yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 28, 2012 11:41:57 GMT -5
Ummmm They just decided it wasn't unconstitutional. The Supreme court just decided that. You may think it is, but the Supreme Court of the United States has decided it's not. I am aware of what they decided, but IMO they are wrong. Just wait until your 65 or 70 yr old Mom or grandmother needs dialysis, in the Mandate it states they can refuse this. Talk about pulling the plug.. well.. its in there... This entire thing needs to be repealed and Dems voted out. If you do NOT want Obamacare, you will be "taxed" or fined If your company does not chose Obamacare, and chooses the Private, they are fined as well. Your Company will then drop the Private Ins. to avoid the fine.. and You are forced onto Obamma Care.. They will decide your heath care, and any meds needed.. and any or NO treatment. When people finally wake up and realize this.. then what?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 11:42:37 GMT -5
You obviously haven't been following Romney during the election season. For one thing he's mentioned that it's completely different if a state wants to do a healthcare law like this vs the federal government. Just out of curiosity, what's the reasoning that it's acceptable for a state to make people get health insurance but not okay for the feds to do the same? Our government is based on federalism, which shares the power between the federal government and the state. The Constitution spells out what powers the federal government has, and anything not specifically assigned to the federal government is under the governance of the states. The murkiness comes into it from interpretation of the Constitution and some that think the Constitution is out dated (i.e. the Founding Fathers would include more things in the Constitution if they were alive today since there's things/circumstances they just couldn't have ever envisioned). Also whether it should be strictly interpreted or loosely. ETA: The Constitution does not speak to healthcare, therefore it's left to the states to govern - but that would fall under strictly interpreting it.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:43:01 GMT -5
If companies do end up dropping people and insurance companies are flooded with people (a lot of whom are probably young and have no health issues) wouldn't the free market make insurance companies drop their rates to stay in competition with one another. I understand how the companies not being able to deny anyone could raise the rates; however, there are tons of people that are healthy and rarely use their insurance. Honestly, I don't know I am just throwing it out there. The free market typically tends to bring rates down though I know health insurance can be a different animal - one of which I don't know much about other than I have always made certain I had it I highly doubt that they would actually drop the rates, at the most they would keep the rates the same and pocket even more money. I wouldn't find this so frustrating, except it was one of my senators who wrote the bill, and I will never vote for him again.
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 28, 2012 11:43:41 GMT -5
If companies do end up dropping people and insurance companies are flooded with people (a lot of whom are probably young and have no health issues) wouldn't the free market make insurance companies drop their rates to stay in competition with one another. I understand how the companies not being able to deny anyone could raise the rates; however, there are tons of people that are healthy and rarely use their insurance. Honestly, I don't know I am just throwing it out there. The free market typically tends to bring rates down though I know health insurance can be a different animal - one of which I don't know much about other than I have always made certain I had it Possibly, but again, you will be fined for not Accepting Obamacare. But.. the fine might be worth it IMO, because it would be getting Meds and treatments that I SAY I can have, and not the Goverment. No way should the Goverment be decided this
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 11:45:20 GMT -5
"If your company does not chose Obamacare, and chooses the Private, they are fined as well."
Where does it say that? I just read that they have to provide coverage. That can be with any private insurance company...
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 28, 2012 11:45:41 GMT -5
You obviously haven't been following Romney during the election season. For one thing he's mentioned that it's completely different if a state wants to do a healthcare law like this vs the federal government. Just out of curiosity, what's the reasoning that it's acceptable for a state to make people get health insurance but not okay for the feds to do the same? Because it should be left up to the States, not the Government. Romneycare is totally different than Obamacare. In Romneycare, the state voted this (the people) In Obamacare, we are given NO choice whatsoever, it is being forced on you.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:46:41 GMT -5
If companies do end up dropping people and insurance companies are flooded with people (a lot of whom are probably young and have no health issues) wouldn't the free market make insurance companies drop their rates to stay in competition with one another. I understand how the companies not being able to deny anyone could raise the rates; however, there are tons of people that are healthy and rarely use their insurance. Honestly, I don't know I am just throwing it out there. The free market typically tends to bring rates down though I know health insurance can be a different animal - one of which I don't know much about other than I have always made certain I had it Possibly, but again, you will be fined for not Accepting Obamacare. But.. the fine might be worth it IMO, because it would be getting Meds and treatments that I SAY I can have, and not the Goverment. No way should the Goverment be decided this Yep, think about the last time you had a pleasent experience with the government. I can't think of the last time for me, everytime I need to go somewhere and wait in line for long hours, whether it be the county courthouse, the DMV, etc. Now we want to turn over the running of our nations healthcare to more bureaucrats in Washington.
|
|
yummy2tummy
Initiate Member
Joined: May 22, 2012 11:37:20 GMT -5
Posts: 51
|
Post by yummy2tummy on Jun 28, 2012 11:46:44 GMT -5
"If your company does not chose Obamacare, and chooses the Private, they are fined as well." Where does it say that? I just read that they have to provide coverage. That can be with any private insurance company... It does. look it up. If they chose to continue the Private Ins. and not the Goverment Mandated one then they are "fined" or "taxed" ..
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:48:16 GMT -5
If companies do end up dropping people and insurance companies are flooded with people (a lot of whom are probably young and have no health issues) wouldn't the free market make insurance companies drop their rates to stay in competition with one another. I understand how the companies not being able to deny anyone could raise the rates; however, there are tons of people that are healthy and rarely use their insurance. Honestly, I don't know I am just throwing it out there. The free market typically tends to bring rates down though I know health insurance can be a different animal - one of which I don't know much about other than I have always made certain I had it Possibly, but again, you will be fined for not Accepting Obamacare. But.. the fine might be worth it IMO, because it would be getting Meds and treatments that I SAY I can have, and not the Goverment. No way should the Goverment be decided this The 'Government' isn't deciding what treatment and meds you must accept, that is part of the PRIVATE insurance you will or won't be purchasing. It's no different than having insurance through your employer right now, which is what most people will continue to receive. All the government is saying is that you must choose to either find an insurance provider who meets your needs or pay a (currently small) fine for choosing not to do so.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:48:34 GMT -5
"If your company does not chose Obamacare, and chooses the Private, they are fined as well." Where does it say that? I just read that they have to provide coverage. That can be with any private insurance company... It does. look it up. If they chose to continue the Private Ins. and not the Goverment Mandated one then they are "fined" or "taxed" .. Show your source.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 11:49:58 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, what's the reasoning that it's acceptable for a state to make people get health insurance but not okay for the feds to do the same? Because it should be left up to the States, not the Government. Romneycare is totally different than Obamacare. In Romneycare, the state voted this (the people)In Obamacare, we are given NO choice whatsoever, it is being forced on you. um, no. there was no public vote on this in MA. wherever you got that tidbit is incorrect. you might want to check your other "facts" as well. as best I can tell in what I've read, the content of the ACA is pretty much what we have here in MA.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jun 28, 2012 11:50:02 GMT -5
A couple of points (please excuse the caps -- I don't have bold and italic options with my browser): First, whether you all want to admit it or not, we are all paying far more for health insurance now than we realize. When uninsured folks go to the emergency room for treatment for minor ailments or preventative care of for ailments exacerbated because of lack of more timely care, *WE* pay for that!!!! It might not be clearly and obviously reflected in the health insurance premiums being deducted from your paycheck, but WE pay for it: the hospital has to raise rates on insured folks to help cover the costs of uninsured patients, the insurance carriers have to pay the hospitals those higher rates, and ultimately, we pay the higher premiums. In addition, most hospitals receive state and federal funding (through Medicaid and Medicare and various health care initiatives). Where do you think that funding comes from? *Our* state and federal taxes!!!! As at the cost of providing care for uninsured folks increases, so do our taxes. We are already paying for their care. If we can bring them into the system and provide routine and preventative care to fend off acute illness and if we can provide routine and preventative care in an office setting rather than in an far-more-expensive emergency room, then we will see a leveling off of our health insurance expenses. It will take some time, but the current system of allowing folks to go uninsured and forcing us to pick up the cost of their acute care is NOT working. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same ineffective thing over and over expecting a different result? We NEED to start somewhere to put an end to the insanity. This statute is the starting point. Refinements will perfect it. So, to all you folks worrying about the coming rise in health care costs due to "Obamacare", folks, those days are ALREADY HERE!!!!!!!!!! Second, PLEASE put aside the financial and constitutional arguments for one moment, because I believe those issues cloud the TRUE BENEFIT of this federal statute: ALL OF US will be entitled to several VITAL protections under the law: 1. Health insurance companies will NO LONGER be able to deny us coverage because of pre-existing conditions. If you don't have a deniable pre-existing condition yet, congratulations, but you are almost guaranteed to develop one as you get older (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, dementia, multiple sclerosis, etc. -- even pregnancy!!!!). THIS IS HUGE. You will be able to change jobs or change insurance plans without losing coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Who wouldn't want that right? 2. Health insurance companies will NO LONGER be able to set rates based SOLELY on age and gender. If we are the same age and/or gender and I take better care of myself and you smoke and are overweight, why should I pay your higher rate or why should you get a better rate because of my better self-care? 3. Lifetime limits will be eliminated -- FOR EVERYONE!!!!! So, if God forbid, you get hit by a bus through no fault of your own, you'll be covered for life as long as you maintain coverage. If you or someone you love develops a chronic condition, you will be covered for the rest of your life as long as you maintain coverage. If you or someone you love needs an organ transplant, or chemo, or repeated surgeries -- YOU WILL BE COVERED FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN COVERAGE. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T LET THE FINANCIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CLOUD THE VERY REAL BENEFITS OF THIS STATUTE TO EACH OF US. The financial stuff, is in many respects, a political red herring meant to cloud the real good this legislation can do for each of us. Don't get sucked into the political crap. YOU need unlimited, all-inclusive health insurance. Is this statute perfect in providing it? No, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:50:30 GMT -5
I have no problem with socialized medicine, if it is done right, what is going on with obamacare is a sideways glance at socialized medicine that hurts the working lower middle class in my opinion, if you are going to socialize medicine, then just do it. It drives me nuts when people say that this will bring the costs of medicine down. This does not truly address the reasons why the medical field is so expensive to operate, this just forces more people to participate in an expensive medical program.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:54:59 GMT -5
[/quote] PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T LET THE FINANCIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CLOUD THE VERY REAL BENEFITS OF THIS STATUTE TO EACH OF US. The financial stuff, is in many respects, a political red herring meant to cloud the real good this legislation can do for each of us. Don't get sucked into the political crap. YOU need unlimited, all-inclusive health insurance. Is this statute perfect in providing it? No, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.[/quote]
So you are saying that we should ignore the constitution in order to protect ourselves from ourselves. NO THANK YOU. Granted the supreme court has just ruled this constitutional, but in my limited opinion, I disagree. I think we should roll the government back to the constitution and start fresh from there, specifically the 10th amendment which states that all powers not stated in the constitution are held in reserve for the individual states to decide on.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Jun 28, 2012 11:58:32 GMT -5
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T LET THE FINANCIAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES CLOUD THE VERY REAL BENEFITS OF THIS STATUTE TO EACH OF US. The financial stuff, is in many respects, a political red herring meant to cloud the real good this legislation can do for each of us. Don't get sucked into the political crap. YOU need unlimited, all-inclusive health insurance. Is this statute perfect in providing it? No, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.[/quote] So you are saying that we should ignore the constitution in order to protect ourselves from ourselves. NO THANK YOU. Granted the supreme court has just ruled this constitutional, but in my limited opinion, I disagree. I think we should roll the government back to the constitution and start fresh from there, specifically the 10th amendment which states that all powers not stated in the constitution are held in reserve for the individual states to decide on.[/quote] That's a frighteningly slippery slope. Are you sure that's the one you want to go down? Besides the fact that most states (California, for example) don't have the wherewithal to provide health care for their residents. Going federal in things such as this can bring economies of scale that states can't. ETA: We come from different starting points. I believe Obamacare is constitutional.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:58:52 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, what's the reasoning that it's acceptable for a state to make people get health insurance but not okay for the feds to do the same? Our government is based on federalism, which shares the power between the federal government and the state. The Constitution spells out what powers the federal government has, and anything not specifically assigned to the federal government is under the governance of the states. The murkiness comes into it from interpretation of the Constitution and some that think the Constitution is out dated (i.e. the Founding Fathers would include more things in the Constitution if they were alive today since there's things/circumstances they just couldn't have ever envisioned). Also whether it should be strictly interpreted or loosely. ETA: The Constitution does not speak to healthcare, therefore it's left to the states to govern - but that would fall under strictly interpreting it. Interesting. So his problem isn't with the mandate or the issue, but it's a states' rights vs federal rights issue. Thanks for clarifying that.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 12:01:54 GMT -5
It does. look it up. If they chose to continue the Private Ins. and not the Goverment Mandated one then they are "fined" or "taxed" .. Show your source. Maybe he's referring to being fined if the insurance they offer doesn't fit the statute requirements? But I don't think health insurance companies will even offer that because I think they get fined as well.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 12:04:36 GMT -5
Uh, the biggest contention a lot of conservatives have with Obamacare is that it WON'T bring economies of scale. Obama refused to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. So if you live in California you can only buy a healthcare plan from California. Republicans wanted to tear down the law and open it up to a free market where a person could buy a plan from Iowa if it fit their needs better. Under Obamacare they can NOT do this.
|
|
kindthatjingles
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:06:06 GMT -5
Posts: 622
|
Post by kindthatjingles on Jun 28, 2012 12:05:50 GMT -5
Why is it that people have to use extreme examples tomake their point?
They are not going to pull the plug on a 60 year old needing dialysis.
Might deny a 95year old a hip replacement or a new heart valve from what I have read.
don 't got straight to hail the size of cantaloupes coming....
for goodness sake make your argument on facts and thoughtful discussion not dramatic examples
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Jun 28, 2012 12:06:35 GMT -5
I think lots of folks are suddenly going to become instant constitutional law experts
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 12:06:38 GMT -5
Maybe he's referring to being fined if the insurance they offer doesn't fit the statute requirements? But I don't think health insurance companies will even offer that because I think they get fined as well. Agreed. I don't realistically see anyone offering a product that doesn't fit the most basic needs of a customer, such as an insurance product that will get a business fined for using it. I don't see that being an issue. That would be like a modern car company making a new car that doesn't meet the most basic federal safety requirements. No one would buy it, so no one is going to go the expense of creating an unsellable product.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 12:06:54 GMT -5
I believe I've heard him say he's not even for Romneycare now that he has seen how it's shaked out, but I'm not 100% on that. So I think he's against it on both fronts.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 12:07:43 GMT -5
I think lots of folks are suddenly going to become instant constitutional law experts ;D
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jun 28, 2012 12:07:47 GMT -5
for goodness sake make your argument on facts and thoughtful discussion not dramatic examples
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Jun 28, 2012 12:09:16 GMT -5
I believe I've heard him say he's not even for Romneycare now that he has seen how it's shaked out, but I'm not 100% on that. So I think he's against it on both fronts. He's against it now because it is politically expedient.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 12:10:15 GMT -5
That's a frighteningly slippery slope. Are you sure that's the one you want to go down? Besides the fact that most states (California, for example) don't have the wherewithal to provide health care for their residents. Going federal in things such as this can bring economies of scale that states can't. ETA: We come from different starting points. I believe Obamacare is constitutional. It is a frighteningly slippery slope, but I truly believe that I can make choices for myself better than the federal government can in the bloated form it has today. If your individual state can't or won't take care of it's people, then the people should bring about a new constitutional congress and reform their state, power starts from the bottom, not from the top, or it should.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 12:11:03 GMT -5
I believe I've heard him say he's not even for Romneycare now that he has seen how it's shaked out, but I'm not 100% on that. So I think he's against it on both fronts. He's against it now because it is politically expedient. I was just thinking the exact same thing.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 12:12:19 GMT -5
I believe I've heard him say he's not even for Romneycare now that he has seen how it's shaked out, but I'm not 100% on that. So I think he's against it on both fronts. He's against it now because it is politically expedient. par for the course with him, actually. if anyone expects otherwise, they will be sadly disappointed if he is elected.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 12:12:20 GMT -5
Okay, so if you choose not to purchase insurance, you are taxed 1% of your income. How is that not redistributing the wealth? Shouldn't it be a flat tax/fine on those who don't comply? Because fining Bill Gates $100 wouldn't be incentive to do anything. ;D By penalizing people according to their income, you avoid overburdening the poor and under-burdening the wealthy.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 12:26:44 GMT -5
Because fining Bill Gates $100 wouldn't be incentive to do anything. ;D By penalizing people according to their income, you avoid overburdening the poor and under-burdening the wealthy. Yes, that's what I consider redistributing the wealth, something I am totally against. So what number do you think would incentivize both the owner of a Fortune 500 company and the janitor that cleans his office? The point of a penalty for noncompliance is to affect change, so how would you affect that change by equally incentivizing both of them?
|
|