Plus, and on employers [[or employees, depending upon how you think labor markets work) with high-value health plans, which should be relatively uncommon among Detroit residents.

[coracle]

The ACA is almost certainly good for Detroit. Detroit is a city with a large population of poor and working-class people and a lot of medical providers. The ACA means that the poor people will have more access to health care, that the working class with incomes up to a few hundred percent of the poverty line will get large subsidies to buy insurance, and that the medical providers will get compensated for a lot of care they don't get paid for now.

The costs of the ACA are mostly paid for by taxes on relatively rich people, on reductions in payments to insurers providing Medicare Plus, and on employers [[or employees, depending upon how you think labor markets work) with high-value health plans, which should be relatively uncommon among Detroit residents.

In other words - I don't give a shit who's paying for it as long as mine's free. It's only "fair".

[JBMcB]

Why can't we adopt this model on the Mainland?

The converse question would be - why do we need the federal government forcing the states to adopt their system? Let the states pick what health care system they want. If it works so great, other states could adopt it.

[firstandten]

The converse question would be - why do we need the federal government forcing the states to adopt their system? Let the states pick what health care system they want. If it works so great, other states could adopt it.

I'm not sure what your statement meant, but the states will run there own Health insurance exchanges unless an a-hole like Gov Scott of Florida refuses to do it, in which case the federal gov will take over that function.

Understand we are not talking about a new system here. All we are doing is making a broken system a little less broken. Yes, there are some new guidelines and the IM but for the most part this will really only affect people who have no insurance.

[firstandten]

In other words - I don't give a shit who's paying for it as long as mine's free. It's only "fair".

Nobody is getting a free ride, people with no insurance must deal with the IM, thou they can get help from the gov't.

But you and some others still have not answered my question

Which would you rather have ? The IM, or uninsured folks going to ER driving up the cost of insurance for everbody ?

[Goose]

how about before being able to sign up for you monthly expensive IPhone plan you have to show you have basic health insurance first...

or before you sign up for the full cable package with every HBO and other option you have to show you have basic health insurance first...

many people are uninsured by choice... thinking they either won't need it or will rely on others... but they choose other things that they DON'T need......

but asking people to give up cable or Iphones would be cruel

[gazhekwe]

That is definitely the right question, First and Ten. IM for me, but then we have always had health insurance since reaching adulthood.