FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: ktheodos on June 18, 2012, 04:07:11 am
-
one week till it's ruled on (officially)...thoughts? exepctations?
-
Our family falls in the cracks of healthcare. He does not get it on the job and I am a student and we make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It would be nice to have options.
-
hope they overturn it
-
I hope it is overturned!! My son and son-in-law both work in private industry (electricians) and there Insurance went up drastically over the past 2 years (about 75 percent Higher) than in 2009, I thought this was suppose to help the lower/middle income!! There insurance went from about 4,500 a year to almost 7,500 a year in the process of 2 years, they don't make a big salary either (under 40k a yr). This heath care bill that was sold to the American people was a lie, this is why personal salaries are dropping like a rock, with everything else going up. This is just a way to pay for people that are on medicare/medicaid.
-
we pay about 400.00 a month for 3 people,we got a news letter from blue cross saying that if the insurance co.s get more from people then they need folks would be getting a refund in august. not sure if this is part of the new deal or not but i'm not counting any chickens.
-
Our rates thru employer actually dropped and I can now add my daughter who is 22 but not in college back on until she is 26.
-
I hope it gets overturned. There are a few provisions I like....like keeping your kid on through 26 and no pre-existing conditions. They just went about it all wrong with mandatory funding.
-
I think it will be overturned because of the mandate. I wish that there were better answers to health care. There are lots of problems with the insurance system, but I am not sure health care for everyone would work either. I can tell you that the Health Care Law has no made things better in the health care industry, but we need to find ways to fix some things (like pre-existing conditions). Hope we are up to dealing with it as a people, because our politicians sure don't have the will to
-
:wave: i think if we let government mandate health insurance what will be next? america is supposed to be the land of freedom of choice, well if our choice on health care is taken away i just feel it will be just the start of more choices being take away. i think if the health care is left as is and obama is re-elected it will lead to more and more mandates. the next thing you know we are no longer u.s.a. but the new u.s.s.r. i think obama will try more government regulations on business and industry. the next thing you have is a socialist-communist state instead of free marketand free choice that has been the back bone of our great country. the old saying you give and inch they take a mile next thing you know less and less choices and more and more goverment. revoke health-care mandate and elect any one besides obama to another term
-
I hope it gets overturned. I went in a read some of it and it is down right scary for us seniors. Also for all up and comming youngsters. If it had been read and parts knocked out it, then the good parts would have been ok. But why should we buy it if we don't want it ( and then be fined when we don't) We already are forced to buy auto insurance. But the dunder blocks when they were in power just listened to Nancy P. when she said pass it then read it. Idiots.
-
All Americans who work and pay into medicare should have health care.
-
Hopefully it is overturned. Health Insurance costs have went up across the board because of it.
-
Hopefully it is overturned. Health Insurance costs have went up across the board because of it.
Riiiight - because the massive increases in healthcare costs prior to 2012 were somehow related to it nevertheless, (doubtless by the same sort of republican-imagined "Einstein-Rosen bridge" via which they blame democrats for stuff which occurred with a republican in executive office).
:o
-
They'll Keep it. The government never gives back anything it absorbs. =-P
-
I just qualified to get Medicare, due to being on disability. They are forcing me join now, or pay a 25% late registration fee, if I join later. The amount I have to pay per month is totally insane. I worked to 40years before becoming disabled and now I have to join when they say and pay what the tell me too, or otherwise get penalized. This stinks.
-
Obamacare is a joke in my opinion
-
I hope that it is overturned. Our insurance has went up and the benefits keep going down..
-
It is humanity's responsibility to help those in need....whether it's food or medical. There's no reason at all why one human being on this planet should have to go hungry or not get the medical attention that's desperately needed. :fish:
-
There's no reason at all why one human being on this planet should have to go hungry or not get the medical attention that's desperately needed. :fish:
Apparently, there's at least two reasons; lack of funds and lack of charity.
-
Health Law starts at home: Take good care of yourself and your love ones.
-
I hope it is overturned. :angry7:
-
I hope it is overturned. :angry7:
So does the heathcare industry, if it means a loss of revenue.
-
There's some parts I like, others are don't....interestingly enough, I used to think it was great that kids could stay on their parents insurance until they're 26, then I realized that I would get my own insurance when I got a job......perhaps it's a cop out for a lack of jobs?
-
Our family falls in the cracks of healthcare. He does not get it on the job and I am a student and we make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It would be nice to have options.
It's not going to give you "options." It just says that you have to have healthcare, whether you can get it or not. If you don't somehow get it, you'll have to pay a fine at the end of the year when you do your taxes.
-
I hope it is overturned. :angry7:
So does the heathcare industry, if it means a loss of revenue.
It won't mean a loss of revenue for them. Now they can charge any amount they want, since everybody has to have it. It just means a loss of more of our hard earned money, since not only do we have to pay more taxes so more people can get it for free, but then we also have to pay increased insurance costs for our own healthcare. You can rest assured that the big wigs in the insurance industry, who practically control the government, won't let anything happen to their bottom line. That goes for both Democrats and Republicans. They are all controlled.
-
Well, I don't believe the full law even kicks in until 2014, so those saying their healthcare costs have already gone up, you're going to have to show me it's a result of the law and not just from the normal rise of health insurance costs which happens on a regular basis. Also, if health insurance companies stand to lose money over the law, it's likely they will raise, or have raised, costs to stick it to you one last time while they can. So, should you be mad at the law or the company bending you over?
I don't know if the law will stand or not, but the arguments against it are pretty ignorant.
1) As far as the mandate is concerned, if the government can't make you pay for anything, social security has to get struck down too.
2) This idea that it's going to make you pay for other people's health care is idiotic. What do you think you've been doing this whole time? Why do you think your premiums go up? Certain things are constant (a) Everyone at some point in time goes through the healthcare system. (b) Doctors don't turn people away that have hatchet wounds in their head. So they will use their time and resources to patch that person up (up to a limit) (c) If they don't pay, those currently paying for health insurance get the bill passed to them. The mandate makes it so that the guy with the hatchet wound in his head has to pay prior to that incident so the cost doesn't get passed on to you. This increases the pool of money and hopefully slows down any future cost increases. This is the exact OPPOSITE of making you pay for others.
3) You pay taxes which pays for your local police whether you call them for any reason or not. It makes more sense and is much safer to have them in place than not. Someone has to explain to me why someone running to the police saying "help me! help me! this guy is gonna kill me!" is different than someone running to a doctor saying "help me! help me! this cancer is gonna kill me!" :dontknow:
-
Hopefully it is overturned. Health Insurance costs have went up across the board because of it.
Riiiight - because the massive increases in healthcare costs prior to 2012 were somehow related to it nevertheless, (doubtless by the same sort of republican-imagined "Einstein-Rosen bridge" via which they blame democrats for stuff which occurred with a republican in executive office).
:o
The bill was signed into law back in March 2010, and parts of it were enacted retroactively. For example, the new tax on drug companies is already is in affect. These costs just get passed down the consumer.
-
Hopefully it is overturned. Health Insurance costs have went up across the board because of it.
Riiiight - because the massive increases in healthcare costs prior to 2012 were somehow related to it nevertheless, (doubtless by the same sort of republican-imagined "Einstein-Rosen bridge" via which they blame democrats for stuff which occurred with a republican in executive office).
:o
The bill was signed into law back in March 2010, and parts of it were enacted retroactively. For example, the new tax on drug companies is already is in affect. These costs just get passed down the consumer.
Indeed? However, my remarks referenced increases in healthcare prior to the current administration.
-
Well, I don't believe the full law even kicks in until 2014, so those saying their healthcare costs have already gone up, you're going to have to show me it's a result of the law and not just from the normal rise of health insurance costs which happens on a regular basis. Also, if health insurance companies stand to lose money over the law, it's likely they will raise, or have raised, costs to stick it to you one last time while they can. So, should you be mad at the law or the company bending you over?
Some of the provisions have already kicked in, such as extending coverage to kids up to 26 years old instead of 21. The costs have been passed to us, of course. They explained it to us at the place wehre I work, but I don't remember exactly which parts have kicked in, and what the rise in costs are.
I don't know if the law will stand or not, but the arguments against it are pretty ignorant.
1) As far as the mandate is concerned, if the government can't make you pay for anything, social security has to get struck down too.
Social security is also unconstitutional, but it is so established and so many people have a stake in it that it would be impossible and impractical to get rid of it now. Just because we have made concessions and given up some freedom doesn't mean that we should give them all up.
2) This idea that it's going to make you pay for other people's health care is idiotic. What do you think you've been doing this whole time? Why do you think your premiums go up? Certain things are constant (a) Everyone at some point in time goes through the healthcare system. (b) Doctors don't turn people away that have hatchet wounds in their head. So they will use their time and resources to patch that person up (up to a limit) (c) If they don't pay, those currently paying for health insurance get the bill passed to them. The mandate makes it so that the guy with the hatchet wound in his head has to pay prior to that incident so the cost doesn't get passed on to you. This increases the pool of money and hopefully slows down any future cost increases. This is the exact OPPOSITE of making you pay for others.
The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.
-
On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.
How are people who can't pay for health insurance able to pay fines for not buying health insurance?
-
I believe that america should have the same kind of medical coverage like Canada does.
-
Some of the provisions have already kicked in, such as extending coverage to kids up to 26 years old instead of 21. The costs have been passed to us, of course. They explained it to us at the place wehre I work, but I don't remember exactly which parts have kicked in, and what the rise in costs are.
I'm aware that some of the provisions have kicked in that's why I said the FULL law doesn't kick in until 2014 (I believe). My question still stands though. Healthcare costs always rise. What part is Obamacare (if any part) and what part is the normal rise in healthcare (if any part) and/or what part is the insurance companies cranking up costs out of fear of the evils of Obamacare? Also, some say they have seen a rise while others say they haven't.
Regardless though, I do believe costs will go up for everyone when the full law kicks in. But the point of the law was NOT that costs would get lower than they are now or would never rise when it was in effect. The problem is that people place that idea on the law and complain that it's not living (or won't live) up to something it was never supposed to be. The point of it, whether there's an initial spike or not, was to hopefully level it off there (or at least slow it down significantly) as opposed to the constant increases we'd see without the law (I'm not arguing whether or not it would work, just pointing out what it's supposed to be).
So complaining about the cost of it right now is like complaining about the upfront cost of a hybrid car. That's just completely missing the point.
Social security is also unconstitutional, but it is so established and so many people have a stake in it that it would be impossible and impractical to get rid of it now. Just because we have made concessions and given up some freedom doesn't mean that we should give them all up.
My point is, there's a precedent that can be argued.
I hate when people bring up "freedom" because they have this idealistic view of it and not a realistic one. The reality is that we give up freedom all the time and we're absolutely fine with it. We can't live in a civilized society without doing so. Most people are ignorant to this fact, so the freedoms they do give up are not viewed as freedoms at all. Them being ignorant as to what freedom is doesn't change the facts about it.
The conservative view is that social security is just the government telling us we can't take care of ourselves.... well, it was proven that we couldn't. It wasn't just some power grab by the government that came out of the blue. In the 1930's the poverty rate among the eldery was over 50% and now is around 10%. When we left it to ourselves we ended up tripping over old people in the street. When we handed it over to the government, we just visit granny in Florida now.
With that said though, I see no problem with at least looking into privatizing social security. I hate that people get demonized for even bringing it up. We know it works and it should exist in some form. I don't really see the reason for the government running it anymore though.
The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.
You missed my point. From now until the end of time we're going to be paying for other people's healthcare because of the nature of what healthcare workers do. NOTHING will change this. Currently, the bulk of it is shouldered by those of us who pay for health insurance and pay taxes. There are those capable of paying for insurance and just don't. I said Obamacare takes this into account by increasing the amount of people paying into it. It spreads the burden (which will always be there) out, it doesn't relieve us of it. It is ALL of our responsibility because we all utilize this system at some point in time.
The guy with the hatchet wound, if he wasn't capable of paying, yes would probably be covered by medicaid. If, however, he was capable of paying, under Obamacare he would be paying ahead of time which would have money flowing through the system prior to his injury instead of having to chase him down to pay one bill.
-
Regardless of whether or not it's struck down, the main problem won't be dealt with (rising costs). The cost of health care will still end up being too high, whether people are insured or not.
-
Regardless of whether or not it's struck down, the main problem won't be dealt with (rising costs). The cost of health care will still end up being too high, whether people are insured or not.
That is correct. An aspirin, for instance, does not cost $10 apiece unless the bill is being padded.
-
I hope it is overturned!! My son and son-in-law both work in private industry (electricians) and there Insurance went up drastically over the past 2 years (about 75 percent Higher) than in 2009, I thought this was suppose to help the lower/middle income!! There insurance went from about 4,500 a year to almost 7,500 a year in the process of 2 years, they don't make a big salary either (under 40k a yr). This heath care bill that was sold to the American people was a lie, this is why personal salaries are dropping like a rock, with everything else going up. This is just a way to pay for people that are on medicare/medicaid.
I agree 100%. Obamacare is a debacle and is mostly set up for lots of special interests.
-
I saw where someone said we should have the same healthcare as Canada does, but I disagree. We were in Canada several years ago and asked some people about their healthcare and they told us how bad it was. They can't get good healthcare which is why so many come to the U.S. for their surgeries, etc. I hope they overturn the entire thing. We need some reform maybe, but not this bunch of bull Obama is trying to force on us.
-
I do agree with inertia4, we should have similar health care law like Canada. I buy my mom personal health insurance. She is not over 65year old. After she has breast cancer no insurance want to accept her unless it cost thousands of dollar per month, and she moved to other state and stick her old insurance with her but she can't transfer the insurance to where she live now or or they will highly increase the premium rate. If you are healthy, all kind of insurance is fight for you, but when you are sick, no insurance is accept you. Why do we need health insurance? if we can't be sick at all. That's so unfair. Who want to be sick anyway. :BangHead:
-
I think it is bunch of crap. Why are they bushing it on us when everyone in congress it doesnt effect.
-
I think it is bunch of crap. Why are they bushing it on us when everyone in congress it doesnt effect.
I just wanted you to know that I really liked your typo for 'pushing' when the Bushes did nothing but help the healthcare industry score record profits.
-
Our family falls in the cracks of healthcare. He does not get it on the job and I am a student and we make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It would be nice to have options.
we are in the same boat ,, we cant afford insurance on our own so we dont have any right now and dont qualify for state assisted health care , because we make to much money...go figure it sucks >:(
-
The original HIPPA laws--before they were whittled down to nothing by the politicians--were intended to guarantee that EVERYONE be able to purchase health insurance, without preexisting conditions, at a reasonable cost. Congress whittled HIPPA down to nothing. What we ended up with not only did none of those things but increased the amount of paperwork and therefore the cost of health care. If HIPPA's original intent hadn't been destroyed by politics, we would probably not be dealing with Obama care right now, no matter how you feel about it.
-
Regardless though, I do believe costs will go up for everyone when the full law kicks in. But the point of the law was NOT that costs would get lower than they are now or would never rise when it was in effect. The problem is that people place that idea on the law and complain that it's not living (or won't live) up to something it was never supposed to be. The point of it, whether there's an initial spike or not, was to hopefully level it off there (or at least slow it down significantly) as opposed to the constant increases we'd see without the law (I'm not arguing whether or not it would work, just pointing out what it's supposed to be).
So complaining about the cost of it right now is like complaining about the upfront cost of a hybrid car. That's just completely missing the point.
If the point was to level health care costs, why not actually pass something that helps to control healthcare costs? The reform has to do with health insurance and making it accessible to everyone, which does nothing to lower the actual health care costs.
The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.
You missed my point. From now until the end of time we're going to be paying for other people's healthcare because of the nature of what healthcare workers do. NOTHING will change this. Currently, the bulk of it is shouldered by those of us who pay for health insurance and pay taxes. There are those capable of paying for insurance and just don't. I said Obamacare takes this into account by increasing the amount of people paying into it. It spreads the burden (which will always be there) out, it doesn't relieve us of it. It is ALL of our responsibility because we all utilize this system at some point in time.
The guy with the hatchet wound, if he wasn't capable of paying, yes would probably be covered by medicaid. If, however, he was capable of paying, under Obamacare he would be paying ahead of time which would have money flowing through the system prior to his injury instead of having to chase him down to pay one bill.
Health insurance, or any type of insurance, is designed to pool risks, not “spread the burden”. We don’t all have the same risk factors (age, medical history, lifestyle factors, etc), therefore do not pay the same premiums. It’s no secret that smokers add more to the burden of health care costs than non-smokers. By requiring insurance companies to use community rating with everyone paying the same premium it is moving towards of system of spreading the burden, but we should probably stop calling it insurance. You can call it spreading the burden, but what we are really doing shifting the burden to the younger and healthier who are the most likely to see their premiums go up. The same group of people that are already hear about being burdened with student loan debt.
Also, hatchet guy example is a little misguided. There is still going to be a bill to be paid. Insurance won’t pay the full bill and if that guy hasn’t met his deductible, that insurance company isn’t to pay a dime. That’s still not helping the doctors.
-
I really don't know what to think. Its all so difficult to understand. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? And whose telling the truth? Just totally confused!!
-
@hawkeye3210
Didn't say it would work or wasn't flawed. Just said it took certain things into account to get more money flowing through the system. To answer your question about actually lowering costs, anything done to lower costs would just raise costs in some other area. Until that's figured out, you're just going to need more money.
As far as risk, paying the same premiums, bills still having to be paid, actually spreading the burden and it not being called insurance...yup. Despite what it may look like, I'm not so supportive of Obamacare but only because I don't think it goes far enough. We should cut out the middle man (the insurance companies) and head towards a single payer system. Just as I mentioned with social security, the healthcare our military and seniors get would be the precedent and you would just remove the restrictions to make it healthcare for all.
The argument against that is usually "My mothers' 2nd uncle's cousin died waiting to be seen in a [insert whatever country you want] hospital!" as if we have to pattern our system to be exactly like some other system without taking into account the flaws. Until someone explains to me to me the difference in running to a cop for help and running to a doctor for help (which you noticeably never touched), I don't see the justification for health insurance companies at all.
-
It should be overturned.
-
As far as risk, paying the same premiums, bills still having to be paid, actually spreading the burden and it not being called insurance...yup. Despite what it may look like, I'm not so supportive of Obamacare but only because I don't think it goes far enough. We should cut out the middle man (the insurance companies) and head towards a single payer system. Just as I mentioned with social security, the healthcare our military and seniors get would be the precedent and you would just remove the restrictions to make it healthcare for all.
That wouldn't be eliminating the middle man. With medicare, the federal government is just taking the role of the insurance company. It’s also not the great of an insurance policy either, which is why a lot of people chose to supplement it through private insurance companies. The health insurance our military gets is not a whole lot different than a lot plans provided by other employers in the private sector. It still goes through private insurance companies, with the employer (government in this case) paying for 75% of the premiums and the employee picking up the remaining 25%.
The argument against that is usually "My mothers' 2nd uncle's cousin died waiting to be seen in a [insert whatever country you want] hospital!" as if we have to pattern our system to be exactly like some other system without taking into account the flaws. Until someone explains to me to me the difference in running to a cop for help and running to a doctor for help (which you noticeably never touched), I don't see the justification for health insurance companies at all.
As long as a patient is responsible for any portion of the bill there is always going to be an incentive for pooling of risks, creating a market for insurance, and a justification for why insurance companies exist. When comparing healthcare to cops and law enforcement, there are some key differences. For starters, law enforcement is funded by the local and state governments, not the federal government. There is also no real way to attribute those costs to individuals, which isn't true with healthcare. Again, when there is cost to the individual there is going to be market for insurance.
Also, it is not like that person screaming for a doctor isn't going to get help. Hospitals are already obligated by law to see patients regardless of their ability to pay.
-
That wouldn't be eliminating the middle man. With medicare, the federal government is just taking the role of the insurance company. It’s also not the great of an insurance policy either, which is why a lot of people chose to supplement it through private insurance companies. The health insurance our military gets is not a whole lot different than a lot plans provided by other employers in the private sector. It still goes through private insurance companies, with the employer (government in this case) paying for 75% of the premiums and the employee picking up the remaining 25%.
You're taking middle man too literal(ly?). I just mean THAT particular middle man that has to make a certain amount of profit. Also you're determining how great or not it would be based on what we and others already have in place. As I mentioned before, it doesn't have to be 100% patterned after something we already know.
As long as a patient is responsible for any portion of the bill there is always going to be an incentive for pooling of risks, creating a market for insurance, and a justification for why insurance companies exist...There is also no real way to attribute those costs to individuals, which isn't true with healthcare. Again, when there is cost to the individual there is going to be market for insurance.
Again, your assuming it has to exist in some way like its current incarnation. You're at a greater risk of needing the police in a bad neighborhood, yet what you pay in taxes is not based on risk factors but on your salary, no matter where you live. Make that the same for healthcare. If you do want to factor in individual risk though, tax the smoker instead of the cigarettes which currently only pushes people to buy them off the street illegally.
When comparing healthcare to cops and law enforcement, there are some key differences. For starters, law enforcement is funded by the local and state governments, not the federal government.
It's not a "key" factor because I don't care if it's state or federal. If it works better locally, do it locally. If it works better federally, do it that way. Whatever works best IS best.
Also, it is not like that person screaming for a doctor isn't going to get help. Hospitals are already obligated by law to see patients regardless of their ability to pay.
That's my entire point. They have the same type of job as a cop. There's no such thing as an off-duty police officer and the same goes for doctors. You have to look at healthcare workers the same way you look at cops. They need to be in place no matter what and therefore should not be connected to a for-profit business.
-
The US. Government is nearly $16 trillion in debt, more than any country in the world. What I am not assuming is that that same government is going to come up with some magical cure when history tells me otherwise. But even if you want to pay for it through taxes, gross income tax collections in 2010 were around $1.45 trillion, while overall healthcare expenditures were around $2.4 trillion. You’re talking about almost tripling taxes.
-
Not really. You're already paying for healthcare. The only thing that changes is who you're paying it to. So the name changes on your paystub but what you're paying doesn't. In fact, you may pay less because the government doesn't need to profit from it in the same way insurance companies do. Also, get rid of the Bush tax cuts for everyone which, according to the CBO, is the biggest contributor to our deficit, and we can go back to those horrible Clinton years when we had a surplus. Get rid of loopholes as well so everyone is actually paying what they're supposed to and we wouldn't constantly be falling short.
Easier said than done, but I'm talking about what I think should be done, not what anyone will actually do. Whether or not it would work, I don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be here trying to make money off of posting in forums.
-
I'm not paying $8K a year for my healthcare, which would be my theoretical tax increase if you were to triple it. That would actually be about an 800% increase for me personally. I'd say that is a little more than just switching who I am writing the check to. Sure, the government doesn't need to profit, but you can't ignore the obvious increases either. Those expenditures were when individuals were responsible for paying, but if the government is paying the tab, there's going to be a few more visits to the doctor and a lot less of putting off medical procedures. I know I would be making a few more visits for every little cold.
-
Some of the provisions have already kicked in, such as extending coverage to kids up to 26 years old instead of 21. The costs have been passed to us, of course. They explained it to us at the place wehre I work, but I don't remember exactly which parts have kicked in, and what the rise in costs are.
I'm aware that some of the provisions have kicked in that's why I said the FULL law doesn't kick in until 2014 (I believe). My question still stands though. Healthcare costs always rise. What part is Obamacare (if any part) and what part is the normal rise in healthcare (if any part) and/or what part is the insurance companies cranking up costs out of fear of the evils of Obamacare? Also, some say they have seen a rise while others say they haven't.
Regardless though, I do believe costs will go up for everyone when the full law kicks in. But the point of the law was NOT that costs would get lower than they are now or would never rise when it was in effect. The problem is that people place that idea on the law and complain that it's not living (or won't live) up to something it was never supposed to be. The point of it, whether there's an initial spike or not, was to hopefully level it off there (or at least slow it down significantly) as opposed to the constant increases we'd see without the law (I'm not arguing whether or not it would work, just pointing out what it's supposed to be).
So complaining about the cost of it right now is like complaining about the upfront cost of a hybrid car. That's just completely missing the point.
Social security is also unconstitutional, but it is so established and so many people have a stake in it that it would be impossible and impractical to get rid of it now. Just because we have made concessions and given up some freedom doesn't mean that we should give them all up.
My point is, there's a precedent that can be argued.
I hate when people bring up "freedom" because they have this idealistic view of it and not a realistic one. The reality is that we give up freedom all the time and we're absolutely fine with it. We can't live in a civilized society without doing so. Most people are ignorant to this fact, so the freedoms they do give up are not viewed as freedoms at all. Them being ignorant as to what freedom is doesn't change the facts about it.
The conservative view is that social security is just the government telling us we can't take care of ourselves.... well, it was proven that we couldn't. It wasn't just some power grab by the government that came out of the blue. In the 1930's the poverty rate among the eldery was over 50% and now is around 10%. When we left it to ourselves we ended up tripping over old people in the street. When we handed it over to the government, we just visit granny in Florida now.
With that said though, I see no problem with at least looking into privatizing social security. I hate that people get demonized for even bringing it up. We know it works and it should exist in some form. I don't really see the reason for the government running it anymore though.
The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.
You missed my point. From now until the end of time we're going to be paying for other people's healthcare because of the nature of what healthcare workers do. NOTHING will change this. Currently, the bulk of it is shouldered by those of us who pay for health insurance and pay taxes. There are those capable of paying for insurance and just don't. I said Obamacare takes this into account by increasing the amount of people paying into it. It spreads the burden (which will always be there) out, it doesn't relieve us of it. It is ALL of our responsibility because we all utilize this system at some point in time.
The guy with the hatchet wound, if he wasn't capable of paying, yes would probably be covered by medicaid. If, however, he was capable of paying, under Obamacare he would be paying ahead of time which would have money flowing through the system prior to his injury instead of having to chase him down to pay one bill.
So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.
-
So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.
You clearly just quoted what I wrote but it's not possible that you actually read it and comprehended it because you wouldn't be asking these questions that were already addressed. You also clearly didn't understand what I was saying about freedom either. Actually read the full back and forth between me and hawkeye3210 then get back to me. Thanks. :wave:
-
If it isn't defeated, it will definitely be the end of the US as we remembered it. Put aside the debate about how costs/administration of the program will effect the individual or the economy... all that is secondary to the fact that this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.
If this is allowed to stand and the individual mandate becomes law, what is the next thing that we will be required to buy? The US Constitution is so abundantly clear on this issue. If the Supreme Court rules for this terrible law, then we are lost as a free people and the government will be our masters.
-
I hope it don't pass
-
If it isn't defeated, it will definitely be the end of the US as we remembered it. Put aside the debate about how costs/administration of the program will effect the individual or the economy... all that is secondary to the fact that this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.
If this is allowed to stand and the individual mandate becomes law, what is the next thing that we will be required to buy? The US Constitution is so abundantly clear on this issue. If the Supreme Court rules for this terrible law, then we are lost as a free people and the government will be our masters.
::) You pay for social security, you pay for medicare, you pay for your local police, you pay for the military, etc..., etc. The only difference is those are called taxes and this is called a mandate. If they removed the age requirement from medicare, this would just be called medicare for all. If they didn't call it a mandate and just called it a tax, it would just be a new tax. Just stop it with the overboard nonsense.
-
Well, they upheld the law. The individual mandate was upheld. Chief Justice Roberts was the difference.
-
this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.
Not true. It's not a condition of breathing. It's a condition of working/earning. If you are indigent, the gov't can't make you work. You have the choice to not earn money. I understand that you took your marching orders from fox news and this is "your" rebuttal to the car insurance argument. However, if you make the CHOICE to earn a living, you have to pay for health care. NEXT?
-
I just can't believe the supreme court upheld it today. They said that congress could'nt impose fined for not buying insurance so they're calling it a tax now. I really don't see any difference. It's still a penalty no matter what you call it.
-
I just can't believe the supreme court upheld it today. They said that congress could'nt impose fined for not buying insurance so they're calling it a tax now. I really don't see any difference. It's still a penalty no matter what you call it.
You can be "fined" with no income. Example; you are unemployed and get a speeding ticket.
You cannot be taxed with no income. Now you may see the difference.
-
This is great for people (like me) that have a pre-existing condition. Granted, now I have a job with good insurance, but before I got denied time after time because of my MS. FRUSTRATING.
-
I don't know what they are proposing, but I think everyone in our country should have Medical Insurance. I think we should all just pay a percentage of our income into it and we should all have the same coverage.
-
By law, a hospital cannot turn anyone away who needs medical attention; they have to treat them. And, we are all paying for that already thru inflated prices on everything we have done thru a dr's office or a hospital visit. $5.00 for a tylenol is a good example. Obamacare is a big joke and I can't believe the Supreme Court upheld it; it is unconstitutional regardless of whether judge Roberts calls it a tax or not! Obama said he would not raise taxes to pay for this; that anyone making under $250,000 a year would not see a tax increase, but who is going to pay for it?? You and me, that's who. I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I can't afford to pay for anyone's healthcare but my own and I can barely afford that. I have no insurance because my Cobra ran out and no other ins. co would take me because of preexisting but I would not expect anyone else to pay for my healthcare. When I have to go to dr. or need meds I pay for it or I don't get it. Anyway, I got extremely mad when I heard it had been upheld and good for the states that are not going to put it into effect.
-
obviously the rich and those that get it on their jobs dont want it.I happen to be in the middle.I make too much to get Medicaid and not enuff to buy health ins so im glad it got passed.We will see what develops.
Thanx Anthony
-
By law, a hospital cannot turn anyone away who needs medical attention; they have to treat them.
That's the entire point. From now until the end of time, doctors take care of people whether or not they can pay the same way police help people whether or not they pay taxes. It's the nature of their job. It can't be any other way. Because we all utilize their services, we all have to pay.
Obamacare is a big joke and I can't believe the Supreme Court upheld it; it is unconstitutional regardless of whether judge Roberts calls it a tax or not! Obama said he would not raise taxes to pay for this; that anyone making under $250,000 a year would not see a tax increase, but who is going to pay for it?? You and me, that's who.
::) -sigh- You're already paying for "other people's healthcare" because of the statement above. From now until the end of time. That's not going to change. That didn't all of a sudden become the case because of "Obamacare". You being ignorant of what that means doesn't change the facts about it.
I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I can't afford to pay for anyone's healthcare but my own and I can barely afford that. I have no insurance because my Cobra ran out and no other ins. co would take me because of preexisting but I would not expect anyone else to pay for my healthcare.
::) --double sigh-- If you've ever had insurance, that's what you've been doing the whole time you've had it: paying for others. So yes, you can afford it even if barely. This law makes it so those that haven't been paying, pay so those with insurance no longer are the only ones paying into the system and carrying the load. It's a simple concept. If you're currently paying for insurance, you're in compliance with the law. There's no added penalty. If you're not paying for insurance, you have to because, again, what was mentioned above about the nature of a doctors job. Also, this law would prevent you from binge refused care with your pre-existing condition. So your whole rant is bass aackwards.
People arguing against their own interests...unbelievable :BangHead:
-
Our family falls in the cracks of healthcare. He does not get it on the job and I am a student and we make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It would be nice to have options.
we are in the same boat ,, we cant afford insurance on our own so we dont have any right now and dont qualify for state assisted health care , because we make to much money...go figure it sucks >:(
So you'll be one of the ones that gets fined!
-
So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.
You clearly just quoted what I wrote but it's not possible that you actually read it and comprehended it because you wouldn't be asking these questions that were already addressed. You also clearly didn't understand what I was saying about freedom either. Actually read the full back and forth between me and hawkeye3210 then get back to me. Thanks. :wave:
Yes, I did read it all, and my question is relevant. I wasn't talking about your suggestions for a totally new system, but about your defense of Obamacare.
By the way, if I choose not to buy "approved" health insurance (or can't afford it), and so have to pay the fines or "extra taxes", it still doesn't give me health insurance. I'll still have to pay any healthcare bills myself, or dump the costs on the system. So this mandate still desn't provide health insurance for many of the people who are currently uninsured, and doesn't solve the cost problems.
In fact, Obama never really intended his health care bill to provide insurance for all (or even most) Americans. He knows that most of the people who don't have it now can't afford it, because it is not provided by their employers (such as farmers and small businesses). So he is counting on the penalties as a source of revenue for his oversized government. That is a big reason why the individual mandate is so important to him (the other reason, of course, being control). Actually this was an underhanded way for him to go against another one of his campaign promises - not to raise taxes on the middle class. The Democrats are always accusing the Republicans of cutting taxes for the rich and putting the burden on the middle class and the "poor." But who will be paying the fines (which the Supreme Court has pointed out, is really a TAX)? Certainly not the rich, who can afford premium insurance. It'll will be the middle class, people with small businesses, young people just starting out, families who make too much to qualify for medicaid, but not enough to afford to buy their own health insurance if it's not provided for by their employers. In other words, the people who already pay most of the taxes, the ones who actually work for a living and try to support themselves without handouts. So forget about Bush's tax cuts, and start worrying about Obama's tax increases, because that's what really affects ordinary Americans!
In case your wondering, I am not a Republican. In fact, I dislike Romney almost as much as Obama, and Bush wasn't any better. The Republicans had plenty of time to fix healthcare when they were in power, but they didn't because the big money from the insurance companies and the drug companies control both parties. But I can't stand the dirty tactics the Democrats use, to try to cover up for their policies that hurt Americans so much. We really need a third party in this country, an American party.
-
i wished the obamacare bill wasnt passed . We will have to see how this will affect everyone especially the uninsurable.
-
i wished the obamacare bill wasnt passed . We will have to see how this will affect everyone especially the uninsurable.
Why do you wish it wasn't passed?
-
:wave: i think if we let government mandate health insurance what will be next? america is supposed to be the land of freedom of choice, well if our choice on health care is taken away i just feel it will be just the start of more choices being take away. i think if the health care is left as is and obama is re-elected it will lead to more and more mandates. the next thing you know we are no longer u.s.a. but the new u.s.s.r. i think obama will try more government regulations on business and industry. the next thing you have is a socialist-communist state instead of free marketand free choice that has been the back bone of our great country. the old saying you give and inch they take a mile next thing you know less and less choices and more and more goverment. revoke health-care mandate and elect any one besides obama to another term
I'm not getting it no matter what they say.
Next you know, will be forced vaccinations and other shots, or drugs that they may deem necessary. No friggin' way!
The fact that we live holistically and organic, is enough for us. We do not take pHARMaceuticals of any kind for any reason and we're not about to now. We only use chiropractors, massage therapists, acupuncturists, or NDs (natural doctors). And we pay cash for those services and are done with it.
We have Medicare for accidental and hospital, but that's it.
-
I also agree with most of you guys!!! Its such a sensitive topic for so many people who have to worry everyday and night about there health bills!!
-
So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.
You clearly just quoted what I wrote but it's not possible that you actually read it and comprehended it because you wouldn't be asking these questions that were already addressed. You also clearly didn't understand what I was saying about freedom either. Actually read the full back and forth between me and hawkeye3210 then get back to me. Thanks. :wave:
Yes, I did read it all, and my question is relevant...
Not possible. If you did, you wouldn't have asked the question you asked because it was addressed in the second paragraph I wrote which you quoted. You may have looked at it, and you certainly quoted it, but it's not possible that you actually read it.
By the way, if I choose not to buy "approved" health insurance (or can't afford it), and so have to pay the fines or "extra taxes", it still doesn't give me health insurance. I'll still have to pay any healthcare bills myself, or dump the costs on the system. So this mandate still desn't provide health insurance for many of the people who are currently uninsured, and doesn't solve the cost problems.
If you choose not to buy insurance, how is that a failure of Obamacare to provide healthcare for many? If you're given the option but you chose not to purchase insurance, how is that anyone's fault/problem but your own? If you can't afford it, that's what medicaid is for.
In fact, Obama never really intended his health care bill to provide insurance for all (or even most) Americans. He knows that most of the people who don't have it now can't afford it, because it is not provided by their employers (such as farmers and small businesses). So he is counting on the penalties as a source of revenue for his oversized government. That is a big reason why the individual mandate is so important to him (the other reason, of course, being control).
He tried to expand medicaid for this reason but hey, if conspiracies work for you... :dontknow: They're useless to me though.
Conspiracy Theories: When the nuances of reality are too hard to understand, just make some s.hit up :thumbsup:
Actually this was an underhanded way for him to go against another one of his campaign promises - not to raise taxes on the middle class.
Yes, that's what he wanted to do 'cause that'll surely get him votes ::) . He actually knew it would be interpreted as a tax because it was a plan hatched when Justice Roberts swore him in. He picked Roberts 'cause he knew no one would suspect him. Brilliant plan! :sad1:
The Democrats are always accusing the Republicans of cutting taxes for the rich and putting the burden on the middle class and the "poor." But who will be paying the fines (which the Supreme Court has pointed out, is really a TAX)? Certainly not the rich, who can afford premium insurance. It'll will be the middle class, people with small businesses, young people just starting out, families who make too much to qualify for medicaid, but not enough to afford to buy their own health insurance if it's not provided for by their employers. In other words, the people who already pay most of the taxes, the ones who actually work for a living and try to support themselves without handouts. So forget about Bush's tax cuts, and start worrying about Obama's tax increases, because that's what really affects ordinary Americans!
It's not an added tax. If you have insurance, you're in compliance with the law. So you're not paying the tax on top of having insurance. Your insurance is the tax. Young people stay on their parents insurance until 26. He tried to expand medicaid to deal with many who currently fall through the cracks but that got shot down... kinda. States can either go along with the expansion or not. Regardless though, the new law is not the reason some fall through the cracks which you seem to be insinuating. They've always fallen through the cracks. Anytime you try to deal with a complicated issue, you have holes you just can't plug. That's just one of them.
-
Lol, someone said "Whats next, forced vaccinations?"
Yes. Like when you register for this thing called schoolin'. Its at the fancy window building.
-
I'm actually suprised Roberts voted the way he did. The ACA is a baby step towards a single-payer system, which would be a Very Good thing.
-
And in spite of forcing you to pay for this insurance, health care prices are skyrocketing! Crazy! Can't afford to pay attention these days!
-
While for years the health care companys have gotten rich and we complain about someone who wants to have a health care law to force healh care companys to come done on there prices what harm does that do ...for many years health care costs have been raised and we complain. Before my dad died i seen so much cost for this and that and One we need to know is the doctors get paid for each thing they recommend that a person should have. They get a cut for every thing they get the from each and every procedure or medicine or experiment or trial they do. It is a chain link with healthcare and the one who hurts in pocket is the people. So yes we need a law and is this one good who knows but at lleast Obama did more than any other President did and was put something on table that was passed..One Doctor said why are we treating this man he gonna die anyway. I was floored when he said that about my dad. Doctors now days arent in it to preserve life they are in it to get paid on a livng person thats gonna live longer and they can keep billing for things that may or may not be wrong with them. Wonder why some go Postal in this world. HMMMM
-
There are some parts I like and others I dont. My family has a unique situation for medical care and we make too much to qualify for medicare/medicaid. So this really sucks.