Democrats' Health Care bill has been passed - SCOTUS ruling update

[tlowr4]

^ Well I wasn't really up for going through 22 pages of 40ppp thread to find it...

 

[arora]

^ Well I wasn't really up for going through 22 pages of 40ppp thread to find it...

No worries, this argument is about whether the bill will lower insurance cost or not, I say it will not, others say it will.

 

[Prosthetic]

No worries, this argument is about whether the bill will lower insurance cost or not, I say it will not, others say it will.

It makes it more readily available for people who can't afford it. And for people who can afford it and pay for it will get a portion back, thus making it cheaper and easier to acquire for all sides. What part of, not cheaper is that.

 

[arora]

It makes it more readily available for people who can't afford it

It's already free for those who cannot afford it.

And for people who can afford it and pay for it will get a portion back

So they can afford to pay for it but then get a tax rebate, is that what you are saying?

What part of, not cheaper is that.

I guess the part where no one pays for it and it's just magically cheaper.

The truth will be in the pudding as I've already said, wait 2 or 4 years whatever, then let me know how it's working out.

 

[Tornado]

that doesn't give you a licence to be condescending in the way you go present yourself.

Hm.

Good to know that there is somebody out there preaching common sense. It's not like the Supreme Court employs people solely for the purposes of interpreting and ruling on the Constitution

Of course he wll. Heaven forbid that the bill might actually help people who need it.

A case of do as I say, not as I do?

 

[FoolKiller]

So what if it's a "tax"? Since more people are going to get the healthcare now that they're fined for not having it, the price of the healthcare will reduce dramatically since more people are buying it...

Do not confuse health insurance and healthcare. No one is going to gain a new ability to walk into a doctor and seek treatment. They will have been forced to purchase the insurance to pay for it though.

And since when did more people buying something (demand) that has a set availability (supply) make it cheaper. The rule of supply and demand says higher demand and equal or lower supply equals higher prices.

As a Kidney Donor I am obviously for it. Because of my 'pre-existing condition' getting insurance is a lot tougher. Basically any insurance company can deny me coverage because of my decision of saving my dads life.

Because this will get contentious before it is over I want to start by saying it is an awesome thing which you have done and you have my respect. Your decision says a lot about your character.

Unfortunately, I disagree with you on this issue.

If ever need a kidney transplant surgery in the future and don't have insurance, it can run up to $600,000. Yeah... That's totally fair.

I need a heart transplant because I have a birth defect. The insurance issues you worry about since you helped your dad I have dealt with since birth (33 years). I agree, it is not fair that your sacrifice causes you to have to worry about this stuff and be treated as different by health insurers. It is not fair that I have to deal with it because I was born. It is not fair that I can't work certain jobs because of my many limitations. It is not fair that my daughter is two-years-old now and weighs 30 pounds, which makes me physically incapable of carrying her when she wants me to. It is unfair that, even with a transplant, odds are likely I won't live to see her graduate high school, get married, have kids, and so forth because average life expectancy after a successful heart transplant is 10-15 years. And it is not fair that I only get those odds if the right person dies in time, meaning that there is a chance my daughter will grow up without a father.

In short, life is unfair. My condition is not my fault. It is not my parents' fault (meet them some time if you want to learn about unfairly worrying about your child). It is no one's fault that I am sick. No one's fault. And dealing with it is no one's responsibility but mine (see my sig).

Insurance is in the liability business. Remove the liability and suddenly it is just a payment service. It would be unfair to expect them to run a business without being allowed to protect themselves from risk. I should have to pay more because it is a product to cover future possible medical expenses. My future expenses are not probable, but definite, possibly to a degree that many insurers couldn't afford to take on many patients like me without going bankrupt, meaning all their customers lose their coverage.

And for the thousands of other people that save lives? The same could be said for the pharmaceutical corporations that get away with monetary murder.

Pharmaceutical corporations have kept me alive my entire life. Pharmaceutical corporations looked at the Medicare and Medicaid prescription plans and saw massive gaps and created prescription assistance programs (PAP), which give free drugs to those who are financially struggling and under-insured/uninsured. Pharmacies began working with generic drug makers to provide cheap generics to go along with the PAPs. The pharmaceutical corporations you demonize and their partners worked to fill in where the government left people stranded. The AC is implementing changes to fix some of those issues, but they are late to the game. And as I mentioned before, the stats we were given at my job show that in Kentucky we are still expecting as much as 10% to be uncovered.

Are you effing kidding me? If it passes, as of 2014, no one with a 'pre-existing' condition can be refused insurance.

Despite the fact I spend more then 15 hours a week working out I have a disability. Thank god I'm covered for another 4 1/2 years.

I qualify for Disability. I don't draw the funds. I work. I work because I know that the rules about pre-existing conditions are not the cruel picture you paint. Depending on where you live you would have to be uninsured for 6-12 months, maybe longer, before you can be denied. In some places they could only deny you for something you have received treatment for in the last six months before you applied for coverage.

In short, if the ACA is repealed or heavily altered before you outgrow your "child" benefits (26, child, really? I was married) you will still have your coverage so long as you aren't just being a drain on society.

If I have a job that doesn't pay minimum wage, i will be able to afford it. Paying for insurance is not something I'm worried about, its being stuck without it.

EDIT: Scratch that, if I have a job.. PERIOD. I'll be able to afford it. If you have insurance you get a big tax credit.

Have you seen the cost of plans? There are too many to break it down, but as they are not allowed to have discount, minimum coverage plans like car insurance it goes from kind of expensive to expensive. Unfortunately, the ACA will tax moderate plans as Cadillac plans. Because making sure I have the coverage I really need is worthy of bring penalized.

Oh yeah, did you know that having a plan that will fully cover your dad's transplant or any complications you would have due to being a donor is seen as excessive and given an additional tax penalty? See, not only does this act want you to have a minimum coverage but it also doesn't want you to seek out the best that is out there. It could potentially cause companies to roll back on full plans that cover most things, meaning that people who have large expenses could still get stuck paying more out if pocket than they can or want.

And yes, I have a plan that qualifies for the definition if a Cadillac plan, but I not rich. I just have too many medical bills to want to worry about them and make financial sacrifices elsewhere to do that so that when I do die my wife won't have to file bankruptcy.

That sounds socialist

Or libertarian, as truly seeking freedom for all requires removing your own selfish wants or needs and emotional gut reactions from your decision making. Thinking everyone should pay for your individual needs is socialist-ish. Thinking everyone should be responsible for themselves is libertarian.

The only way this can negatively effect someone is if they can afford insurance but don't pay for it. Right now, if I weren't covered by my well off dad I would be denied from any affordable insurance.

No you wouldn't. Check HIPAA to see what the law is now. Check your state laws to see what your exact coverage restrictions are. But then, even if this were true, why is it anyone else's responsibility?

If I were to get into a car crash and my kidney to be squished, I would be saddled with more half a million for surgery alone, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicine that I would have to take for the REST of my life. And that's only if nothing goes wrong, my dad had a CMV virus which is extremely likely when receiving. If he didn't have insurance it would cost him $3k per REFILL for the medicine hes had to take for a 2 months now. If I don't pay, I die.

But why should any of this burden be placed on others?

Having insurance goes a long way. According to the government I'm in a rich family.

Its not just about my situation though, its EVERY donors situation. Stop thinking I'm just thinking about me, I'm think about every single freaking person who risked their life to help someone.

And your coverage is too good for the new rules if it is covering your dad's stuff.

Are you suggesting live donors get special compensation of some form? Or all donors? Why is it just this group of people who helped save another's life? If you want special treatment for donors equal to your sacrifice there are donor groups where your donation is directed to go to someone in the group unless no one can use it, then it goes to non-members. There you go, equal compensation in the form of first dibs on available organs. Your life will be saved ahead of a non-donor in greater need.

Because if you can afford there is no reason not to have it. Unless you're an idiot.. Then its an idiot tax.

Freedom means the right to make stupid decisions. If this idiot tax is justified then so would a monthly government inspection of you to make sure you are not doing anything that can be unhealthy to your kidney function. Of course, kidneys are so linked to, and affected by, things like the heart and liver that you will have to be in a low sodium, low cholesterol, low fat, sugar free diet to not face your own idiot tax. Don't worry. I've been on that diet for two years. You mostly get used to it after about six months. Its the cravings that get you though. I never thought I would miss ham or salami so much. Or even a simple gorram Oreo.

You don't see a problem with medicinal monopolies?

Could you explain this? I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure before addressing it.

If you think our current system is working then you live under a rock or just blinded with what others tell you.

Oh it's broken. Unfortunately the laws won't allow it to fix itself and nothing in the ACA addresses the issues in the system, like the actual cost of care or availability of medical professionals.

Do you think it's acceptable that we pay taxes that go to things like police or fire services? Or is that also socialism?

Do we pay those taxes to the federal government? Do those services, by law, charge or treat individuals differently based on financial standing? Are these services operated by private corporations that I have to pay directly to?

They are not remotely similar.

Well, there is a tax on insurance companies based on market share. Not that it will do much, but it's something.

This is actually the most damning part of the ACA. It is punishing success. Punishing market share will actually discourage insurance companies from offering a better price. This is designed (as in on purpose) to prevent the large insurance companies from losing business to smaller and newer companies that try to get in by offering better rates. The smaller company wont be able to afford to become competitive without raising their rates and losing the business again.

This is corporate cronyism and shows the ACA and Obama administration for what they really are.

Why punish market share?

Here's a pretty good explanation of all the changes the bill will make, with citations.

It would be better without the editorializing along the way. He spins regulations that require services that already exist as new, great things.

I find car insurance a better exemple, but your right and your comic strip was funny good.

I can choose to not buy car insurance if I don't have a car. And my car insurance rates are determined by my liability based on a pre-existing driving record, age, sex, etc. You know, insurance.

Also what do you want to be gouverned by : a elected gouv. or companies.

A Constitutionally limited government.

Also the insurance companies will not make more money, more income yes but their margin will probably be smaller, yet they will help a lot more people.

30 million new customers. Their margins would have to average more than a 10% drop to not be more money. And let's define help.

If democrates are socialist then republicans are egoists

And I rather have a socialist friend than an egoistic one

Stop the party rhetoric. They both want big government programs (socialist or fascist) and they both lie in bed with corporations.

Your proof that it won't? Mine = common sense.

The law of supply and demand says it won't. Your proof sounds like a bad understanding of economic principals.

I'm just trying to figure out how this healthcare system is socialism while taxing individuals for the sake of everyone's safety and security is not.

This charges different groups at different rates without matching the services to the charge. In other words, it is redistributing wealth.

"Fine, if you don't believe it, then don't use the service of the police, firefighters, hospitals, public phones, roads, street lights, government post offices, bridges, libraries, stoplights, pedestrian lights, any type of work employed by the government, schools, school buses, city buses, trains, and etc...

You take things for granted.

Not all of those are provided by government and some shouldn't be. My hospital is private, my phone is mobile, I don't use the Post Office if I can help it but sometime have no choice because when a private system was created they made it illegal, I'm planning to send my daughter to private school, and I never use public transportation.

I'm sure you will. However, I stopped reading after this sentence. I might be ignorant as to the finer points of American consitutional law, and I might be willing to learn more about it, but that doesn't give you a licence to be condescending in the way you go present yourself.

So I find it amusingly ironic that your user title says "Don't be a fool" when you've gone and done something as foolish as this. A case of do as I say, not as I do?

While it was in response to your quote it was not just referring to you. It was a statement about how I expected a day full of misinformation, confusion, and a general lack of knowledge regarding all the facts. I think that has proven itself out on both sides of the discussion. If I wanted to be condescending I'd use rolleyes smilies and have actually called you ignorant. I didn't because your misconceptions are common and thus reinforced by those around us.

But if you choose to take offense at my comment, then feel free. My wife also just walks away from me like that fairly often, so I'm used to it. It doesn't affect me.

I understand we all enjoy a good discussion/debate/hack-each-other-up-with-swords argument (occasionally), and maybe I missed something, but this thread was created in 2009. Why are we still on about it?

That's because the bill has gone into effect a few days ago.

The legal challenge in court just came out. It won't go into full effect until 2014. It is moving at the speed of government. That and by the time people realize how little this actually helps it will be too late to vote out Obama, which I think has far more to do with it the timing than anything.



It is 4:30 AM for me now and I typed this on my iPhone. I apologize for any typos and will scan for larger content errors tomorrow.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hm.

Perhaps I was being condescending - but it wasn't directed at anyone on the forum.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Or libertarian, as truly seeking freedom for all requires removing your own selfish wants or needs and emotional gut reactions from your decision making. Thinking everyone should pay for your individual needs is socialist-ish. Thinking everyone should be responsible for themselves is libertarian.

I would say thinking everyone, including yourself should pay for everyones needs it socialist. Which I find to be very unselfish thinking. A very good thing in my opinion.

That's the general attitude here in Sweden. Solidarity is the holy word, and something that the average Swede is incredibly proud of.

America is seen as a horrible example of greed and selfishness.This is not necessarily my opinion, but rather the general one of the Swedish people, as I've observed it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would say thinking everyone, including yourself should pay for everyones needs it socialist. Which I find to be very unselfish thinking. A very good thing in my opinion.

But Danoff's response is to someone basically saying they like it because it helps them. If it ultimately does more damage overall because a solidarity mindset took precedent in the minds of people who can't see beyond their own needs it is a bad thing.

That's the general attitude here in Sweden. Solidarity is the holy word, and something that the average Swede is incredibly proud of.

America is seen as a horrible example of greed and selfishness.This is not necessarily my opinion, but rather the general one of the Swedish people, as I've observed it.

While I know solidarity is seen as a great thing, and I can't argue with that, what kind of solidarity relies on government enforcement? That's not solidarity. Solidarity is when I was in the hospital and many friends and family willingly showed up to offer help, and even people who worked at the same organization as my wife offered to donate her sick time so that when I am bed ridden we will still have 100% of our income coming in.

Solidarity is Prosthetic freely donating an organ to his father, creating a possible burden for himself in the future.

If any of them did that kind if thing under legal obligation it would mean nothing.

If me saying that only I am responsible for dealing with my problems is selfish and if your society sharing in medical obligations by force of law is solidarity then this world is more backwards than my heart, which is quite literally backward.

 

[Encyclopedia]

But Danoff's response is to someone basically saying they like it because it helps them. If it ultimately does more damage overall because a solidarity mindset took precedent in the minds of people who can't see beyond their own needs it is a bad thing.


While I know solidarity is seen as a great thing, and I can't argue with that, what kind of solidarity relies on government enforcement? That's not solidarity. Solidarity is when I was in the hospital and many friends and family willingly showed up to offer help, and even people who worked at the same organization as my wife offered to donate her sick time so that when I am bed ridden we will still have 100% of our income coming in.

Solidarity is Prosthetic freely donating an organ to his father, creating a possible burden for himself in the future.

If any of them did that kind if thing under legal obligation it would mean nothing.

If me saying that only I am responsible for dealing with my problems is selfish and if your society sharing in medical obligations by force of law is solidarity then this world is more backwards than my heart, which is quite literally backward.

I see what you mean and understand it. But while it may be forced here in Sweden, a lot of people don't see it that way. Since greed and selfishness is such a negative thing here it is almost seen as comparable with crime.

Removing that demand would only have the effect of a much colder society, which is kind of what America is seen as a shining example of. America does not have a good reputation here. People have a tendency towards greed.

Sweden and America has got fundamentally different views on these matters. I can see advantages and disadvantages of both ways and tend to like a middle solution better than an extreme.

Btw, our government has voted yes to giving illegal immigrants (or paperless as they're called in PC-terms) healthcare . That is, in my opinion taking it too far.

 

[Famine]

I would say thinking everyone, including yourself should pay for everyones needs it socialist. Which I find to be very unselfish thinking.

It's extremely selfish thinking - that what you think is right requires other people to be penalised on threat of prison to accomplish.

 

[Encyclopedia]

It's extremely selfish thinking - that what you think is right requires other people to be penalised on threat of prison to accomplish.

That's one way to look at it sure. But you could also look at as greed being a crime.

This is not necessarily my own opinion though. But something I've observed in a lot of other people.

 

[Keef]

Greed isn't immoral and it isn't illegal.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Greed isn't immoral and it isn't illegal.

Perhaps not, but a lot of people sure thinks it is and should be over here.

 

[Famine]

That's one way to look at it sure. But you could also look at as greed being a crime.

And what of the greed at play when you take other people's money off them on threat of prison?

Greed is not a crime, nor should be. Immoral actions taken to sate that greed are and ought to be.

 

[Encyclopedia]

And what of the greed at play when you take other people's money off them on threat of prison?

Greed is not a crime, nor should be. Immoral actions taken to sate that greed are and ought to be.

I agree. But a lot of people here don't think that far. Or it's seen as a way prevent immoral actions before happening.

 

[Famine]

By being greedy enough to make retaining your own income a crime - to support whatever programs they think should be provided free at the point of use?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Encyclopedia]

By being greedy enough to make retaining your own income a crime - to support whatever programs they think should be provided free at the point of use?

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Only trying to speak for the general Swedish public.

 

[arora]

And attacking all American's integrity in the process? I mean really? Going the stereo type route?

 

[Encyclopedia]

And attacking all American's integrity in the process? I mean really? Going the stereo type route?

What?

I was merely stating the general opinion of Swedes about America, which is of course based on generalizations. People in general tend to think in generalizations. Oh look, that's also a generalization.

I didn't state any of my own opinions about America, and I thought I was clear about that but evidently not.

 

[arora]

No worries, sorry if I sounded cross. I went back and read over it, I'm just very tired of hearing all the u.s. bashing in general(not from you).

We aren't jack ass selfish pricks, no one here want's to see people in need go without I assure you. We have a different approach for sure, I'd rather see everyone excel to limitless bounds and maintain their independence.

 

[-Cheezman-]

As an American who was born in America, has never lived anywhere but America, and pays taxes in America. I'm okay with this.

They already did basically "Obamacare" (Stupid name; Should be Romneycare if anything) in my state (which by the way, was created by the Republicans in my state, not Democrats, as it was basically a guarantee to big insurance companies that they would make money), and not a single person went to prison over not having health care, hell, I don't even think penalties were imposed. It's nothing more then rhetoric from the right, just like death panels were, and Obama is a closet middle eastern terrorist (or whatever B/S they scream daily).

Oh, and Massachusetts now has something like 95% insured residents. Highest in the country. That being said, because of the new healthcare laws going in to effect, my state resolved (is that the correct legal term?) its own laws.

Take what you will from that.

 

[Caz]

Your saying mass has resolved something ? I strongly disagree.
33 year resident of this wonderful bass akwards state.

 

[Encyclopedia]

No worries, sorry if I sounded cross. I went back and read over it, I'm just very tired of hearing all the u.s. bashing in general(not from you).

We aren't jack ass selfish pricks, no one here want's to see people in need go without I assure you. We have a different approach for sure, I'd rather see everyone excel to limitless bounds and maintain their independence.

It's cool. 👍

Yeah I can understand that. I guess it's the backside of being such a dominant nation.

 

[Keef]

I didn't state any of my own opinions about America, and I thought I was clear about that but evidently not.

It's cool dude, mountain people tend to get worked up over silly things.

 

[Kent]

So I just mentioned this in the healthcare thread above but...

2014, penalty on tax return if you do not have health insurance? Is that true, if so we have a major MAJOR problem.

Btw, not being put in prison isn't enough... Not been penalized would be enough.
@ Cheezman.
I mean really? You don't think anyone has been penalized? I'm guessing you are the most popular accountant in the state to have access to so many tax returns.

 

[Danoff]

Do not confuse health insurance and healthcare. No one is going to gain a new ability to walk into a doctor and seek treatment. They will have been forced to purchase the insurance to pay for it though.

And since when did more people buying something (demand) that has a set availability (supply) make it cheaper. The rule of supply and demand says higher demand and equal or lower supply equals higher prices.


Because this will get contentious before it is over I want to start by saying it is an awesome thing which you have done and you have my respect. Your decision says a lot about your character.

Unfortunately, I disagree with you on this issue.


I need a heart transplant because I have a birth defect. The insurance issues you worry about since you helped your dad I have dealt with since birth (33 years). I agree, it is not fair that your sacrifice causes you to have to worry about this stuff and be treated as different by health insurers. It is not fair that I have to deal with it because I was born. It is not fair that I can't work certain jobs because of my many limitations. It is not fair that my daughter is two-years-old now and weighs 30 pounds, which makes me physically incapable of carrying her when she wants me to. It is unfair that, even with a transplant, odds are likely I won't live to see her graduate high school, get married, have kids, and so forth because average life expectancy after a successful heart transplant is 10-15 years. And it is not fair that I only get those odds if the right person dies in time, meaning that there is a chance my daughter will grow up without a father.

In short, life is unfair. My condition is not my fault. It is not my parents' fault (meet them some time if you want to learn about unfairly worrying about your child). It is no one's fault that I am sick. No one's fault. And dealing with it is no one's responsibility but mine (see my sig).

Insurance is in the liability business. Remove the liability and suddenly it is just a payment service. It would be unfair to expect them to run a business without being allowed to protect themselves from risk. I should have to pay more because it is a product to cover future possible medical expenses. My future expenses are not probable, but definite, possibly to a degree that many insurers couldn't afford to take on many patients like me without going bankrupt, meaning all their customers lose their coverage.



Pharmaceutical corporations have kept me alive my entire life. Pharmaceutical corporations looked at the Medicare and Medicaid prescription plans and saw massive gaps and created prescription assistance programs (PAP), which give free drugs to those who are financially struggling and under-insured/uninsured. Pharmacies began working with generic drug makers to provide cheap generics to go along with the PAPs. The pharmaceutical corporations you demonize and their partners worked to fill in where the government left people stranded. The AC is implementing changes to fix some of those issues, but they are late to the game. And as I mentioned before, the stats we were given at my job show that in Kentucky we are still expecting as much as 10% to be uncovered.


I qualify for Disability. I don't draw the funds. I work. I work because I know that the rules about pre-existing conditions are not the cruel picture you paint. Depending on where you live you would have to be uninsured for 6-12 months, maybe longer, before you can be denied. In some places they could only deny you for something you have received treatment for in the last six months before you applied for coverage.

In short, if the ACA is repealed or heavily altered before you outgrow your "child" benefits (26, child, really? I was married) you will still have your coverage so long as you aren't just being a drain on society.


Have you seen the cost of plans? There are too many to break it down, but as they are not allowed to have discount, minimum coverage plans like car insurance it goes from kind of expensive to expensive. Unfortunately, the ACA will tax moderate plans as Cadillac plans. Because making sure I have the coverage I really need is worthy of bring penalized.

Oh yeah, did you know that having a plan that will fully cover your dad's transplant or any complications you would have due to being a donor is seen as excessive and given an additional tax penalty? See, not only does this act want you to have a minimum coverage but it also doesn't want you to seek out the best that is out there. It could potentially cause companies to roll back on full plans that cover most things, meaning that people who have large expenses could still get stuck paying more out if pocket than they can or want.

And yes, I have a plan that qualifies for the definition if a Cadillac plan, but I not rich. I just have too many medical bills to want to worry about them and make financial sacrifices elsewhere to do that so that when I do die my wife won't have to file bankruptcy.


Or libertarian, as truly seeking freedom for all requires removing your own selfish wants or needs and emotional gut reactions from your decision making. Thinking everyone should pay for your individual needs is socialist-ish. Thinking everyone should be responsible for themselves is libertarian.


No you wouldn't. Check HIPAA to see what the law is now. Check your state laws to see what your exact coverage restrictions are. But then, even if this were true, why is it anyone else's responsibility?


But why should any of this burden be placed on others?


And your coverage is too good for the new rules if it is covering your dad's stuff.

Are you suggesting live donors get special compensation of some form? Or all donors? Why is it just this group of people who helped save another's life? If you want special treatment for donors equal to your sacrifice there are donor groups where your donation is directed to go to someone in the group unless no one can use it, then it goes to non-members. There you go, equal compensation in the form of first dibs on available organs. Your life will be saved ahead of a non-donor in greater need.


Freedom means the right to make stupid decisions. If this idiot tax is justified then so would a monthly government inspection of you to make sure you are not doing anything that can be unhealthy to your kidney function. Of course, kidneys are so linked to, and affected by, things like the heart and liver that you will have to be in a low sodium, low cholesterol, low fat, sugar free diet to not face your own idiot tax. Don't worry. I've been on that diet for two years. You mostly get used to it after about six months. Its the cravings that get you though. I never thought I would miss ham or salami so much. Or even a simple gorram Oreo.


Could you explain this? I think I know what you mean, but I want to be sure before addressing it.


Oh it's broken. Unfortunately the laws won't allow it to fix itself and nothing in the ACA addresses the issues in the system, like the actual cost of care or availability of medical professionals.


Do we pay those taxes to the federal government? Do those services, by law, charge or treat individuals differently based on financial standing? Are these services operated by private corporations that I have to pay directly to?

They are not remotely similar.


This is actually the most damning part of the ACA. It is punishing success. Punishing market share will actually discourage insurance companies from offering a better price. This is designed (as in on purpose) to prevent the large insurance companies from losing business to smaller and newer companies that try to get in by offering better rates. The smaller company wont be able to afford to become competitive without raising their rates and losing the business again.

This is corporate cronyism and shows the ACA and Obama administration for what they really are.

Why punish market share?


It would be better without the editorializing along the way. He spins regulations that require services that already exist as new, great things.


I can choose to not buy car insurance if I don't have a car. And my car insurance rates are determined by my liability based on a pre-existing driving record, age, sex, etc. You know, insurance.


A Constitutionally limited government.


30 million new customers. Their margins would have to average more than a 10% drop to not be more money. And let's define help.


Stop the party rhetoric. They both want big government programs (socialist or fascist) and they both lie in bed with corporations.


The law of supply and demand says it won't. Your proof sounds like a bad understanding of economic principals.


This charges different groups at different rates without matching the services to the charge. In other words, it is redistributing wealth.


Not all of those are provided by government and some shouldn't be. My hospital is private, my phone is mobile, I don't use the Post Office if I can help it but sometime have no choice because when a private system was created they made it illegal, I'm planning to send my daughter to private school, and I never use public transportation.


While it was in response to your quote it was not just referring to you. It was a statement about how I expected a day full of misinformation, confusion, and a general lack of knowledge regarding all the facts. I think that has proven itself out on both sides of the discussion. If I wanted to be condescending I'd use rolleyes smilies and have actually called you ignorant. I didn't because your misconceptions are common and thus reinforced by those around us.

But if you choose to take offense at my comment, then feel free. My wife also just walks away from me like that fairly often, so I'm used to it. It doesn't affect me.



The legal challenge in court just came out. It won't go into full effect until 2014. It is moving at the speed of government. That and by the time people realize how little this actually helps it will be too late to vote out Obama, which I think has far more to do with it the timing than anything.



It is 4:30 AM for me now and I typed this on my iPhone. I apologize for any typos and will scan for larger content errors tomorrow.

Brilliant, epic post. 👍

That sounds socialist

This is a common mistake - to think that capitalism somehow extends to government services. Capitalism can only exist within a limited grovernment. If people are allowed to use the government for their own selfish gains, socialism and/or the rule of the mob will eventually result.

 

[arora]

It's cool dude, mountain people tend to get worked up over silly things.

 

[Omnis]

I agree with Danoff. Epic post.

 

[Limey77]

Glad to see that the US has taken the first steps to joining the first world with regards to healthcare.

It's far from perfect but at least it is the first step in the right direction.

I'm constantly amazed at all the vitriol in American politics, but had the Republicans actually conceded anything in negotiations the US might actually have achieved UHC.

It's just unbelievable how much healthcare costs in American and with such poor outcomes compared to other western countries.

Just look at average hospital costs, life expectancy, cancer survival rates, coronary heart disease rates and it's clear that something needed to be done.