Henry Payne by Henry Payne

Henry Payne

Recommended

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    Nothing but gotcha politics. Meantime thousands die of treatable conditions because they cannot obtain affordable health care.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    How does Obamacare change what you claim? The policies available through the ACA appear to be more expensive and have larger deductables than ones people are losing. Others can are losing access to their providers because of it.
    .
    But Gypsy you are right, it is gotcha politics on the part of Obama that he lied to get this monstrosity passed and is now lying about his previous lying.

  3. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    Ok, the government becomes the nanny state, healthcare, food stamps, welfare, free phones, unemployment for 99 weeks and what ever else the left wants. What is the individual responsible for to himself?

  4. Nathan_Demi

    Nathan_Demi said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    You know what my mother is a nurse and has worked with the Accounting departments in every hospital, which are many, and she says they are all going under because illegals and the poor come in and since it is illegal to deny them service they have to provide the care to them and cure them and then they disappear. Don’t tell me that they are dying from something that they know they can get for free by default.

  5. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    @Enoki

    “……How does Obamacare change what you claim?….”
    .
    To name just one change – the elimination of pre-existing conditions. Also the elimination of lifetime limits.
    .
    I have heard the opposite, that ACA is less expensive. If the competitive insurance market place works, ACA should result in savings.

  6. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    @jack75287

    I presume you don’t believe people have created governments to accomplish things the individual working alone could not, or to provide more social justice, or to safeguard rights for the less powerful, or to safeguard community and environment.

  7. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    @Nathan_Demi

    I don’t believe anecdotal information is necessarily the best, but hospitals do seem able to pay their top administrators millions. Perhaps what you are hearing is a scare tactic to justify not providing ER services to those unable to afford present health care.

  8. Enoki

    Enoki said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    Elimination of pre-existing conditions and lifting of lifetime limits will INCREASE the cost of insurance policies because both of those items INCREASE the potential payouts that insurers will have to make. That means they will have to spread those costs onto everyone they insure in that pool of buyers.
    .
    In a truly competitive insurance market insurers are not locked into providing a “one size fits all” policy with limited or no options, are not forced into rigid levels of deductable, and can group persons by levels of risk.
    .
    The ACA by way of an analogy is like the government forcing everyone to buy an auto insurance policy whether you own a vehicle or drive or not and then telling insurers that everyone will be charged the same amount for a given policy regardless of driving history, previous accidents, history of drunk driving or other potentially dangerous conditions.
    The cost of auto insurance would INCREASE substancially as a result. That is what we are seeing with the ACA.
    .
    Worse for the ACA there is a less costly opt out: Taking the tax penality. Many healthy people will opt for this on the basis of perceived risk and cost to them. They will see their need for health insurance as low and the cost as high compared to the penality. When they opt out the remaining higher risk people in the pool will cause rates to rise even more and you enter a “death spiral” where costs escallate and more and more opt out until insurers won’t write policies at all.

  9. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    @ansonia

    They are signing up by the thousands, particularly in states providing the sign-up service. The Federal system obviously has a few bugs, but give it time.

  10. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, 5 months ago

    @Enoki

    While you attempt to justify no reform of a flawed health care system, thousands will die of treatable conditions because they could not afford health care (45,000 annually according to Harvard Medical School) and hundreds of thousands will declare medical bankruptcy (100,000 annually according to Harvard). That’s a lot of personal suffering and death you are prepared to accept to defend a political ideology, and/or hope to see Obama fail.

  11. Enoki

    Enoki said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    I’m not “…justify(ing) no reform…” I am pointing out the utter failure of the method and system chosen by the Democrats to attempt to do this.
    .
    Personally, I would advocate moving away as much as possible from an insurance based health payment system. What I would suggest is:
    .
    1. Make all out-of-pocket medical expenses 100% tax deductable.
    .
    2. Eliminate insurance to pay for routine medical costs to the greatest degree possible, or entirely. That is using insurance for things like routine check ups, a flu shot, prescriptions, etc. Insurance should be for the catastrophic and unexpected major medical expense.
    .
    3. Allow a savings system that uses pre-tax dollars for employers and individuals. The individual account would have no limit to the amount it could have in it. Interest on the money deposited in it would be taxable even if the money deposited was pre-tax. Amounts could be withdrawn only for medical expenses and the withdrawals are not taxed.
    For employer accounts a limit would be set. Let’s say $10,000 for sake of argument here. The employee would be able to take money (provided by the employer in this case) out of the account to pay for any health care expense and the money is tax free. At the end of the year the employer and employee are allowed to split left over funds 50 – 50 by law and withdraw them or carry them over to the next year. If withdrawn they are taxed as income.
    This means that an employer could after several years have a self-sustaining system of medical expense payment for employees while employees have an incentive to be healthy in the form of a year end bonus.
    .
    4. Everybody also pays into a national catastrophic health insurance plan with a say, $10,000 yearly deductable (could be higher or lower) to cover major serious medical expenses. This means someone with a serious pre-existing condition is covered but pays a $10,000 deductable (which can be deducted from their taxable income) each year as their part of that policy coverage.
    .
    5. Begin to eliminate many government health coverage programs in favor of this program to reduce government costs, free up money for the national catastrophic program, and make more cash availbable to individuals to pay their part.
    .
    That didn’t take 2,700 pages of nonsense trying to change not how health care is paid for but rather who pays and how much gets paid. Changing nothing about the existing system except how it is administrated is an insane policy.
    It is reorganizing things with a new orgainzational chart while changing nothing about proceedure, process, or anything else. Obamacare for all of its effort is really just a grossly expensive cosmetic change in health insurance.

  12. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, 5 months ago

    @Enoki

    I’m glad we’re in agreement. Your item 4 is single-payer socialized medicine. Thanks for coming around. I believe also that insurance companies will do just fine with the system you have proposed, as they will be able to offer “add-on” programs to reduce deductibles for catastrophic coverage, for example, or to allow people to pay extra to be covered for sniffles, flu shots, and bandages, which need not be covered.

    It has been pointed out that at the beginning of this change of society that Republicans made clear that single-payer was DOA. So, in the mistaken belief that Republicans were more interested in the welfare of their constituents than that of their party, the Dems, realizing that single-payer was a no-go, instituted the basics of Romneycare, and the individual mandate so central to Medicare Part D that it was accepted without a whimper, until it was in Obamacare and immediately became unconstitutional. Also included was the fact that people were being directed to purchase insurance on the free-market: private enterprise/corporate welfare, which is very much at the foundation of the Republican platform. Look how well that initiative turned out.

    The biggest flaw with Obamacare was the thought that throwing a few Republican ideas into the mix would allow for bipartisan support. To be fair, if it had been introduced later in the administration, we would all have known the rules of the game, and the plan could have been made without the false premise that any Republican would support any plan at all. At least then we could have gotten a more streamlined, less problematic system.

    Funny how we have both arrived at the same point from often vastly different viewpoints. Practicality often cuts across ideologies, especially when people do not dismiss it automatically. I applaud your ability to rise above partisan dogma/talking points and to see what really matters. Now, if WE can find common ground…..can we expect that out of our “representatives”? Dare we dream?

  13. jack75287

    jack75287 said, 5 months ago

    @Gypsy8

    First off government can do a lot of things, it can focus people when need be but how did we get from NASA the post office and providing for a strong national defense to the Nanny State?

    As for social justice, you right, I don’t believe in the concept because of reason to many to list. From the debt we live under now, to enslaving the people who do work to those who don’t, to just giving the government to much power.

  14. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, 5 months ago

    NOT stating" if it meets the requirements of the law", was a serious flaw in the statement. The fact that the majority of plans either did meet already, or have been modified to comply, has been overlooked by the critics.


    The biggest problem with the PPACA was too many concessions to appeal to Republicans (like mandating private company policies instead of a “single payer” or “medicare for all” approach.).

    <My plan has made some changes that make it BETTER to meet the requirements of the law, so, where’s the “problem” in that?

  15. Ionizer

    Ionizer said, 5 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    “IS THAT ALL YOU’VE GOT?”

    Hey, you have to go with what Obama gives ya. Different topics, same behavior – lie.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).