Welp, now I can go buy healthcare

Nah, your pretty much spot on. Does the PPACA help you?

 

From what I understand, it screws me even harder than normal without any lube.

Usually I get screwed with lube, that is what I call health insurance through my employer.

I may misunderstand, but either way it does absolutely nothing for me unless it exempts me from all pre-existing conditions.

 

As I understand it, it will phase out "Pre-existing conditions". Starting with a "High risk" catagory imediately and getting rid of them entirely by 2014.

 

I thought this was appropriate

 

most won't relate to the term "PPACA", ...but they will relate to it's widely known moniker, "obamacare"...

don't know what good a poll like that will do here since, since web polls especially on forums are not scientific in the slightest and thus are immensly fallable... we know it's a highly polarized topic as evidenced by recent events and the booku national polls done on it, so you're sure to incite "politiks" into the situation (perhaps that's your intention?) by doing your own for/against poll, eh?...

 

Hahaha

 

I haven't researched this in depth, so I'll get back to you. I'm out of town until Monday night here in the northern VA area that just lost power secondary to that major storm we had last night. I have...sporadic internet access.

The one thing I will weigh in on related to this: Your private insurance that you have now may be less expensive. Does it offer all the exact same benefits? Are they able to exercise rescission or plan cancellation if you cost too much?

These are the things people need to be looking at. The problem isn't that private insurance exists. The problem is how they are currently allowed to operate. The PPACA regs are intended to address those problems.

Consitution = law of land, therefore Constitutionality is synonymous with legality.

These are both lies. I would like you to know, because you may not be aware. Please note here that the majority of doctors in the US want a single payer healthcare system:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/idUSN31432035

Being that I work next to MDs daily, I'm very aware of what frustrates them and what doesn't.

Secondly, the shortage of medical staff in EVERY field is because the Boomers, the largest generation in America, has just reached senior citizen/medicare/social security status. There are more people needing more care than ever before in the history of the country. Combine this with the fact that medical professions are hard to get into (4 year undergraduate degree, graduate degree, licensure exam), and the numbers simply dictate that you can't mint professionals fast enough to keep up with the expansion in need.

Secondly, the MDs that DO close up shop do not have a problem with the government. See the above cited article. What they have a problem with is PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES dictating their tradecraft and telling them what they will and won't pay for.

You're scared of the wrong people. The government doesn't do everything right, but they are not out to make a profit by not paying for you to receive healthcare. Private insurance companies are. It's that simple.

You do misunderstand. PPACA eliminates pre-existing conditions. Your insurer will not be able to exclude you from care or cap their reimbursement for your care due to pre-existing conditions once the laws provisions go into effect.

Just FYI.

 

Not at all, while by no means is it an official survey, this site has prodominantly American members. An annonymous poll is the perfect way to gauge general American reaction to it as I'm certain that regardless of a persons left/right wing affiliations there will be people on both sides for or against something this monumental.

 

Great thread, very informative in the Canadian vice US systems.

 

LOL hilariously true.

Exempts you like drews stated. Which means you can go get other insurance when it kicks in, which is what I think you want based by your reply's. So how it screws you is beyond me?

I have contused a lung during a moto race, is that simlar to collapsed lungs. ANd if this a pre existing condition what exactly happens, just random collapsed lungs occur or is via fatigue, exercise, etc. etc?

 

You're giving the American public way too much credit. Opinion splits mostly along party lines. People against it are most commonly that way because the other team championed the cause. Most people here have no idea what the law does. Hence all the misconceptions in this thread and all the pumping of (sourced) information into it I've had to do to try and clear up the media spin against the reforms.

I've focused most of my efforts on education, because this really isn't a political issue for me. I work in health care in the US. I know how fucked up it is and why.

This law is not perfect - if anything, it doesn't do enough to fix the problems that exist. It's a step in a better direction though. Hopefully further legislation and amendments in the future can get the US health system where it needs to be so that practitioners can practice, people who need care can receive care, and families won't go bankrupt because of medical bills.

 

http://www.afge.org/index.cfm?page=2009conferenceissuepapers&fuse=content&contentid=1742

From the link:
FEHBP contains all of the flaws of the private health care system that Senator Obama’s health care plan seeks to rectify. FEHBP cannot be the alternative “public plan” because it has none of the virtues of a public plan, and all of the shortcomings of a private plan. Indeed, it is worse than most large, private employer plans because its structure squanders the leverage it might exercise over venders and providers to obtain the lowest prices. As described below, it fails the most basic test of an employer plan: it doesn’t even provide universal coverage for federal employees, retirees, and their families.

 

Now I'm concerned people might confuse what you're discussing with the healthcare reform laws.

But I agree with you; modeling on the FEHBP wasn't the best option. When it comes down to it, the easiest solution was to allow people under age 65 to buy into Medicare for a premium. But then private health insurance companies would've been out of business in a matter of years. Either way, neither of these options was what we ended up getting, so we'll see what happens.

 

i have a suspicion you are a "single-payer" advocate?... that's where the polarization comes in because american's (most) are distrustful of gub'mt, and know all too well its follies... if the gub'mt administers health care, they have you by the balls, period... the gub'mt is a monopoly, is infected w/ politics, by design, ..and this is precisly why one who's thought this through would never, ever, want the gub'mt to be "provider"... if you think the politicization of life now is bad, ...just wait until you have politics deciding your health care...

 

Works fine here

 

...yes, except for maybe some concerns folks are having, which you've enumerated previously...

i respect the sovereignty of Canada and the ability of Canadians to decide what works for them... we just like to be different, and for good reason

 

Maybe you should read the responses from Americans in this thread , your amazing system is not without fault

 

I have been held hostage in Mass. because I have a pre-existing health issue and could not get coverage in any other state. Now I am free to go anywhere in the country as it should be.

 

seems to me the private insurance co's have a good grip on my balls and they are squeezing more everyday, they are deciding what does and what doesn't get done already, not the doctors.

 

i've never said it was perfect... in fact i've admited there are problems... i just think we need an approach rooted in liberty and patient-doctor relationship, rather than more gub'mt intervention... afterall, we already have many unsustainable "entitlement" programs, that were sold as small do-gooder type programs that have become bloated w/ fraud/waste/abuse, high costs, and dependency...