The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Is anyone here w/out ins. going to reject "ObamaCare"?

ObamaCare, yes or no?

  • Fuck Obama and his socialist schemes!

    Votes: 6 50.0%

  • I will sign up...quietly.

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Greece has free health care and is now bankrupt. Not a great argument for socialized medicine. The U S is bankrupt now. The Ponzi scheme has just not collapsed yet. Free health care should be out of the question.
 
Benvolio said:
Greece has free health care and is now bankrupt. Not a great argument for socialized medicine. The U S is bankrupt now. The Ponzi scheme has just not collapsed yet. Free health care should be out of the question.
Click to expand...

Greece was not bankrupted by its national health service and despite being bankrupt our national health services manages to offer the general public decent health care be it that the service is under great pressure to operate with inadequate resources.

Most developed nations have a national health service of one form, or another operating without bankrupting their respective economies.

The United Kingdom legislated its national health service into law in 1948 a result of its pioneering free health care service implemented from the day the Luftwaffe began dropping its nightly calling card in 1939.

When will the United States implement its own version of an national health service with suitable lessons learnt from your UK cousins?
 
Benvolio said:
Greece has free health care and is now bankrupt. Not a great argument for socialized medicine. The U S is bankrupt now. The Ponzi scheme has just not collapsed yet. Free health care should be out of the question.
Click to expand...

Mind you, it's not free. Everyone pays into the fund, that's why it works. Nothing free about it; it's an agreement between the people of an entire country to make sure no one is denied healthcare because they cannot afford it.

The more fortunate pay more, the less fortunate pay less. Those below the poverty line do not pay because they can't. In a perfect world, the wealthy are altruistic. In the sphere of reality, they're often not. That's why a tax works--it's legally binding. No wiggle room.

To refute your claim that bankrupt countries are the worst places to have universal healthcare, a lot of European countries enacted it in the wake of WWII, when they were left with NOTHING. Look at the same countries today and you could hardly tell that 70 years ago they were ashen, crater-laden and smoldering. It saves money.

Private coverage wastes it. Rather than having no one waste money for service, everyone loses money.
 
justdra said:
This is going to be like Medicare. It will take years for to see the overall benefits/downsides depending on your situation. You have to start somewhere to address the problem of medical cost (why not start with making hospital not overcharge people, I don't know). We have been living high on the hog (the country as a whole, not individuals) and now its time to buckle down because things have gotten out of hand and as usual, everyone suffers except the super rich, but what else are you going to do. I know every keeps going on about the deficit but be honest, can you say how it is affecting your daily life? Can you not pay your bills because of the deficit? Most of us work and have PC's, access to the internet and at xmas, we all talk about the nice stuff we purchased or received. I have friends who have purchased homes and vehicles and still complain but that is because they are living outside of their means, like most of us are, and its hard to cut back once you get use to having most of what you want.
Click to expand...

great post.
 
Benvolio said:
Greece has free health care and is now bankrupt. Not a great argument for socialized medicine. The U S is bankrupt now. The Ponzi scheme has just not collapsed yet. Free health care should be out of the question.
Click to expand...

Greece spends $2,853 per capita per year on health care. Greece spends 10.2% of its GDP on health care.

The USA spends $8,362 per capita per year on health care (3x as much as Greece). The USA spends 17.9% of its GDP on health care.

You seem to be arguing that Greece needs to triple its spending on health care, in order to help balance its budget. I find that argument fascinating. Can you cite evidence that spending so much more on health care actually saves money?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country
 
mightbe said:
Mind you, it's not free. Everyone pays into the fund, that's why it works. Nothing free about it; it's an agreement between the people of an entire country to make sure no one is denied healthcare because they cannot afford it.

The more fortunate pay more, the less fortunate pay less. Those below the poverty line do not pay because they can't. In a perfect world, the wealthy are altruistic. In the sphere of reality, they're often not. That's why a tax works--it's legally binding. No wiggle room.

To refute your claim that bankrupt countries are the worst places to have universal healthcare, a lot of European countries enacted it in the wake of WWII, when they were left with NOTHING. Look at the same countries today and you could hardly tell that 70 years ago they were ashen, crater-laden and smoldering. It saves money.

Private coverage wastes it. Rather than having no one waste money for service, everyone loses money.
Click to expand...

Obamacare is designed so that about half the people will get free insurance at the expense of the other half. Those who file returns must buy UNLESS they cannot afford to. But, 47%of filers pay no tax and about 47% receive some form of welfare. Therefore we must conclude that at least 47% will be deemed too poor to pay for their insurance, so the government will buy it for them. The few people who pay income tax are not eager to have this huge burden dumped on them.
 
Benvolio said:
Obamacare is designed so that about half the people will get free insurance at the expense of the other half. Those who file returns must buy UNLESS they cannot afford to. But, 47%of filers pay no tax and about 47% receive some form of welfare. Therefore we must conclude that at least 47% will be deemed too poor to pay for their insurance, so the government will buy it for them. The few people who pay income tax are not eager to have this huge burden dumped on them.
Click to expand...

This is simply not correct.

Outside of Medicaid/Medicare, the government does not "buy" insurance for anyone under Obamacare.

Those people who cannot afford to purchase private insurance under Obamacare (and who do not qualify for Medicaid/Medicare) must pay the penalty, and also do without any health insurance whatsoever. That will be an awful lot of people, of course. That is the reason for the proposed expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare. It is an attempt to cover a few more people than would be covered otherwise. But, the proposed expansion is tiny, relative to the existing size of Medicaid. Only a handful of people will benefit from this.

Obamacare is far from providing the comprehensive healthcare coverage for everyone in the nation that has become standard in developed countries. That is one reason why Obamacare is such a terrible plan. It will leave millions of poor people uncovered, and it will penalize them for their inability to purchase private insurance. It will therefore save only a little bit of money, because it has done only a little bit to address the problem of uninsured Americans.

If America really wants to control healthcare costs, it needs to adopt a European/Canadian style of single-payer, comprehensive coverage for everyone. Such a system would halve our expenditures on healthcare, as has been the experience in the rest of the developed world. I do not believe that Republicans will ever permit this level of efficiency, however, as that party insists on massive waste and bloat in everything.
 
^Canada sets a fine example that the United States could emulate with adjustments to suit American needs.
 
Benvolio said:
Here is a CNN articles that estimates that 26 million will get the government subsidies. https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+federal+subsidy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari. But the 11 million illegals the Democrats want to add will inflate that.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that the government would be buying health insurance for 47% of the population. That's not what the articles in your link say.

They say that up to 26 million Americans may qualify for subsidies, which is to say that perhaps as much as 8% of the US population may qualify for some sort of assistance. Those who do get assistance are not likely to get much. Families making up to 400% of the federal poverty level must contribute 4% of their annual income toward their insurance premiums, before they become eligible for a subsidy. Families making more than 400% of the federal poverty level must contribute 9.5% of their income toward their premiums before they become eligible for a subsidy.

Obviously, that's a huge percentage of their incomes. Very little of the remaining cost of the premiums will remain to be paid by the government. Moreover, very few of the people who are eligible for the subsidies will be able to accept them, because they will not be able to manage their portion of the responsibility for the premiums - it's huge. That means they will have no choice but to pay the penalty, and do without insurance. And it means that they will continue to be subsidized by people buying higher premiums for private insurance, which is one of the problems Obamacare was supposed to fix. And finally, it means that precious little subsidy money will ever be paid out to anyone.

It is well to remember that Obamacare is a law requiring people to buy rather crappy private insurance that covers very few medical problems or expenses. It is not universal health care for America.

The federal government paying a tiny portion of the health care premiums for a tiny percentage of the population is NOT "the government buying health insurance for 47% of the population." In fact, it isn't much of anything at all.

And therein lies a problem.
 
The 26 million are families and/or the people required to buy the policies, while your 8% appears to be a percentage of all individuals, including children. The 26 million would be a much higher percentage of families or policy buyers.
We seem however, to agree that the system is likely to fail.
 
^What do you want to see happen to healthcare in the US? If your word was law, what would you want?

A repeat of the broken private system we've dragged behind us for so long? Right now, I can't really tell what you want, other than "not universal healthcare" and that what he had was bad but Obamacare is worse. I hear a lot of 'don't want' but not any real plan. What type of system do you stand for?

Also, your reply to my previous post missed that I wasn't talking about Obamacare. I was talking about universal healthcare, which has absolutely no relation to the piece of shit private system we have now.
 
Benvolio said:
We seem however, to agree that the system is likely to fail.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I expect this system to "succeed." Not in providing comprehensive health care for all Americans, but at least in providing a little bit better coverage for a few more people, while saving a little bit of money. Obamacare is not much of a solution to the problem. But it is, at least, an attempt to do something worthwhile.

My hope is that the system can be morphed over time into what it needs to be, more or less. The Republican Party is on the decline, and will be in less of a position in the immediate future to block progress for America. The public option (which Obama negotiated away in return for absolutely nothing from Republicans) can be added back at some point and the microscopic subsidies can be replaced by real assistance for people in need. Better control of the coverage (in part through implementation of the public option) can be achieved.

America spends far more on health care than any nation on Earth, and yet we have little to show for our efforts in terms of favorable outcomes. It is the most bloated and inefficient healthcare system on Earth. It is a huge drag on our economy. Republicans, in their love of waste, want this to continue. It cannot.
 
T-Rexx said:
On the contrary, I expect this system to "succeed." Not in providing comprehensive health care for all Americans, but at least in providing a little bit better coverage for a few more people, while saving a little bit of money. Obamacare is not much of a solution to the problem. But it is, at least, an attempt to do something worthwhile.

My hope is that the system can be morphed over time into what it needs to be, more or less. The Republican Party is on the decline, and will be in less of a position in the immediate future to block progress for America. The public option (which Obama negotiated away in return for absolutely nothing from Republicans) can be added back at some point and the microscopic subsidies can be replaced by real assistance for people in need. Better control of the coverage (in part through implementation of the public option) can be achieved.

America spends far more on health care than any nation on Earth, and yet we have little to show for our efforts in terms of favorable outcomes. It is the most bloated and inefficient healthcare system on Earth. It is a huge drag on our economy. Republicans, in their love of waste, want this to continue. It cannot.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one. ACA will succeed.
 
Unfortunately, your post itself #52 describes a failure of the system, in which millions of families pay the tax rather than getting insurance. That dooms the system, not just for themselves but for the insurance companies, and ultimately for everyone. The only way to give free health care to those with preexisting if for everyone else to pay inflated premiums. You may however be right that the system will morph into a system in which we borrow money, for a time, to give universal health care. What then, when people stop loaning us money?
 
Benvolio said:
Unfortunately, your post itself #52 describes a failure of the system, in which millions of families pay the tax rather than getting insurance. That dooms the system, not just for themselves but for the insurance companies, and ultimately for everyone. The only way to give free health care to those with preexisting if for everyone else to pay inflated premiums. You may however be right that the system will morph into a system in which we borrow money, for a time, to give universal health care. What then, when people stop loaning us money?
Click to expand...

How come you are ignoring the post I put a link in? Post #51
 
Since Obamacare was implemented, My insurance went up $2,500.00 and my out of pocket expenses doubled.
It was explained that since children up to the age of 26 were added, premiums had to go up.
Also since I have a "Cadillac plan"through my union, Starting in 2018 I will be hit with a 40% tax on what my employer pays for it.
(Untaxed income) It showed up on my W-2 but not taxed - (yet)
The choices I have is pay more or Drop my coverage and go on an exchange.

Low income people will be given Medicaid, The cheapest insurance plans have high deductibles and high out of pocket expenses that render them useless unless you have a major illness.
If you have a pre-existing condition - They have to cover you, But you will pay much more for the coverage.
Smokers, overweight people will have to pay 50% more.

It would seem Obamacare punishes you if you have good insurance or have an unhealthy lifestyle.
I see very little in this plan that is Liberal or Democratic.
I do see this as a Conservate Republican plan that forces you to pay more - get less, that very few will benefit from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top