From a friend on FB, re ACA

[Lorca]

I don't like war, I hate that I have to pay taxes to support military actions.

Do you pay taxes? Do you follow laws?

You still have the choice not to conform, but there are consequences.

Exactly. It does suck. And you are right...I named all those things earlier, but perhaps not in this thread.

that does not make it right, and let's face it, there's enough examples to make that a fact. Like the invasion of Iraq?

Just because it happens doesnt mean we should accept it like submissive dogs.

I accept Obamacare because I knew it was coming when Obama ran and I chose to vote for him. I voted for him DESPITE this, because I didnt see a better option.

But just laying down and 'accepting it' wont drive changes to it that can make it better. (Sadly, it's looking worse and worse because it is poorly constructed and panders to the health ins. companies...all concessions needed to get it passed to begin with. What a farce.)

 

[tekkychick]

It absolutely sucks. People shouldnt start families if they cant afford the health coverage for them and that includes maternity care. It's a choice, and no way should I be paying for it.

I do object to having to pay for (often) crappy public schools that seem very ineffective and embarrassingly behind other countries. I can see how an 'educated society' helps all society but that can be applied to alot of things and while I understand it, I dont necessarily agree with how its applied.

Not only that, it's a racket. Everyone pays into the maternity coverage....but only a certain percentage of it gets used since not everyone gets pregnant. Where is the rest of that $$$ going? Does anyone even THINK to ask the question?

So tell me again why I have to pay for other people to have kids?

Kids happens. Life circumstances change.

Now that insurance companies are limited to 20% profits, the extra paid in will go back to rateholders, not into the pockets of the top officers.

 

[Lorca]

Kids happens. Life circumstances change.

Now that insurance companies are limited to 20% profits, the extra paid in will go back to rateholders, not into the pockets of the top officers.

That's fine. That happens with alot of life. But by no means should OTHER people have to pay for it. If you need maternity coverage, YOU PAY FOR IT, not me.That is just BS. "Heath care" does not mean "removal of all personal responsibility."

Are there specifics on how the 'extra paid' over the 20% will be paid back to the rateholders?

 

[Taft2016]

actually, that would be impossible...there are no plans with a $13,988 deductible.....

I didn't say it was possible or impossible. I just said "I saw this on Facebook."

And if Rana would be so kind as to yank that fat cock out of her ass, she would notice I never said I believed it either.

I posted it because this thread was presumably about stuff we're reading on FB about Obamacare.

That said, there are screen captures on the web about this guy's discussion about the incident with his friends. It doesn't look like a troll account, the guy discusses his experience pretty extensively. Just Google a part of the discussion in quotes and you'll find it.

What had me wondering though, was that the fellow quoted said he had a pre-existing condition of diabetes. These are still the same private health insurers who had problems with pre-existing conditions in the past. When I first read it, I Googled the opt-out penalties and didn't notice a separate set of penalties for those with pre-existing conditions, or higher deductibles for pre-existing conditions. I'm wondering if that's the case though.

Also, since each state is setting up the exchanges, I'm wondering if there are glitches in individual systems that can cause results like this. I'm wondering if some states are putting their own opt-out penalty guidelines on their sites. Since the states are running the exchanges, is there anything that prohibits them from expanding penalties?

One thing I know is that we're only two days into the process. People are still having problems signing onto *ONE* exchange. I think it's safe to say nobody has signed onto all 50 exchanges and done a comprehensive comparison.

I tried to look at the New York State exchange to see what that was like, but you have to set up an account. Since I have employer provided health insurance I didn't want to set up an account out of curiosity, do some comparisons, and then get stuck having to explain why I was opting out.

 

[The Dude]

Their people live longer and spend less on health care.

Yeah, it's better.

Look it up. I know it's been posted on this site before.

Where's your evidence that their rich come here to get treatment in "a lot" of cases?

Doctors in those countries make about 1/3 what ours do.

 

[evince]

gee taft your a real dick suckler.

You are now going to pretend you didn't believe what you posted and have NOTHING to do with the choices you yourself made to post bullshit?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't say it was possible or impossible. I just said "I saw this on Facebook."

And if Rana would be so kind as to yank that fat cock out of her ass, she would notice I never said I believed it either.

I posted it because this thread was presumably about stuff we're reading on FB about Obamacare.

That said, there are screen captures on the web about this guy's discussion about the incident with his friends. It doesn't look like a troll account, the guy discusses his experience pretty extensively. Just Google a part of the discussion in quotes and you'll find it.

What had me wondering though, was that the fellow quoted said he had a pre-existing condition of diabetes. These are still the same private health insurers who had problems with pre-existing conditions in the past. When I first read it, I Googled the opt-out penalties and didn't notice a separate set of penalties for those with pre-existing conditions, or higher deductibles for pre-existing conditions. I'm wondering if that's the case though.

Also, since each state is setting up the exchanges, I'm wondering if there are glitches in individual systems that can cause results like this. I'm wondering if some states are putting their own opt-out penalty guidelines on their sites. Since the states are running the exchanges, is there anything that prohibits them from expanding penalties?

One thing I know is that we're only two days into the process. People are still having problems signing onto *ONE* exchange. I think it's safe to say nobody has signed onto all 50 exchanges and done a comprehensive comparison.

I tried to look at the New York State exchange to see what that was like, but you have to set up an account. Since I have employer provided health insurance I didn't want to set up an account out of curiosity, do some comparisons, and then get stuck having to explain why I was opting out.

oh, then it makes sense......

 

[Taft2016]

Now that insurance companies are limited to 20% profits, the extra paid in will go back to rateholders, not into the pockets of the top officers.

Libtards are so cute with their ignorance and gullibility:

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains

Overall, the profit margin for health insurance companies was a modest 3.4 percent over the past year, according to data provided by Morningstar. That ranks 87th out of 215 industries and slightly above the median of 2.2 percent. By this measure, the most profitable industry over the past year has been beverages, with a 25.9 percent profit margin.

So whoever told you that a problem was being solved by limiting profits to 20% was simply playing upon your ignorance and inherent hatred of corporations and profits.

More comparisons:

Among the large, for-profit health insurers, profit margins line up with the industry as a whole. UnitedHealthGroup, the biggest health insurer, had a 4.1 percent profit margin over the past 12 months. WellPoint, the next biggest, had a 4 percent profit margin. Aetna, Cigna, and Humana came in below that.

 

[Taft2016]

You are now going to pretend you didn't believe what you posted and have NOTHING to do with the choices you yourself made to post bullshit?

You're now going to pretend I said anything more committal than "I saw this on Facebook"?

I was skeptical which is why I Googled the penalties, but I can certainly see something like this happening in one of the 50 exchanges.

 

[evince]

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs.../industries-hurt-most-by-soaring-health-costs


and how would you have solved it?


what did YOUR party propose to avert the coming mess?

 

[Liberty]

tell me the EXACT part of you you think is SOOOOO bad?

The biggest is the mandate.

 

[Jarod]

If I am young and healthy the government forcing me to buy insurance to subsidize older citizens is not personal responsibility.

If I am young and healthy and choose not to purchase health insurance yet set aside money to pay for any medical needs am I not being responsible?

1. Don't young and healthy people get sick? If not, don't they later become older citizens?
2. Your second point is reasonable at some level, it depends on how much you set aside, cancer treatment can cost millions.

 

[Jarod]

That is nonsense.

1) A person who is healthy that decides to pay out of pocket for preventative care rather than pay obscene amounts for health insurance is still being responsible.

2) You pretending that they wouldn't pay should the catastrophic accident happen is nothing short of ignorance.

3) Yes, everyone is susceptible to illness. But the common illnesses do not require expensive doctors visits. They require cough/flu/sinus medication.

4) I accept the fact that some will not pay should they take the chance and that others will have to cover them. Which is precisely the same damn thing Obama care forces on us. It forces us to pay into the system to cover those that either can't or won't pay for themselves.

5) Stop and think about it for a moment... What percent of people do you think actually consume more in medical care than they pay in insurance premiums? As you think about it, remember that insurance companies are profitable. (though they are nowhere near the most profitable of sectors in our market place)

6) Under Obama care, there are still very high (relative to income) deductibles and max out of pocket expenses that the lower and lower middle class families won't be able to afford should the catastrophic occur to them. While the costs of the insurance may get subsidized for some, what happens when the catastrophic accidents/illnesses occur to them?

1. Healthy people do not know when they will get sick.
2. Pretending who would not pay, the victim of the catastrophic accident? If that was your point, VERY few have the amount of money it would cost to pay if they were in a catastrophic accident. Do you know how much one night in the hospital costs?
3. You are correct about common illness, but what about less common illness, part of the problem is that so many mistakenly believe they are invincible.
4. Yes, but its cheaper on the tax payer to do it this way instead of your way. We are paying anyway, lets do it the way that is cheapest and focuses the burden on personal responsibility over community responsibility.
5. Sure its profitable to be an insurance company, and it should be. They do however gamble and if some year they have a loss, that's part of the gamble. The point is that we don't know who among us is going to get sick, and if some refuse to take necessary percussions the burden is shifted more so to those who are responsible. I prefer a mandate that everyone accept personal responsibility.
6. This is a good point. The subsidy's will help ease this. Obamacare does not fix the problem, it simply makes it better than it was. With regards to deductibles, it is a delicate balance, too high and you make health care inaccessible, too low and you remove insensitive for frugality and conservation.

P.S. This is the type of debate I enjoy, you made some great points that I simply disagree with, but progress on both sides can be made with this type of discussion. Thank you. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Jarod]

You're not stupid. Why would you compare a true crime that has a victim, with a non victimizing free person being forced to do something they don't want to do?

People have the right to not be victimized. Your comparison says the gov't has the right to victimize people.

You are the one who made the original absolutist statement. Mean what you say, and say what you mean.

 

[Jarod]

But you see - YOU may feel YOU can take the risk, but in reality you are forcing all of us to take the risk; because if you are hit by a car, go to an ER, turn out to have huge expenses due to the extent of your injuries that go beyond what you've saved - we have to pay it. We can't let you die because you did bad planning.

Just as mortgage holders want you to have insurance because they don't trust you to set enough money aside to repay your loan if the house goes up in flames, we are asking you to have insurance because we don't trust you to have set up enough money to pay for your future health care.

Exactly!

 

[Jarod]

So we're extrapolating what millions of people may or may not do based on a few man-on-the-street interviews? OK. Sensible.


And, no, it was not obvious. The "they" was a vague pronoun and I prefer not to assume when I can ask.

Typical of a narcissist to assume that some unclear point they make should be understood by everyone, I mean its so clear!

 

[Liberty]

You are the one who made the original absolutist statement. Mean what you say, and say what you mean.

?????????

I'm lost on this one dude.

 

[Jarod]

What "we" (since you call "yourselves" we I'm guessing you are referring to the voices in your head) are doing is assuming that no other people would come to the same logical conclusion and do what saves them money.

What I am doing is pointing out that the Premiums cost more than the tax (must call it tax, although the law calls it a fine because the SCOTUS says it has to be a tax if it is to be constitutional) so those who they interviewed among the group called "invincibles" were 9 to 1 saying that they would pay the tax (fine) rather than buy the insurance to save money.

Yes, I agree the tax should be higher. All in good time Damocles.

 

[Jarod]

"No" actually would have "sufficed", however it pleased me to mock you at the same time... You and your favorite turd, or whatever it is that makes you call yourself "we".

Pleasure from mocking is pure ego.

 

[Jarod]

?????????

I'm lost on this one dude.

Im too uninterested in proving my point to look it up, but you said something along the lines of;

Making a freeman do something he does not want to do is tyranny.