Let's Talk About This Obamacare Thing Nicely

[KevinWestern]

Here it Goes...

This isn’t so Bad (mostly already in effect):
-Makes it easier to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition
-No pre-existing conditions for kids under 19
-Kids can stay on insurance until age 26
-Encourages the FDA to approve more generic drugs
-Increases rebates on drugs people get through Medicare
-Encourages preventative care

This is not Good (just coming into effect):
-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price
-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line
-Businesses over 50 employees MUST give full-timers insurance


Although I list a greater quantity of things in the “Isn’t so Bad” section, the three points in the “Not Good” section I think far outweigh any of the aforementioned merits.

I don’t like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, and the options they provide (based on what I’ve seen) cost at a minimum $250/month for a crappy plan or face a penalty (only $100 in yr 1, but skyrockets to $500 after that). Too, seems like a really f’ing good deal for the insurance companies (lol). How about Audi and our Gov’t draft a bill that forces every American to buy at least 1 car?

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Let's try to hold off on the name-calling until at least the 3rd page of posts (if it gets there).

.

 

[Destroyer2]

I don’t like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, and the options they provide (based on what I’ve seen) cost at a minimum $250/month for a crappy plan or face a penalty (only $100 in yr 1, but skyrockets to $500 after that). Too, seems like a really f’ing good deal for the insurance companies (lol). How about Audi and our Gov’t draft a bill that forces every American to buy at least 1 car?

I can see why you think this and I actually kind of agree that you shouldn't be forced to by insurance. That should be a choice made on your own, not by the government.

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

I don't think a lack of free medical insurance will make people self-sufficient on its own to be quite honest. I also don't believe that expanding Medicaid will decrease people's self-sufficiency. The debt is an issue though, I suppose.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/poli...cares-impact-on-jobs-likely-to-be-minimal.ece

 

[Toronado3800]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

The individual mandate is genious IMO. Because we have had a socialist system for the last fifty years and neither Reagan or Nixon or Kennedy or Bush or Clinton were going to have hospitals quit passing on the cost to me after caring for those who could not prove they could pay for their services en masse.

 

[g5000]

I think the subsidies are going to bankrupt the country, and they will be an eternal "get" in political horse trading, just like the annual fight over the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Medicare reimbursement levels. Along with "doc fixes", we will be plagued with subsidy hikes by vote-seeking populists.

I also believe the government being the gatekeeper to the insurance exhanges is going to lead to all kinds of corruption. How much did you contribute to the Demcratic Party? How many blacks and women and Hispanics work for your company?

If a politician doesn't get a big enough campaign donation from an insurance company, he will hold hearings about how many old ladies they snuffed with their death panels, in an attempt to get the insurance company delisted from the exchanges.

This is going to be bad. Very bad.

 

[KevinWestern]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

Definitely a stance that can go either way. Most young people graduate college at about 22-23, giving them 3 years to find a job that will provide health insurance or purchase it on their own. Definitely doable and reasonable, however.

I don't believe individuals who are < 26 are "high risk" and covering these guys probably won't cost the insurance a whole lot extra. That's kinda how I look at it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi KW
#1 issue is why couldn't all this be done by
A. allowing other options BESIDES just buying private insurance mandated by fed govt

B. until issues were resolved, why couldn't the Democrat party supporting this
organize all its membership base to pay for it themselves, prove it first,
and then offer it for people to participate freely. if the ACA truly represents the population, why couldn't supporters pay for it themselves by following the policies they believe in?

why this INSISTENCE that requiring all people to buy "private insurance"
is the "only way to make it work"

some other options that could pay for health care WITHOUT taxing or costing
citizens more than we already pay
A. reforming the criminal justice system per state, addressing the of waste of billions on crime that is charged to taxpayers, and using those funds to pay for housing health care and education (also why not pay back contested war spending and use that for funding)
B. allowing nonprofit exchanges outside of govt, such as programs requiring spiritual healing to cut the costs of disease and treatments so more people can be served for free
C. rewarding businesses and individuals with taxbreaks for investing in medical education training and internships for more service providers to the public while working off loans

Here it Goes...

This isn’t so Bad (mostly already in effect):
-Makes it easier to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition
-No pre-existing conditions for kids under 19
-Kids can stay on insurance until age 26
-Encourages the FDA to approve more generic drugs
-Increases rebates on drugs people get through Medicare
-Encourages preventative care

This is not Good (just coming into effect):
-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price
-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line
-Businesses over 50 employees MUST give full-timers insurance


Although I list a greater quantity of things in the “Isn’t so Bad” section, the three points in the “Not Good” section I think far outweigh any of the aforementioned merits.

I don’t like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, and the options they provide (based on what I’ve seen) cost at a minimum $250/month for a crappy plan or face a penalty (only $100 in yr 1, but skyrockets to $500 after that). Too, seems like a really f’ing good deal for the insurance companies (lol). How about Audi and our Gov’t draft a bill that forces every American to buy at least 1 car?

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Let's try to hold off on the name-calling until at least the 3rd page of posts (if it gets there).

.

 

[Rozman]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

The individual mandate is genious IMO. Because we have had a socialist system for the last fifty years and neither Reagan or Nixon or Kennedy or Bush or Clinton were going to have hospitals quit passing on the cost to me after caring for those who could not prove they could pay for their services en masse.

What bullshit...26 year olds are not kids...
They shoud be making their own way in life...

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is a new forum for discussing Obamacare nicely. It is a place that requires honesty and facts to back up statements.

Try it.

 

[francoHFW]

NO MORE FREELOADERS. Anyway, O-Care is newly guaranteed and affordable- despite what you've ''heard'' lol...

 

[g5000]

NO MORE FREELOADERS.

We now have millions of freeloaders receiving subsidies for their insurance. And millions more in the expanded Medicaid program.

 

[francoHFW]

Getting freeloaders to pay something and get preventive care saves lots of money over today's mess. Many fewer bankruptcies and fewer people on welfare just to get Medicaid...

 

[chikenwing]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

The individual mandate is genious IMO. Because we have had a socialist system for the last fifty years and neither Reagan or Nixon or Kennedy or Bush or Clinton were going to have hospitals quit passing on the cost to me after caring for those who could not prove they could pay for their services en masse.

So who do you think will be the ones to pay for them now,only add the number by millions,kinda makes the I don't wanna pay thing kinda silly.

 

[g5000]

Getting freeloaders to pay something and get preventive care saves lots of money over today's mess. Many fewer bankruptcies and fewer people on welfare just to get Medicaid...

Nice try at Orwellian doublespeak. A healthy person without insurance is not a freeloader. In fact, ObamaCare depends very heavily on those people. If they were an aggregate negative as you so badly fail to imply, ObamaCare would not be depending on them for its success. They are being coerced into ObamaCare precisely because they are an economic positive.

We do now have millions of freeloaders receiving subsidies for their insurance. And millions more in the expanded Medicaid program.

 

[francoHFW]

Until they're not healthy- which happens, hater dupe. Including accidents, freeloader.

 

[Nyvin]

It will require adjustments, but it will be an overall benefit. Once fully enacted people will wonder how it's even possible to go off of it.

 

[g5000]

If fifty young and healthy people did not get insurance, and one of them got sick, the economic cost of taking care of that person is less than the economic cost of all fifty shelling out bucks for insurance.

ObamaCare depends on this fact. It is forcing the voluntarily uninsured to pay insurance because the aggregate forced contributions are greater than the cost of any illnesses that demographic incurs.

Only a willfully obtuse person would call these people freeloaders. These people have been coerced into paying for the health insurance of others outside their demographic.

Fact.

The actual freeloaders are those who will be receiving subsidies and those who are in Medicaid. One third of the involuntarily uninsured dropped out of high school and expect us to carry them on our backs as their reward.

 

[francoHFW]

So go get your cheap, guaranteed care and get some free checkups so you don't keel over or present at the ER with stage 4 cancer or diabetes/dead kidneys, dead at 28 with bad heart, etc etc etc......

Guess you haven't paid for an operation and hospital stay lately lol...

 

[g5000]

So go get your cheap, guaranteed care and get some free checkups so you don't keel over or present at the ER with stage 4 cancer or diabetes/dead kidneys......

The voluntarily uninsured are being coerced into paying for more than their fair share. The Democratic Party pretends to be all about "fair share" when forcing more money from the rich, and isn't when forcing money from the voluntarily uninsured.

So the fact is the Democrats are all about grabbing as much money from as many people against their will as possible.

 

[Nyvin]

The increase in preventive care will potentially be HUGE! It can potentially save millions or billions depending how successful it is in getting people to actually get screenings, tests, physicals, or other preventive care. Early treatment is almost universally cheaper then "too late" treatment.

Also in the current state one of two people currently pay for 18-25 year olds health care...parents buy them their own plan, or the taxpayers foot the bill via the ER. Sure there are an extreme few who can live independently and afford their own plan, but for the most part this is how it is now. All this really does is save the parents some cash while their kid is in college. Probably think of it as an extremely small college cost savings.

The exchanges provide a much needed pricing competition among insurance companies where currently...there isn't any. Although currently the insurance companies are responding to this in weird ways like gouging prices by reducing the number of doctors you can go to...eventually things will get normed out.

 

[francoHFW]

18- not after subsidies...it just makes sense for everyone...