Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Additionally, the ACA has had significant impact on the health care premiums and deductibles for those that already had health care prior to the ACA. It's costing lots of (mostly middle class) people lots of money in lots of different ways. Anecdotally, we give significantly less to the charities we used to because our deductibles, on average, have gone up between 150%-220% in the last three years, and in some specific cases (childbirth) even more.

And tangetially related, we have employers who "happened" to realize that health care for full time people was expensive, so they cut the majority of them (yeah yeah, correlation =/= causation) down to part timers, so then even fewer people were on "decent" health care plans.

Dude... that's old news and primarily in effect in the service industries.

Hence the term, part-time economy.

 jasper76 wrote:

 riverhawks32 wrote:
I would be much more receptive to Republican healthcare platforms if they realized that we've had this law for 3 years and reforming/changing it would be more cost effective than trashing it and completely building another law. Who doesn't agree that healthcare should be available/affordable for all? Let's take this opportunity given by the SCOTUS and fix the system to more cost effectively reach its intended effect.. Just my 0.02$

The GOP has been proving since the 90s that they have no healthcare platform, and were content with the system in place before the ACA. Pursuing the repeal of the ACA is not much of a platform, unless they come up with an alternative.

Hopefully they will soon retreat from their Quixotic quest to repeal the law, and as you say, get to work on refining it.

No, like any political party, they will continue to do whatever gets people to vote for them every two years. If you want any of the parties to actually grow a pair and do what is best for the nation rather than worry about their own reelections, then you need enough intelligent and informed voters who realize that politicians actually do have to make unpopular choices in order to improve the nation as a whole, and those voters should be intelligent enough to understand that and to actually vote for people who will make those hard choices at the risk of losing the next election. Instead, the vast number of stupid voters continue to vote for whoever panders to them with the most attacks ads that feed to their paranoia, so we get useless politicians that continue to run on a platform that boils down to "It's the other guy's fault your life sucks, not mine, nanananabooboo."

They had a chance to work with the Clintons in the 90s to help cover the millions of uninsured, and they said no.

They had a chance to work with Obama on a single payer system to help cover the millions of uninsured, and they said no.

They had a chance to work with Obama on the corporate welfare law we have now, and they said no.

They have no plan to help cover the millions of uninsured, and since they have no plan, I can only assume its because they just don't care about the issue.

I've actually been laughing to myself at all the responses from the candidates. To a man, all of them say they are dissappointed with the SCOTUS decision, and have a plan, or will come up with one, to replace the ACA. So...what is the magic bullet they've been hiding all these years?

Keep in mind that the employer mandate + Cadillac Tax won't kick in till 2016. Those are the big whammies of the PPACA.

Also, there are two other major PPACA cases still pending before the SC. But, none of those are as strong as King's case, so you shouldn't kid yourself that the SC would rule against the government.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Why do people hate paying for health care to help out other people. It is kinda like give 5% your income so you can help a sick person and they can help you when you get sick.

I find alot of people who hate this type of things tend to not have alot of sick people in their life or have alot of money to burn.

Despite some social programs, we live in a society with a very strong current of "every man for himself", where many view susbidies for the poor as theft from themselves, or as they say in te talking head shows these days, "wealth transference".

As we can see from history, simply spreading wealth around just makes most people worse off to elevate a very small portion of the population.

Citation very much needed on that. "Let them eat cake" isn't (falsely, but still) attributed to someone in a nation where the divide between poor and rich was small, after all.

Cool. This ruling saves a whole lot of political mess and makes sure that millions of people can continue to afford their coverage.

I can’t help myself but put in a big I-told-you-so, though. Not on the ruling itself, where I said I had little constitutional law knowledge and would simply be guessing on the outcome, but on the structure of the ACA. It was claimed that the lawmakers had intended for the subsidies to only apply to state exchanges, and I said that was nonsense. Nice to see the opinion come down and emphatically support what I said;
“Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.”

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As we can see from history, simply spreading wealth around just makes most people worse off to elevate a very small portion of the population.

What? Where do you even get that from?

Thats not to say we shouldn't have some programs. They do help to a point, and that point is very limited. Mandating everyone have health insurance actually hurts the people its trying to protect, as they are the ones who will be in violation of the law. And the people who can afford health care will either have insurance or should have the freedom to choose not to.

And here we go again. Before ACA the primary cause of bankruptcy in the US was medical costs. This happened in part because people lost had claims denied due to ‘pre-existing conditions’. Under ACA insurance companies can no longer deny people with pre-existing conditions, but that opens up an issue of people simply waiting until they’re sick before they get insurance. The fix for that is individual mandates – requiring people to get insurance so there’s always a pool of healthy people paying in to cover anyone who might get sick. This opens up the issue of high costs for low income families, as you mention, but the range of subsidies and expanded Medicaid more than offset that.

This bill was passed more than five years ago. That I am still having to explain it’s basic structure today is incredible.

On top of this law just making an already expensive system much much more expensive.

ACA actually has a wide range of cost reduction measures, and is expected to reduce long term health costs considerably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
For my part, this whole law stinks of corruption from the insurance lobby. The medical insurance industry as such should become extinct, and we should follow the lead of the civilized world and come up with a single payer system.

The insurance companies fought this bill tooth and nail. The banning of pre-existing condition denials and cap on insurance company profitability are massive hits on the profitability of insurance companies.

Pharmaceutical companies did well out of ACA, on the other hand. Just as a tip for future, if you want to figure out who's doing well out of a bill and who's doing badly, just look at who's lobbyists worked with drafting it (big pharma) and who’s lobbyists fought the bill (insurance).

 whembly wrote:
Also, keep in mind, Health Insurance Mandates is not Healthcare. It's a form of corporate welfare.

I just explained this to you in the other thread, you even acknowledged it was simple and how government should have explained it. And then here you are pretending you don’t understand it again.

 CptJake wrote:
Are you not confident in your ability to figure out how to best allocate that money to help those you feel are in need? Or are you of the opinion the gov't can best decide that for you? If you are, are you happy with how efficiently they do so?

No, I just have enough of an understanding of economics to know that individual choice is very powerful and well suited to most situations, but there still remain plenty of places where government structures and systems produce better results.

It would, for instance, be incredibly idiotic to insist that national defence should rely on voluntary donations and bake sales.

If you don’t understand how individual choice fails in this instance, then go read my summary of pre-existing conditions and the individual mandate written above.

 whembly wrote:
We don't live in the United States of American anymore.

The Scotus just ruled that states=federal, because ruling otherwise may set ACA on a death-spiral.

No, they just ruled that it was a goof, one of several across the ACA legislation. And that where the intent of the law is undermined by a goof, they’re going to side with the intent of the law.

It is RAI, not RAW.

 cincydooley wrote:
The ACA not only forces (by law) young, healthy people to get health care coverage they don't need (there's no Progressive plan), but is dependent upon it to cover high cost customers (the old, the already sick, the morbidly obese) because the risk pools for health care have been essentially eliminated with the ACA.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. ACA has increased charges for age and smoking. The premium for smoking is allowed to be up to 50%. What’s changed is that the price increase for age is capped, not removed entirely.

Anecdotally, we give significantly less to the charities we used to because our deductibles, on average, have gone up between 150%-220% in the last three years, and in some specific cases (childbirth) even more.

Actually, the median increase over the ACA period is about 4 to 6%. You’re falling for the scam run every year where a couple of the highest price hikes are reported, without any mention of the overall market movement.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Question... not really relevant to the topic at hand but, have there ever been a SCOTUS heard case that was ever unanimously decided?

Of course and recently too!
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/27/supremes-smack-down-obama-administration-9-0-for-13th-time-since-2012/

This is the absolute stupidest horsegak I've read in some time. There is nothing more annoying that seeing smart people embrace stupid ideas because it lets them "claim a win" for their "team". Your article is bad and you should feel bad for posting it.

Pro-tip: when you're parroting back lines professional simpleton Ted Cruz uttered, you should be wondering if you are publically embarrassing yourself.


I'm done with this sewer of feigned idiocy.

 sebster wrote:
I just explained this to you in the other thread, you even acknowledged it was simple and how government should have explained it. And then here you are pretending you don’t understand it again.

"And that's the OT".

I don't care what the median increase is. I'm telling you what my personal increases are.

Prior to the ACA our prescriptions were a flat 5/10/15. They're now $25.

Our deductible went from a flat $500 per procedure to $2500. Etc.

So again, don't care about the median, never pretended to, and never presented my anecdote --which I did state-- as such.

@ Whembly would you not agree that the ACA is a foot in the door for single payer (I thought that was one of the complaints of conservatives)?

Additionally, nothing I said about the risk pools is untrue. The fact that the age based multipliers are capped does in fact mean that for every old or already sick person, a young healthy person is required to subsidize their costs.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
SCOTUS rightfully sidestepped this. Read between the lines of Robert's opinion-this is a political issue and SCOTUS doesn't do political issues. If the Republicans want to overturn this they have to get off their butts and actually overturn it. hah hah no safety for you!

That's my read too...

I kinda expected this to happen (although, as a 5-4 decision, not as 6-3).

Even if this weren't a political ploy, Roberts would have ruled the same way. It's consistent with the way he interpreted it to make it a tax when it wasn't.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
SCOTUS rightfully sidestepped this. Read between the lines of Robert's opinion-this is a political issue and SCOTUS doesn't do political issues. If the Republicans want to overturn this they have to get off their butts and actually overturn it. hah hah no safety for you!

That's my read too...

I kinda expected this to happen (although, as a 5-4 decision, not as 6-3).

Even if this weren't a political ploy, Roberts would have ruled the same way. It's consistent with the way he interpreted it to make it a tax when it wasn't.

Yeah, Kennedy's decision is the one I'm looking into to read the tea leaves.

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't care what the median increase is. I'm telling you what my personal increases are.

In that you are one person, and therefore a lot smaller than a country, I don't think it should take you too long to figure out why your personal anecdote means very little when discussing a national issue.

Additionally, nothing I said about the risk pools is untrue. The fact that the age based multipliers are capped does in fact mean that for every old or already sick person, a young healthy person is required to subsidize their costs.

You said the risk pools had been essentially eliminated. That's wrong. False. A statement from a person who doesn't know how ACA actually works.

I mean fething hell, this has been in place for five years now. We've had dozens of threads on the issue, in which all of this stuff has been explained time and again. How do people still not understand how this works?

My biggest complaint about Obama care and well fare in general is their isn't enough oversight on who is getting what. My sister in law is an economic drain on our country, she has seven children she can not support on her own, her husband doesn't work and she relies on the incomes from her two oldest children who are both military. Her last six children who lived all have mental health issues and her last daughter was so premature that she had to stay in the hospital for 3 months. IF she had been forced to pay out of pocket for all the health care she and her children had to have then she probably would have stopped having children awhile ago. instead the US economy is paying for her to continue her lifestyle.

OFFS!

Damn.....

My only complaint about the ACA is that is seems to make doctors just as stupid as the common population.

In California, they had an EXCELLENT Healthcare system prior to the ACA.

MANY doctors accepted patients on Medi-Cal (which transitioned over to County Plans around 2006).

But come 2011, Doctors started dumping people on the State and County plans because they were "Obamacare."

Leaving the County Clinics overcrowded.

Otherwise, statistically, it seems to be working out.

And, it really is a giant giveaway to the Insurance Companies, just like the Heritage Foundation planned it to be.


MB

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Question... not really relevant to the topic at hand but, have there ever been a SCOTUS heard case that was ever unanimously decided?

Of course and recently too!
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/27/supremes-smack-down-obama-administration-9-0-for-13th-time-since-2012/

This is the absolute stupidest horsegak I've read in some time. There is nothing more annoying that seeing smart people embrace stupid ideas because it lets them "claim a win" for their "team". Your article is bad and you should feel bad for posting it.

First of all... welcome back.

Second of all... O.o you mad bro?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@ Whembly would you not agree that the ACA is a foot in the door for single payer (I thought that was one of the complaints of conservatives)?

Yes.

The ACA is fraught with major problems, and even *if* Congress get their ass together to try to fix it... its still probably be a disaster. Such that, we'd all be more receptive to Medicare Expansion. (which is the only way to get single-payer imo)

 CptJake wrote:


When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Actually, the better option would be to compare it to renters/homeowners insurance.... If you live somewhere, you pay for insurance.

If you're military and live in the barracks, you don't have to pay insurance on the "house" because the employer is essentially paying for it. This would be very similar to the employer paying for health insurance as well.

Obviously, in this case, the larger and bigger the house, the more you pay, the same as, the larger your waistline or the bigger your health issues, the more you pay.



It's funny, I was just talking to my neighbors last night, hanging out with them, and she works at a local medical clinic... Well, she was commenting that the "bosses" were complaining about a spike in all things bad (more cases of chronic disease/illness, more cases of obesity, more heart problems, more more more... etc.), she's been trying to explain to them that if they look at the number of brand new patients and the number of ACA subsidiary patients, they will get their answer: The majority of the brand new patients are the type who haven't seen a doctor in 20 years, and they haven't seen a doctor because they don't really take care of themselves in the first place.


And actually, those "catastrophic" health plans you refer to, are definitely still available, those were my bread and butter when I was working in insurance. Everyone knows about Aflac, what they do and the commercials, but people don't really understand the value in them because they don't fully understand how they work.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Also, keep in mind, Health Insurance Mandates is not Healthcare. It's a form of corporate welfare.

I just explained this to you in the other thread, you even acknowledged it was simple and how government should have explained it. And then here you are pretending you don’t understand it again.

Okay...please clarify because how is this in any way incorrect? It's an extremely important distinction that gets lost in these discussions.

Health Insurance <> HealthCare

As to corporate welfare (hyperbolic yes)... just look at the Health Insurance industry's stock market post ruling.

 whembly wrote:
We don't live in the United States of American anymore.

The Scotus just ruled that states=federal, because ruling otherwise may set ACA on a death-spiral.

No, they just ruled that it was a goof, one of several across the ACA legislation. And that where the intent of the law is undermined by a goof, they’re going to side with the intent of the law.

It is RAI, not RAW.

It's still wrong and starts danger precedent.

It ought to be RAW... otherwise, this is no Rule of Law.

From this point forward, we need to look at this ruling as an EXCEPTION, rather than a RULE.

 sebster wrote:


You said the risk pools had been essentially eliminated. That's wrong. False. A statement from a person who doesn't know how ACA actually works.

It really isn't.

Reducing the risk pool payments as drastically as they have (5-1 to 7-1 adjustments based on age, moreso for pre-existing conditions as MANY WOULDN'T INSURE THEM AT ALL) effectively eliminates them and places a higher burden on the young and healthy to even further subsidize the old and and already sick.

They still exist, but the fact that previously uninsurable people (due to their cost of treatment) are now included and the capping of age adjustments at 3-1 means that the 'risk pools' are essentially worthless.

The larger issue is that the Judicial branch of the government continues to re-write legislation.....

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We don't live in the United States of American anymore.

The Scotus just ruled that states=federal, because ruling otherwise may set ACA on a death-spiral.

No, they just ruled that it was a goof, one of several across the ACA legislation. And that where the intent of the law is undermined by a goof, they’re going to side with the intent of the law.

It is RAI, not RAW.

It's still wrong and starts danger precedent.

It ought to be RAW... otherwise, this is no Rule of Law.

From this point forward, we need to look at this ruling as an EXCEPTION, rather than a RULE.

I actually agree with Whembly here.... The language of the ACA is specific, and as such should be viewed in that light.

There's a reason why the 1st amendment says "freedom of the press" and not "freedom of the newspapers" or the 2nd reads "the right to bear arms" instead of "the right to own guns" Those are general terms, not specific. In American politics, the only times we use "The State" to mean the federal government, is when we're dealing with international issues; if the issue is domestic, the term the State refers to one or more of the 50 states of the union.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Actually, the better option would be to compare it to renters/homeowners insurance.... If you live somewhere, you pay for insurance.

If you're military and live in the barracks, you don't have to pay insurance on the "house" because the employer is essentially paying for it. This would be very similar to the employer paying for health insurance as well.

Obviously, in this case, the larger and bigger the house, the more you pay, the same as, the larger your waistline or the bigger your health issues, the more you pay.

You only need home insurance (it is mandatory) when you have a mortgage. The bank forces you to insure their investment as part of the deal to loan you money. Once it is paid off, you don't have to have the insurance.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

The difference in this scenario is that the car insurance you use is paid for BY YOU THE OWNER OF THE CAR! and furthermore you can choose which company you wish to use and how much coverage you would like. In Obamacare the problem encountered is that most Americans get health insurance who couldn't afford it before, but instead of that person paying for it themselves, those of us who could afford health insurance before Obamacare are now forced to pay for them. This is another system of Socialism that allows the poor to benefit from the middle and upper class.

Obamacare doesn't effect me thankfully because I still have TRICARE, the worst Health Insurance in the world. Would you like to know why it is the worst health insurance in the world? Because its run by the US Government and can't figure out how the FETH to do anything right.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
[This is another system of Socialism that allows the poor to benefit from the middle and upper class.

Yes, the lower classes are "benefiting" through the ability of those who don't need subsidies to help offset the cost of premiums. Do you really know the threshold for how much you have to make per year, before the government says, "no, you make too much money to be granted a subsidy"??

It's upwards of 150k per year. My co-worker pretty much always gave the worksheet that exempted people from the tax penalties for not having health insurance to every client. Basically, the form was there for you to tell the government "I am poor, and I cannot afford health insurance even with your 400/mo. subsidy, so therefore I don't have the required insurance" and the govt would review and grant or deny your request to not pay the tax penalties.... In all but one case, the people who filed that form, didn't have to pay the penalty.

The only guy who didn't get approved? Well, he's in the process of downsizing his business operations. When I left the company, he owned 8 Subway franchises, a couple car washes, a real estate branch office... You kinda get the idea. He was obviously taking in a lot of money each year




But really... it's not a "system of Socialism" because you DO have a choice. Here in Washington State, it's 3 or 4 health insurance companies that offer "ACA approved" coverage. If you really want to label it, it's Crony Capitalism at its finest.

My only issue with any AcA plan is that they stop covering you after a certain dollar amount meaning I'm still going bankrupt and paying premiums for no coverage at all. Or just having no health care at all and never getting a tax refund again.

They're terrible, coverage is low, deductibles are massive, premiums go up every six months, I'm only middle poor so I get no tax rebates and nothing for free.

So I'm guessing they'll just take my tax return while I go fill out my do not revive paperwork so they can just suck it if they think ill pay them anything for saving my life to leave me hundreds of thousands in the hole.

ACA is absolutely the worst thing to happen to anyone but the extreme destitute or the already don't need it rich.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Where your analogy fails is, everyone is alive, everyone will be in a hospital at some point. You don't have to ever own a car, you don't have to ever own a home, but but sooner or later you're going to get sick and you're going to die. Don't forget your routine checkups though, hopefully everyone chooses to go to the doctor to screen for problems before they happen, when they're cheaper to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghazkuul wrote:


Obamacare doesn't effect me thankfully because I still have TRICARE, the worst Health Insurance in the world. Would you like to know why it is the worst health insurance in the world? Because its run by the US Government and can't figure out how the FETH to do anything right.

They've done great by me and my kids. my boy got sick in canada, spent 2 days in the hospital, Tricare said we got this and paid for everything.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Where your analogy fails is, everyone is alive, everyone will be in a hospital at some point. You don't have to ever own a car, you don't have to ever own a home, but but sooner or later you're going to get sick and you're going to die. Don't forget your routine checkups though, hopefully everyone chooses to go to the doctor to screen for problems before they happen, when they're cheaper to deal with.

Yep, you got me. Everyone will indeed die. I am not sure how that effects the equation, death has plagued us since we existed.

And it wasn't my analogy, I too pointed out faults in it.

I guess, since you are comfortable with forcing everyone to carry insurance you will likely be comfortable with forcing them to go to those check ups and screenings. Heck, we'll all have a vested interest in it as it will help keep all our costs down, so may as well use the threat of incarceration or fines to help enforce it. Probably ought to also start to add in that folks who have certain habits ought to be fined or incarcerated too. Smoking is a Bad Thing, as is drinking alcohol,eating snack cakes, and we all know hobbies like scuba diving and sky diving or riding motorcycles greatly increase risk, so may as well use the gov't to limit them as well.

Yeah, my examples are getting silly. But hell, as long as we are gonna believe gov't coercion is the best way to handle the issue, we may as well go all out, right?

Mr.Church13 wrote:
My only issue with any AcA plan is that they stop covering you after a certain dollar amount meaning I'm still going bankrupt and paying premiums for no coverage at all. Or just having no health care at all and never getting a tax refund again.

They're terrible, coverage is low, deductibles are massive, premiums go up every six months, I'm only middle poor so I get no tax rebates and nothing for free.

So I'm guessing they'll just take my tax return while I go fill out my do not revive paperwork so they can just suck it if they think ill pay them anything for saving my life to leave me hundreds of thousands in the hole.

ACA is absolutely the worst thing to happen to anyone but the extreme destitute or the already don't need it rich.

Yeah, working class people in Mississippi got boned hard by their state's implementation of the ACA:

http://khn.org/news/how-obamacare-went-south-in-mississippi/

The short version is that because Mississippie opted out of expanded Medicare, there's a huge gap of people that don't make enough (!) to qualify for tax subsidies.

 CptJake wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Because there are people out there who quite literally say, "Why should I have to pay for someone else?" in regards to anything... My next door neighbor, great guy, we get some good discussions... but holy crap does he bitch and moan about having to pay to "support" other people.

The truly amazing thing is that ACA isn’t even welfare, its insurance. Everyone pays in so when one person gets unlucky then there’s money there to provide for them.

I know this.... And what's funny is, car insurance in many places, is the law as well, yet people don't complain about it. It seems like so many people realize that "I pay my allstate insurance bill each month so that if I have an accident, the damage is fixed and the company pays for it. My rates aren't so high, because all of the other Allstate customers are doing the same" Clearly at some level, people get that Insurance is about lowering the individual harm by spreading the money pool out over a group of people...... At least when it comes to cars and homes.


It really is mind boggling to me how people can honestly say that health insurance is wrong, and a "burden" on tax payers, but still pay their home insurance, car insurance, etc. without realizing that things are actually WORSE for them, without a mandatory insurance for health.

When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer. My youngest brother (now 40 years old) has always lived in urban centers with public transport and has yet to own a vehicle. Mandating full insurance for him (as I must have if I want to register my vehicles and drive them on public roads) would be asinine and very unfair to him. Forcing him and those like him to subsidize my car insurance would be silly. One of my sons (24 years old) has no vehicle and does not drive, and has no insurance. Forcing him to pay for full coverage to lower the price of folks with multiple speeding tickets (pre-existing conditions) would be silly.

And, if you get tickets or in too many accidents (often 1) your insurance company will jack up your rates or drop you so fast your head spins. Will you allow health insurance companies to jack up rates on someoen who gets diabetes or cancer? Or just drop them?

Now factor in that my mandatory car insurance does not cover my vehicle, but covers anyone I hurt or property other than my own that I damage. Yet now, 'catastrophic' health insurance plans (which many young healthy folks would get if they could) are really no longer available.

You cannot compare them in my opinion.

Where your analogy fails is, everyone is alive, everyone will be in a hospital at some point. You don't have to ever own a car, you don't have to ever own a home, but but sooner or later you're going to get sick and you're going to die. Don't forget your routine checkups though, hopefully everyone chooses to go to the doctor to screen for problems before they happen, when they're cheaper to deal with.

Yep, you got me. Everyone will indeed die. I am not sure how that effects the equation, death has plagued us since we existed.

And it wasn't my analogy, I too pointed out faults in it.

I guess, since you are comfortable with forcing everyone to carry insurance you will likely be comfortable with forcing them to go to those check ups and screenings. Heck, we'll all have a vested interest in it as it will help keep all our costs down, so may as well use the threat of incarceration or fines to help enforce it. Probably ought to also start to add in that folks who have certain habits ought to be fined or incarcerated too. Smoking is a Bad Thing, as is drinking alcohol,eating snack cakes, and we all know hobbies like scuba diving and sky diving or riding motorcycles greatly increase risk, so may as well use the gov't to limit them as well.

Yeah, my examples are getting silly. But hell, as long as we are gonna believe gov't coercion is the best way to handle the issue, we may as well go all out, right?

I've got it!

You know those FEMA camps that the tin-foil hatters keep warning us about?

They phat-farms!



Seriously, my prediction is that in 10 years or less, the ACA would spectacularly fail and the government will redo the tax-laws to expand Medicare for everyone. While, preserving the ability for employers to provide employer-based (or Unions) plans as supplemental plans.

The writing is on the wall... book it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Mr.Church13 wrote:
My only issue with any AcA plan is that they stop covering you after a certain dollar amount meaning I'm still going bankrupt and paying premiums for no coverage at all. Or just having no health care at all and never getting a tax refund again.

They're terrible, coverage is low, deductibles are massive, premiums go up every six months, I'm only middle poor so I get no tax rebates and nothing for free.

So I'm guessing they'll just take my tax return while I go fill out my do not revive paperwork so they can just suck it if they think ill pay them anything for saving my life to leave me hundreds of thousands in the hole.

ACA is absolutely the worst thing to happen to anyone but the extreme destitute or the already don't need it rich.

Yeah, working class people in Mississippi got boned hard by their state's implementation of the ACA:

http://khn.org/news/how-obamacare-went-south-in-mississippi/

The short version is that because Mississippie opted out of expanded Medicare, there's a huge gap of people that don't make enough (!) to qualify for tax subsidies.

That's true for most other states who opt'ed out too. Missourian are just as boned too.