Thread: Serious question about "Obamacare"

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

yeah right, prove it with a sign saying "this african american bashes Obama on TGR" and post it up

So back on topic, there really is not much to be up in arms about regarding the Affordable Care Act, in fact it seems like it does some pretty good things to curb fraud from insurers and late coming plan participants.

Where is the need for all this outrage???

Or is it just politics; in which case shame on the republicans for letting politics dictate their policy at the detriment of the American people.

Seriously

Heres you sign

[quote=tommyvee;3045147]

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

This ignores the reality that many people pay for health insurance, then get sick or injured, and the health insurance companies either terminate their policy or raise the rates to unpayable levels. Anthem did this to every individual policy holder with breast cancer in a large region. Then of course the sick or injured person has a "pre-existing condition" which prevents them for purchasing a new policy.

It is called rescission when an insurance company terminates the policy for a policy holder who has been faithfully paying premiums for years, usually on an unrelated pretext. The insurance companies have software tools and research groups that look for reasons to terminate policies, and the applications are purposely so complicated that pretty much any policyholder can be terminated for incorrect statements on the application (Who knows the dates and details of all their medical history?? More than one cancer patient has been terminated for incorrect history of yeast infections, etc.).

So the idea that millions could afford health insurance and "choose' not to purchase it is a vast over-simplification, if not an outright falsehood.

if you dont think there are millions who could afford health care but choose not to, youre delusional

i have been in that situation, as well as dozens, probably hundreds of people i have known. pretty much all the people i have known i ski towns, for instance

as for people who have been dropped, i dont have a problem with getting rid of exclusions for preexisting conditions, but again, we are talking about a tiny fraction of people.

[quote=ilikecandy;3045560]

Originally Posted by tommyvee

if you dont think there are millions who could afford health care but choose not to, youre delusional

i have been in that situation, as well as dozens, probably hundreds of people i have known. pretty much all the people i have known i ski towns, for instance

as for people who have been dropped, i dont have a problem with getting rid of exclusions for preexisting conditions, but again, we are talking about a tiny fraction of people.

Of course there are millions who could afford health insurance premiums and choose not to. But right now, with 9% unemployed, it is delusional to argue that there are not millions who do not have the financial resources to buy insurance.
The whole reason for the mandate is that removing the pre-existing conditions exclusions without a coverage mandate would bankrupt the insurance companies, since any rational consumer in that situation would not purchase insurance until the y got sick, defeating the cost-spreading fundamentals of insurance.
The US system pre-HCR was incoherent, where as you mentioned many people chose not to purchase insurance, and when they have large medical expenses either don't pay their bills (our local hospital had $27 million in uncompensated care last year, which paying customers end up covering) or fall back on Medicaid once they are poor enough. Those people are not refusing to participate in the health care system, they are just gaming the system for their own benefit, which is why the individual mandate is necessary.

^^^^
That is how I understand it. Basically it goes like this:

1. Insurance companies have the system dialed and are making record profits on ever increasing premiums. Many people chose to go uninsured because the cost for private (non-company) insurance is way to much. Others can't get insured at reasonable rate because of "pre-existing" conditions.
2. Healthcare prices going through the roof because uninsured people are drag on the system and everyone else has to foot the bill. As this is not an acceptable situation with healthcare costs soaring and a rapidly aging populous, something had to be done.
3 The obvious answer was to have everyone insured so that cost could be spread and a reasonable plan offered to those not in companies with their group buying power.

Why the outrage? Anyone? Those like DBT and Rubi yammering about it earlier?

Fed gvmt overreach to solve something that was obviously not getting fixed at a state level? What else would have been a way to address it? Let people go bankrupt on medical bills and have others pay for the associated costs when I have to have a routine, non-lifethreatening operation?

Sorry but it looks like something like this bill had to pass. Sounds like politics at the expense of Americans to me.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

^^^^
That is how I understand it. Basically it goes like this:

1. Insurance companies have the system dialed and are making record profits on ever increasing premiums. Many people chose to go uninsured because the cost for private (non-company) insurance is way to much. Others can't get insured at reasonable rate because of "pre-existing" conditions.
2. Healthcare prices going through the roof because uninsured people are drag on the system and everyone else has to foot the bill. As this is not an acceptable situation with healthcare costs soaring and a rapidly aging populous, something had to be done.
3 The obvious answer was to have everyone insured so that cost could be spread and a reasonable plan offered to those not in companies with their group buying power.

Why the outrage? Anyone? Those like DBT and Rubi yammering about it earlier?

Fed gvmt overreach to solve something that was obviously not getting fixed at a state level? What else would have been a way to address it? Let people go bankrupt on medical bills and have others pay for the associated costs when I have to have a routine, non-lifethreatening operation?

Sorry but it looks like something like this bill had to pass. Sounds like politics at the expense of Americans to me.

1)tell me more about these "record profits" insurance companies are making? are they out of line with other aspects of health care/other industries? numbers please (hint-they arent, and "profits" although a crappy measure for insurance, are tiny, low single digits)

2)again, about 95% of the country was doing fine. they might not have been able to afford all the vacations/flatscreens/ipads they wanted, but why are they entitled to? so complete and total overhaul didnt "have to be done". everyone agrees something should be done about the 5% who need help, but that doesnt necessitate making a fundamental change to the country

3)if people couldnt afford it before, where does the money come from now, especially since it is being run by the most inefficient organization known to man?

the only argument you have is that health care is a right, which is certainly a matter of opinion. but even if you take that as a given, it doesnt support what was done

Originally Posted by polariso

10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

1)tell me more about these "record profits" insurance companies are making? are they out of line with other aspects of health care/other industries? numbers please (hint-they arent, and "profits" although a crappy measure for insurance, are tiny, low single digits)

2)again, about 95% of the country was doing fine. they might not have been able to afford all the vacations/flatscreens/ipads they wanted, but why are they entitled to? so complete and total overhaul didnt "have to be done". everyone agrees something should be done about the 5% who need help, but that doesnt necessitate making a fundamental change to the country

3)if people couldnt afford it before, where does the money come from now, especially since it is being run by the most inefficient organization known to man?

the only argument you have is that health care is a right, which is certainly a matter of opinion. but even if you take that as a given, it doesnt support what was done

1) Health Insurance is just moving HUGE amounts of money around with computers, you can't compare the profit % to other industries. A fraction of a percent is an ungodly amount of money. That said, they're not evil like they're protrayed. I've seen money saving practices at other insurers I disagree with but it is the costs of claims the insurers pay that is rising and single handedly responsible for our high insurance premium increases. It's money spent on doctors, hospitals, devices and drugs. It is amazing how providers have been able to keep their hands clean in this discussion -- they need to be the biggest part of the solution.

2) $40k is not enough income to be able to afford quality health insurance - especially with any health issues. Are there many that can pay yet do not? Of course...and to me that's another arguement for this reform and the mandate. 51 million uninsured and rising, costs doubling every 7 or 8 years and no need to overhaul?!!? Can I have some of what your smoking? Please?!

3) Nothing is really changing about who is 'running' healthcare...insurers and providers. The money is coming from increasing access to medicaid for really poor people and graded subsidies for those who would find it difficult to afford. Nice hyperbole.

I truly have no idea what you are talking about with your last sentence - the only arguement? Where'd that come from?

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

1099 reporting = bad
mandating coverage = bad. Americans don't like government requiring them to purchase something.

I support health care reform, but those two gems, made it easy picking for the republicans.

What he said. Forcing me to prove to the IRS upon threat of severe IRS asspain, every year when I file my taxes, isn't right.

Likewise, forcing me to buy a service from private industry, without offering a competing product from the gov't to keep the prices low, also is not right.

I can opt to not drive a motor vehicle, so I don't HAVE to have liability insurance if I don't want to. But you DO now have to buy some megacorp's for-profit insurance plan, and have to prove every tax season that you have done that, or they'll sick the IRS on you.

What this really begs for is single payer. Get rid of the IRS provisions and give me a valid gov't option, without targeting the competing industry offerings (remember all that republican conservatard logic of 'death panels'?), and let me choose what I want. I had it in the military, and it was awesome.

Just checking in to see what candy came up with but I see Corky's addressed that one.

"most inefficient organization known to man" why are you so anti-American?

As to jumper bones, Obama just talked about repealing the 1099 stupidity but I bet they are wary because opening it up might lead to ridiculous other provisions. And wasn't there a govt option or is it just subsidized?

healthcare needs reformed.

Non-profit health insurance co-ops all use for-profit subconsultants. The owners of the sub-consultants run the "non-profit" health insurance and make a killing with no-bid/open contracts. The non-profit can claim it isn't turning a profit, costs a rising, and raise preimums. Meanwhile any profits that would be made are turned over to "consultants" running admin tasks.

Health insurance companies negotiate rates with hospitals that include non-compete clauses; forcing people w/o insurance or w/ a different insurance plan to pay an substantial amount of moenty above what the test/procedure costs.

Rick Scott, new Govoner of FLorida, was the CEO of Columbia/HCA. During his reign he oversaw massive fraud. Ultimately the company was hit with a record $1.7 billion Medicare fraud fine. Whos going to pay the fine?

First, was the health-care bill really the result of arguments -- or was it an arbitrary compendium of mandates promulgated by one party with near-total control of Washington? It was rammed down our collective throat. Some argument!

Second, it just so happens the law is being litigated, whether the president likes it or not -- and clearly he does not. Nearly half the states are fighting it in court.

Originally Posted by polariso

First, was the health-care bill really the result of arguments -- or was it an arbitrary compendium of mandates promulgated by one party with near-total control of Washington? It was rammed down our collective throat. Some argument!

Second, it just so happens the law is being litigated, whether the president likes it or not -- and clearly he does not. Nearly half the states are fighting it in court.

so do you honestly believe that had the HCR not gone through that everything would magically have been okay and insurance companies would still not be raping people for fees and denying coverage whenever possible and fees would've gone down? yeah, sure they would've....I'll take my evil 'socialized' medicine any day thanks! but what you dumb fucks don't get is that we all pay into it, and get something out of it, and then we don't have to worry about people running out on bills.....but you're too fucking retarded to get that....our system may not be perfect, it's evidently clear that no system is, but at least our citizens aren't going bankrupt trying to stay alive, or fighting with insurance companies to actually cover things that should be covered by their policies....but hey, keep believing the spin, the rest of the world is laughing at your stupid fucking ass!

I think the above poster has been brainwashed by socialism...or is a happy citizen that pays taxes, skis his and bikes his ass off and the threat of collarbone destruction is enough for him to not go bigger than he is.
The scooter crowd though

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

The scooter crowd though

Out of my way, jerkass!

Originally Posted by t.odd

so do you honestly believe that had the HCR not gone through that everything would magically have been okay and insurance companies would still not be raping people for fees and denying coverage whenever possible and fees would've gone down? yeah, sure they would've....I'll take my evil 'socialized' medicine any day thanks! but what you dumb fucks don't get is that we all pay into it, and get something out of it, and then we don't have to worry about people running out on bills.....but you're too fucking retarded to get that....our system may not be perfect, it's evidently clear that no system is, but at least our citizens aren't going bankrupt trying to stay alive, or fighting with insurance companies to actually cover things that should be covered by their policies....but hey, keep believing the spin, the rest of the world is laughing at your stupid fucking ass!

You obviously have no clue whats in the bill. Unfortunately for you, anger management class will not be covered

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

You're right about that public education thingy. We should allow states to decide. Who cares if Mississippi and Alabama head right back to pre-civil rights act. Who cares if an entire race of citizens in Arizona aren't allowed to attend public school.

Did you run on the same ticket as Rand?

A WHOLE ENTIRE RACE OF CITIZENS IN ARIZONA AREN'T ALLOWED TO ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL??? Seriously??? I did not know illegal immigrant was a race??? Because for any illegal alien, there is a a legal person of the same race that can attend public school. Think maybe a bit too much hyperbole?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As has been said by others, coverage for preexisting conditions is not insurance, it's welfare.

You sir, are absolutely correct. Thank you for supporting logic vs knee-jerk emotion.

We need a lot more honesty than we're getting from our elected officials, and it doesn't matter if someone is for or against such programs - the public is only being told the parts they want to hear.

^ that's not new einstein...

So did I miss the explanation of why this "monstrosity" of a bill will cause "Armageddon"? Or is it a lot of hot air.

Oh and Rubicon, getting rid of pre-existing condition,even if legitimately applid, is welfare? While people that take poor care of themselves have themselves to blame, to let them go bankrupt and live in the streets crazy is not a civilized society. You know that. You say welfare like it is a bad word. Let me point out that it is "welfare" that allowed our race to band together, overcome our physical shortcomings, and become a dominant species on this planet, brother.

That being said one of the biggest problems with costs of healthcare is because if it is "free" then it is overused. Tragedy of the commons. Obviously there should be a hard look at what gets covered.

Pre-existing condition non-coverage - Help me understand - You have a job with med insurance. You have paid for it (employer paid insurance instead of a raise, that's how it began in 1942 or so). You develop a medical condition. You get laid off or leave. Your screwed? That's welfare? That's OK?

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

So did I miss the explanation of why this "monstrosity" of a bill will cause "Armageddon"?

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will take the food service industry 14 million additional hours each year to comply with a new regulation that mandates chain restaurants and vending machine operators label the products they sell with a calorie count in a place visible to the consumer.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fda-...ing-machine-ow

Now multiply by several dozen. It may not be "Armageddon", but it is a place that is far worse than the state of affairs as we know them today.

Oh and Rubicon, getting rid of pre-existing condition,even if legitimately applid, is welfare? While people that take poor care of themselves have themselves to blame, to let them go bankrupt and live in the streets crazy is not a civilized society. You know that.

No one is stopping you from helping them.

We have an agreement between the government and those it is governing. In it's current state HCR violates that agreement. If we want to change the agreement we can. But you and other supporters of HCR know a constitutional amendment would never pass. The reason it will not pass is because not enough of the people want it in it's current form. So instead of respecting the will of the people you are trying to impose it anyway.

There is no argument, moral or otherwise that will justify the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what you are supporting.

You say welfare like it is a bad word.

No. Your argument would benefit from me opposing welfare in all it's forms, so you say that is what I do. But it is not true. I am in favor of a well run welfare system and would vote to have one, if given the chance, in my own state. But there is nothing in the contract between the federal government and the governed that provides for either welfare or health care. Until there is, I will oppose it on the federal level.

Let me point out that it is "welfare" that allowed our race to band together, overcome our physical shortcomings, and become a dominant species on this planet, brother.

No, cooperation and trust allowed our species to band together and become the dominate species on this planet. When those we have chosen to rule us violate our trust by exceeding the authority given them by the people, they destroy the foundations of our society and open the door to tyranny.

Rubi likes to post late night so his inane explanations don't get shot down so quick

EVERY single member of Congress enjoys having their "Obamacare" but somehow it's BAD if regular Americans get it?

They should put up or shut up. Let's see how many in Congress refuse their "socialized" healthcare plans.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No. Your argument would benefit from me opposing welfare in all it's forms, so you say that is what I do. But it is not true. I am in favor of a well run welfare system and would vote to have one, if given the chance, in my own state. But there is nothing in the contract between the federal government and the governed that provides for either welfare or health care. Until there is, I will oppose it on the federal level.

If the Federal government cannot constitutionally provide "either welfare or health care" then Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps are all un-constitutional.
I would be interested to see if you can find even one respected legal scholar that espouses that extreme opinion.
But I am sure that our current system, with its' checks and balances, has never delivered such a ridiculous legal opinion. If you believe so much in the Constitution, how can you disregard the opinions of the Supreme Court, which the Constitution explicitly authorizes to do Constitutional interpretation??
As usual, conservatives who claim to be "constitutionalists" pick and choose the parts of the Constitution they wish to observe (hypocrisy alert)..

I am guessing these are the parts you want to ignore,
"Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
"ection 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
But in conservatie-land, an opinion delivered by Rubicon, counts more than an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court....

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Now multiply by several dozen. It may not be "Armageddon", but it is a place that is far worse than the state of affairs as we know them today.

This applies how???

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No one is stopping you from helping them.

Even though I think I get paid handsomely, I alone cannot make that much of a difference. That is what I pay taxes for

Originally Posted by Rubicon

We have an agreement between the government and those it is governing. In it's current state HCR violates that agreement. If we want to change the agreement we can. But you and other supporters of HCR know a constitutional amendment would never pass. The reason it will not pass is because not enough of the people want it in it's current form. So instead of respecting the will of the people you are trying to impose it anyway.

Yet when polled about the individual provisions, people are very supportive of it. When asked about "Obamacare", 50% remain brainwashed by the right's political posturing at the expense of what their constituents actually support. Sounds awesome.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

There is no argument, moral or otherwise that will justify the tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what you are supporting.

So the majority want it. Ok I get it.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No. Your argument would benefit from me opposing welfare in all it's forms, so you say that is what I do. But it is not true. I am in favor of a well run welfare system and would vote to have one, if given the chance, in my own state. But there is nothing in the contract between the federal government and the governed that provides for either welfare or health care. Until there is, I will oppose it on the federal level.

This arguement sounds good except for one thing, the states don't do a very good job at many things, healthcare being one of them, educational standards and access to education being another. And as TommyVee pointed out, this is already done in numerous cases that I haven't heard you complain about. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No, cooperation and trust allowed our species to band together and become the dominate species on this planet. When those we have chosen to rule us violate our trust by exceeding the authority given them by the people, they destroy the foundations of our society and open the door to tyranny.

Ok I might have taken this one a little too far, cooperation is certainly the numero uno but caring for the sick an elderly who can no longer hunt and gather are hallmarks of civility and decency.

Not having a solution to the problem that people may lose their jobs or try to switch and not be able to afford healthcare, leading to the number one cause of bankruptcy is negligent, and our system is currently that.

Not caring is being a cold hearted bastard…