Whats so wrong with Obama care?

[Skyrad 0]

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[airdvr 210]

As a country we can't afford it.

As an individual I am tired of my tax money being spent on people who don't contribute to society.

It's unconstitutional for the federal government to require it's citizens to purchase something.

Obamacare does not address the core problem with health care...affordability.

That's just what came off the top of my head.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Gravitymaster 0]

And let's not forget it does not contain tort reform.

many feel the government has no business controlling every aspect of our lives.

i also am very wary of the potential slippery slopes socialized medicine opens up.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

Loss of individual freedoms due to increased gov intervention in my life

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shah269 0]

Quote

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

Loss of individual freedoms due to increased gov intervention in my life

But..but...your insurance comopany already intervenes in your life!

So...how is the government any worse?

Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay.

The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools!

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

Loss of individual freedoms due to increased gov intervention in my life

But..but...your insurance comopany already intervenes in your life!

So...how is the government any worse?[/reply]

Government has guns and prisons.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

the primary problem is that it addresses access but not cost, hoping that it will magically work out in the right way. Given the way the bill evolved, its' rather clear that it improves the bottom line for health care oriented companies more than it does for us.

Most people, the greater majority that have jobs, employers that provide coverage, and don't have serious illness do just fine with the status quo (though this isn't sustainable for another 20 years) - hard to get them to see how paying more for the same or less is beneficial.

Constitutionally, the mandated purchase is questionable, but is necessary for the approach to work.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations?

Nothing although that's not what Obamacare does.

Obamacare keeps the corporations and increases their profits.

People too old to get good rates from individual plans but too young for Medicare will benefit. People who are young, healthy, and buying individual plans will have a bigger bite out of their budget. People getting employer provided insurance will probably see smaller raises due to increased health care costs. Most of that is bad and there were less expensive ways to get the good parts (ex: lower the Medicare qualification age) with more benefit for the natural people and less for the corporate people.

Quote

I don't get it.

Obamacare requires us to buy insurance from for-profit companies

1. With no limit on cost

2. With high coverage minimums where we would otherwise be better off self-insuring.

3. Where young (statistically healthy and early in their careers) people must be charged at least 1/3 as much as old (statistically unhealthy and potentially at their earning peak) people

Rather than extending existing government programs which already insure 25% of Americans as a non-profit exercise with finite budgets to cover more low and moderate income households it gives those people subsidies to pay corporations to profit from insuring them.

Obamacare also does nothing with our current employer provided health insurance scheme which gets people into much more expensive plans. Disregarding their employer's contribution, a person earning less than the Social Security wage cap in a high-tax state like California could spend 80% more on an employer group plan than an individual plan and come out ahead financially due to the delta between pre and post tax dollars. The way credits work ($100 in lieu of a $500 policy) where an employee waives membership in the group plan the employer provided insurance can run 800% more than an individual policy. With no viable economic alternatives employees are along for the ride on high-cost plans that help sell the companies to prospective hires.

Obamacare did open employer provided group plan coverage to children up to 26 years old; although where that child is healthy that's a benefit to the insurance company and not the employee.

Prior to the health care reform act's passage I was paying $85 a month for my son's individual policy which is $139 in pre-tax money (28% federal tax rate, 9.55% California state taxes, 1.45% employee Medicare share).

If we opted for my group plan the health insurance company would get about $500 a month from me and my employer which would be $405 in pre-tax money (my employer picks up 20% of the tab for family coverage and the employee share is still subject to Medicare taxes) for me.

Score: Health insurance companies +$415, me -$266 in take home pay, feds -$112, my company -$100, state -$38. Annually that's $4980 more for the insurance company, $3192 less for me (that covers a _LOT_ of co-pays), $1200 out of my company's bottom line, $1344 less federal income tax paid, and $456 less in state taxes paid.

Of course, lots of people who don't stop to think about the situation will do just that.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Honestly, whats the problem with a nation taking care of its own people instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations? I don't get it.

Loss of individual freedoms due to increased gov intervention in my life

But..but...your insurance comopany already intervenes in your life!

So...how is the government any worse?

No, I pay for a service. At times we may disagree what I am paying for

And, I can drop an insurance company if I don't like the service
I would be stuck with Obamacare

Add to this, government intervention in what insurance policies have to cover complicates the problem even more

In the end, the difference tween you and me? I don't see insurance companies or corps as evil (IE, I am not jealous of them)

I see them as a necessary service.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

[Reply]instead of leaving them to the mercy of corporations?

By require everybosy to purchase a product from those corporationsand subsidizing pharmaceutical corporations?

In that sense, haven't you answered your own question? Can you see a problem?

[dks13827 3]

The gov. screws up everything, first of all.
You name it. My family of ordinary citizens, who work, has always gotten great care, and I mean great !!! And as responsible taxpayers and insurance customers, it is on a timely basis. Since my layoff I finally got a menial gov. job administering ( giving ) health care to poor people, bums, and illegals. No one in his right mind would want to be one of my agencies customers but I guess we do provide a necessary service for some people. I also dont want to be put in line behind a homeless guy because of my age, or race. Beieve me, I bet you a trillion dollars that would happen for sure... there is no doubt about it.
Geez... just look at Canadian and British citizens who come here all the time for our great doctors and hospitals... all the time !!!

[normiss 798]

by leaving us prey to the mercy of corporations??
LIKE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS????

thanks, but no.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

As a country we can't afford it.

At work so can't write in details, but:

The U.S paid a WHOPPING 15% of its GDP on healthcare in 2008 (pre-Obamacare).

This is double than other Western Countries.
It baffles me when people say "we can't afford Obamacare" while they are wasting freaking FIFTEEN percent on healthcare.


So we got 3 options:
1) Pre-2009 healthcare
2) Heritage fund/RomneyCare/Affordable Health Care act
3) Government Health Care


Choose.


Cheers!
Shc

[Gravitymaster 0]

imagine 2 Houses. One is a modern home, built well with fire alarms, burglar alarms, built to modern building code with all non-flamable materials.

Now take an old broken down home made of rotted old wood, no smoke detectors, no burglar alarm, trash strewn around everywhere, crappy ols oil furnace that smoke when it get hot and has to be turned off so it doesn't overheat.

Now suppose you live in the first house and are paying $1000 per year for insurance. The old rickety house's owner pay $5000 per year.

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

So you get pissed off and start calling every insurance company you can find and they all tell you the same rate and explain that this new law is to give those homeowners in older homes that are falling apart the same "equal access" that you have. And as an added benefit, the new insurance is going to pay for anything that goes wrong with the house, So if the A/C goes out, the insurance pays to replace it. If the lawn mower breaks, you get a new one. But now that you have a new lawn mower and a new furnace and AC, the government wants you to keep the thermostat at a certain temperature in winter and summer and to insure you do, they are requireing you to have a thermostat that the government controls. You will alsp have to mow the grass when it gets to a certain height and since the govt. gave you the new mower, you are now required to take your glass clippings to a state approved recycling site. When you are dropping off the cuttings, they want to perform emmission checks on your car and also want to make sure it't tuned up correctly.

What would your reaction be.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

Check the CBO Budget and its analyses.
This whole imaginary situation of yours is... imagined.

Its amazing how important debates denigrates itself to these ridiculous comparisons instead of using past real-life experiments and/or studies. Check Massachusetts and how RomneyCare fared. You'l be surprised how well it did.


Cheers!
Shc

[billvon 2,989]

>What would your reaction be.

Be outraged! Object! Say that you shouldn't have to pay a dime to cover that old crappy house!

Then when the house burns down and takes your neighborhood with it, you can feel all self righteous. Ah, the schadenfreude. The happy gloating. That guy deserved it. And your insurance will cover your losses.

Then when your private insurance premiums go up to $3500 a year, to cover the risk to your house posed by all the OTHER crappy houses, you can get all outraged again. How DARE a private company charge you more! Somebody oughta do something to make sure that deadbeat isn't a drain on you! They oughta MAKE that guy fix his house!

>But now that you have a new lawn mower and a new furnace and AC, the government
>wants you to keep the thermostat at a certain temperature in winter and summer and
>to insure you do, they are requireing you to have a thermostat that the government
>controls. You will alsp have to mow the grass when it gets to a certain height and since
>the govt. gave you the new mower, you are now required to take your glass clippings
>to a state approved recycling site. When you are dropping off the cuttings, they want
>to perform emmission checks on your car and also want to make sure it't tuned up
>correctly.

Wrong thread.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

Check the CBO Budget and its analyses.
This whole imaginary situation of yours is... imagined.

Its amazing how important debates denigrates itself to these ridiculous comparisons instead of using past real-life experiments and/or studies. Check Massachusetts and how RomneyCare fared. You'l be surprised how well it did.


Cheers!
Shc

I hear you running your mouth but I don't hear you saying anything.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Crappy analogy. I know you can do better. I've seen it.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

But..but...your insurance comopany already intervenes in your life!

You're funny lol. My insurance company and I have a contractual agreement. Each month I make a payment and in return they provide a certain amount of wellness and cover expenses agreed upon in the contract.

I wouldn't really call that "intervening"

[loumeinhart 0]

You both are reaching. If your house is surrounded by hillbilly houses that burn down all the time, maybe your premium will be higher based on risk. But if your house is in a stable neighborhood your premium may be just as high based on your home's value / cost to rebuild being higher.

What's wrong with Obama care? For me, the Mandate.

Hell, if it passes tomorrow, I'm dropping my coverage :) I'll call them back when I shatter my pevis or get cancer.

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

Check the CBO Budget and its analyses.
This whole imaginary situation of yours is... imagined.

Its amazing how important debates denigrates itself to these ridiculous comparisons instead of using past real-life experiments and/or studies. Check Massachusetts and how RomneyCare fared. You'l be surprised how well it did.


Cheers!
Shc

I hear you running your mouth but I don't hear you saying anything.

hahaha.
You could of at least brought something to back your analogy.



Anyway, let's start with this:
The "old" U.S Health Care just did not work.

"Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors."

REFERENCE:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1416947

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

Check the CBO Budget and its analyses.
This whole imaginary situation of yours is... imagined.

Its amazing how important debates denigrates itself to these ridiculous comparisons instead of using past real-life experiments and/or studies. Check Massachusetts and how RomneyCare fared. You'l be surprised how well it did.


Cheers!
Shc

I hear you running your mouth but I don't hear you saying anything.

Seeing how tomorrow is D-day for ACA...

The 38th Solicitor General of the United States said:


CF: I’ve never understood why regulating by making people go buy something is somehow more intrusive than regulating by making them pay taxes and then giving it to them. I don’t get it. It was comical to read the Heritage Foundation’s brief attempting to explain why they were changing their position on this. Something needed to be done about this problem. Everyone understood that. So, the Heritage Foundation said let’s do an individual mandate because it keeps it within free enterprise. The alternative was single payer. And they didn’t want that, and I’m in sympathy with that. So now all of a sudden the free-market alternative becomes unconstitutional and terribly intrusive where a government imposition and government-run project would not be? I don’t get it. Well, I do get it. It’s politics.


Universal Health Care is constitutional yet the privatized version (created by the Republicans in the 1990s) isin't...

The same people (Heritage Fund) who created the system are advocating privatizing Social Security with mandatory purchases from individuals .


WHO IS The 38th Solicitor General ?
It is Charles Fried, Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general.

Hugs & Cheers!
Shc

[ShcShc11 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Suddenly, a new law is passes and your insurance company sends you a notice of an increase in the premium of $3000 per year. You scream and bitcha and call your insurance company and tell them you want to know why the rate has tripled over night. They calmly tell you it's because the guy in the rickety old house and others like him can't afford the premium and so a new law was passed to give the owners of home that are run dow "equal access" to insurance.

Check the CBO Budget and its analyses.
This whole imaginary situation of yours is... imagined.

Its amazing how important debates denigrates itself to these ridiculous comparisons instead of using past real-life experiments and/or studies. Check Massachusetts and how RomneyCare fared. You'l be surprised how well it did.


Cheers!
Shc

I hear you running your mouth but I don't hear you saying anything.

RomneyCare
The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168

The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now.


So what do you guys want?
Like I said, we got 3 options:
1) Pre-2009 healthcare which everybody hated and recognized in serious need of reform
2) Heritage fund/RomneyCare/Affordable Health Care act
3) Government Health Care



Cheers!
Shc

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Let's start with this:
The "old" U.S Health Care just did not work.

Your quote does not demonstrate that. It's just additional evidence that Americans aren't living within their means and saving for emergencies.

Quote

"Half of all respondents (49%) indicated that their foreclosure was caused in part by a medical problem, including illness or injuries (32%), unmanageable medical bills (23%), lost work due to a medical problem (27%), or caring for sick family members (14%). We also examined objective indicia of medical disruptions in the previous two years, including those respondents paying more than $2,000 of medical bills out of pocket (37%), those losing two or more weeks of work because of injury or illness (30%), those currently disabled and unable to work (8%), and those who used their home equity to pay medical bills (13%). Altogether, seven in ten respondents (69%) reported at least one of these factors."

Americans spend too much buying depreciating crap and big houses and too little saving for emergencies.

Where the median household income is $46,000 an emergency savings fund of $23,000 is reasonable. With that much in the bank $2000 of medical bills out of pocket and $2000 in lost wages over 2 weeks are not big deals.

The average savings account balance is only $3800.

$3800 - $4000 = $-200. Oops!