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

[Benvolio]

No fair! The Republicans have fought it tooth and nail.

 

[T-Rexx]

Unfortunately, your post itself #52 describes a failure of the system, in which millions of families pay the tax rather than getting insurance.

If covering more people while saving money is "a failure of the system," then please, give me some more of this "failure."

Republicans always seem to regard making life better for people as "failure."

Since Obamacare was implemented, My insurance went up $2,500.00 and my out of pocket expenses doubled.

That's an interesting claim, since Obamacare has yet to be implemented.

I presume the (nonexistent) "free market" for health insurance has been driving your premiums ever downward over the last ten years.

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.

Obamacare was designed by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative "think tank") as an "alternative" to universal health care.

Regrettably, our very conservative president has chosen to support it.

It is better than the (now) Republican non-plan, which is to let our health care system (and economy) collapse. With some effort, we can fix its several problems in the coming years.

 

[T-Rexx]

No fair! The Republicans have fought it tooth and nail.

Yes.

Rather than try to make Obamacare better or suggest some alternative, the Republican approach has been to try to remove what little good it offers.

In your never-ending struggle to make life more miserable for America, you have voted 37 times to try to stop the USA from saving money on healthcare, while yet giving more people coverage.

Republicans have a fear that a few more Americans may achieve happiness, if they do not act to stop it. On immigration, on gay rights, on health care, on women's rights, on class inequality, the Republican response has been consistent - do what you can to stop people from getting whatever would make their lives better.

That's rather pathologic.

 

[Benvolio]

You post 52 says few of the people entitled to subsidies will be able to buy so they will have to pay the tax, etc, etc. sounds like failure to me.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ Obamacare/Romneycare is a terrible plan that does not even come close to providing universal health care.

It is a conservative wet dream that seeks to exclude poor people from health care and further exacerbate class warfare in America.

That does not mean that it does not have a little bit of merit. And the Republican alternative, which is to let health care costs continue to spiral out of control while that destroys the economy, would be disastrous.

This is a matter of picking the lesser of two evils. Democratic misery, or Republican apocalypse.

America desperately needs universal health care. Some day, I hope we can achieve that. Obamacare is a first step along that road.

 

[chuck10x]

T-Rexx,
Obamacare was to be prepaid starting from when the law was passed.
The insurance plan added the children of employees up to the age of 26 at that time, The insurance companies did not eat the cost.
The cost was passed along
The Union started charging more last year and explained that they had too because the only other option was to drop our insurance plan.
Open enrollment for the AFA starts in October and takes ( Full Effect) in January, But much of Obamacare has been implemented over the past 3 years.
As it is now, We will see how people feel about Obamacare once it is full effect in the next year - For better or worse.

 

[White Eagle]

Ok, I'll admit it. I haven't read this thread because I feel it will be just trashing Obamacare throughout. However, today I got an email from the Whitehouse giving data on three pieces of the bill. I have no problems with it, so this is just for your reading pleasure.

The email starts here.
In the past few days, we've received three really interesting new pieces of information about the health care law, and we wanted to share these data points with you so that you get a big picture of how things are changing for the better as the law gets implemented.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/30/affordable-care-act-increases-insurance-choices

Affordable Care Act Increases Insurance Choices
May 30, 2013 12:46 PM EDT

Today, many Americans who buy health insurance on the individual market have only a few options to choose from when selecting an insurance company.

In fact, in 2012 just one or two different insurance companies dominated the individual insurance market in most states -- in 29 states, one insurer covered more than 50% of all enrollees in the individual insurance market. In 11 states, the largest two issuers covered 85% or more of the individual market.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/28/good-news-innovation-and-health-care

Good News on Innovation and Health Care
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
May 28, 2013
12:15 PM EDT

Ed. note: This is cross-posted from the HealthCare blog at HealthCare.gov. Read more about data-powered health care here.

A recent New York Times column, Obamacare’s Other Surprise, by Thomas L. Friedman echoes what we’ve been hearing from health care providers and innovators: Data that support medical decision-making and collaboration, dovetailing with new tools in the Affordable Care Act, are spurring the innovation necessary to deliver improved health care for more people at affordable prices.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013...are-growing-stronger-help-affordable-care-act

Medicare Trustees: Medicare is Growing Stronger, with Help from the Affordable Care Act
Jeanne Lambrew and Gene Sperling
May 31, 2013
12:30 PM EDT

Today, the Medicare Trustees reported some good news for seniors and taxpayers: The Medicare program will be solvent through 2026, nearly a decade longer than projected at the time of passage of the Affordable Care Act. This is 2 years longer than projected last year. Their annual report also shows that the long run actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund – a measure of its long-term fiscal health – has been cut by more than 70 percent since enactment of the health care law. The long-run Medicare deficit has fallen from 3.88 percent of taxable payroll in the 2009 Trustees Report to 1.11 percent in this report.

 

[Love me 2]

Your link is just a collection of straw man arguments.

Very typical TP/GOP response. tsk! tsk! tsk!

 

[frankfrank]

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.

A true Republican, in love with the Romney 47% comment in Boca Raton a year ago. Of course veterans pensions, Social Security, etc. are seen as "welfare."

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.

They want the Ponzi schemes that steal more and more wealth from more than 95% of us, and transfer it to those at the top. What's not to love about that?

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.

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.

Again, a Republican plan to transfer wealth to the top. The bill was almost entirely written by right-wing interests, with much advice and lobbying from the industry, to make it appear that the American public is getting SOMETHING...and, yes, it is better than the dominant Republican plan to simply let costs escalate to where everybody is left in the dust, and the "healthcare" industry has seized nearly all the wealth of the bottom 80% or 90% of Americans.

A liberal plan would, indeed, be a single payer system, at least partially modeled after programs in places like Canada and Germany. I would be tickled to death, and more than happy, to pay the additional taxes to help fund it. In fact these places are not taxed much more than Americans, either.

NOBODY EVER MENTIONS what I think is by far the most important feature of Obamacare - that insurers can no longer summarily say something like "You had insurance, but now that you have cancer, we're gonna drop your ass right now." Rescission being illegal is, I think, incredibly important. In the whole history of healthcare discussion in this Forum, I don't remember ever seeing anybody except myself mentioning this...at all.

(1) Republicans always seem to regard making life better for people as "failure."

(2) That's an interesting claim, since Obamacare has yet to be implemented.

(3) It is better than the (now) Republican non-plan, which is to let our health care system (and economy) collapse.

(1) That would actually make Obama look good. That would be a failure, because it CANNOT appear that any Democrat is ever capable of doing anything good.
(2) A friend with pre-existing conditions in Nevada was ineligible for insurance. Last July, he immediately jumped onto something (an insurance exchange??) which because available in Nevada because of Obamacare. The implementation date is, I think, merely the date by which ALL arrangements, in all states, are supposed to be in place - certainly some states have already gone ahead with parts of Obamacare so that there isn't a last minute rush where things can go wrong. Before July, he couldn't get any competent diagnosis, nor could he get any referral to a specialist [oncologist], because he had no insurance. By then, it was already too late. He died nearly five weeks ago because the cancer had already spread too much by last July. In any other modernized country in the world, he would surely still be alive, because he would have gotten care. I suspect even in some countries we think of as "third world" such as Turkey or Paraguay or Cambodia, he would still be alive.
(3) That would make Obama look really, really bad. SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes.
In your never-ending struggle to make life more miserable for America, you have voted 37 times to try to stop the USA from saving money on healthcare, while yet giving more people coverage.

Republicans have a fear that a few more Americans may achieve happiness, if they do not act to stop it. On immigration, on gay rights, on health care, on women's rights, on class inequality, the Republican response has been consistent - do what you can to stop people from getting whatever would make their lives better.

That's rather pathologic.

It's Obamahate at full tilt, too.

 

[Benvolio]

Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan. It is dishonest for you to keep saying that it is a Republican plan. You 1900 page monstrosity is a Democrat creation, resisted by the Republicans tooth and nail. Romney had to back off from the Mass plan to get nominated.
Universal health care is not possible in a country where so few people pay taxes. Democrats have worked for generations to exempt their constituents from taxes and have largely succeeded. You cannot expect Republicans to buy health care for the entire welfare culture with more flooding in.
No, the 47% receiving welfare does not included Social Security, Veterans pensions or Medicare.

 

[bankside]

Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan. It is dishonest for you to keep saying that it is a Republican plan. You 1900 page monstrosity is a Democrat creation, resisted by the Republicans tooth and nail. Romney had to back off from the Mass plan to get nominated.
Universal health care is not possible in a country where so few people pay taxes. Democrats have worked for generations to exempt their constituents from taxes and have largely succeeded. You cannot expect Republicans to buy health care for the entire welfare culture with more flooding in.
No, the 47% receiving welfare does not included Social Security, Veterans pensions or Medicare.

You are correct to say that Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan. But it is honest to say the plan has an impeccable Republican pedigree. It is dishonest to say that Conservatives and Republicans are consistent or forthright on the issue.

 

[Benvolio]

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

You are correct to say that Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan. But it is honest to say the plan has an impeccable Republican pedigree. It is dishonest to say that Conservatives and Republicans are consistent or forthright on the issue.

Nonsense. Your premise is that, if one or some Conservatives once suggested somthing with some aspects similar to the 1900 page monster, then all Conservative must like the present bill or be inconsistent and unforthright. That is preposterous. And remember what Emerson said about consistency and small minds.

 

[bankside]

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

Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan.

Nonsense. Your premise is that, if one or some Conservatives once suggested somthing with some aspects similar to the 1900 page monster, then all Conservative must like the present bill or be inconsistent and unforthright. That is preposterous. And remember what Emerson said about consistency and small minds.

Well, are you saying
a) conservatives and republicans hate the plan and are consistently small-minded? or
b) there is room for debate on the merits of the plan even among conservatives and republicans?

 

[T-Rexx]

Conservatives and Republicans hate the plan. It is dishonest for you to keep saying that it is a Republican plan.

No, it's dishonest for you to claim it is NOT a Republican/conservative plan.

Obamacare/Romneycare was designed in 1989 by the Heritage Foundation as an attempt to stop America from achieving universal, single-payer health care. The trend in the late 20th century appeared to be toward America adopting a European-style, single payer health insurance system. The Heritage Foundation found such a system too cost-effective and compassionate for their tastes, so they developed Obamacare as a straw man "alternative."

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" which seeks to promote conservative ideals in America.

You 1900 page monstrosity is a Democrat creation, resisted by the Republicans tooth and nail.

It was supported by Republicans, until President Obama indicated his support for the plan, also. Only then did Republicans "resist it tooth and nail."

The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee (R-RI) as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a penalty for non-compliance.[156][157] Advocates for the 1993 bill which contained the individual mandate included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate, such as Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Bob Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).[158][159] Of the 43 Republicans Senators from 1993, almost half - 20 out of 43 - supported the HEART Act.[151][160] And in 1994 Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision[161]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Romney had to back off from the Mass plan to get nominated.

Yes, I know.

That was one of the reasons he lost the election. He was forced to back away from and claim he did not support his own party's plan for health care.

It made him look like a fool.

Universal health care is not possible in a country where so few people pay taxes.

You mean, like, Greece, Spain, and Italy? All of which have offered excellent universal health care for every citizen for 50 years.

And why do you say we cannot afford universal health care when we are already paying more than twice as much for non-universal care as is any other country on the planet? You keep insisting that we cannot afford to save lots of money on health care. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.

Seems to me that we cannot afford NOT to reform health care in America.

Democrats have worked for generations to exempt their constituents from taxes and have largely succeeded.

Low income people pay a much higher proportion of their income to taxes than do rich people. A fact of which you are well aware.

You cannot expect Republicans to buy health care for the entire welfare culture with more flooding in.

No, the 47% receiving welfare does not included Social Security, Veterans pensions or Medicare.

Apparently, you Republicans believe that everyone in America (except for a handful of straight, white, rich, male, fundamentalist Christians) is on the dole.

What a utopia you would have for yourselves if you twelve people were the only people in America. Good luck running the country without us.

 

[Benvolio]

The 1900 page monster is a Democrat creation, The fact, if it is the fact, that twenty years ago some Conservatives or Republicans proposed something like an individual mandate does not change the Democrat monster to a Republican one. The Federal Government has no Constitutional power to require individual mandates.
Low income tax people pay the Social Security tax, but not the income tax.
Most Americans pay no income tax, and 47% of filers pay none. And yes, 47% receive some form of the dole, not including SS, Medicare and Veterans. More are flooding into the country as we speak. Universal care is out of the question.

 

[kallipolis]

The 1900 page monster is a Democrat creation, The fact, if it is the fact, that twenty years ago some Conservatives or Republicans proposed something like an individual mandate does not change the Democrat monster to a Republican one. The Federal Government has no Constitutional power to require individual mandates.
Low income tax people pay the Social Security tax, but not the income tax.
Most Americans pay no income tax, and 47% of filers pay none. And yes, 47% receive some form of the dole, not including SS, Medicare and Veterans. More are flooding into the country as we speak. Universal care is out of the question.

There is a very real risk that prevaricating over the form or type of taxation that is paid skews the discussion.

Every time I pay for a service or purchase an item I pay tax, here in Greece value added tax that amounts on most goods and services to some 23 percent with a few exceptions that attract a lower rate of VAT. Thus the Greek revenue service receives my taxation contributions. Further most of my electricity bill...some 70 pct. is taxation under one form or another...with only 30 pct. covering electricity consumption. I appreciate that this is not an American matter but helps illustrate that taxation payments are not confined to income tax.

I would appreciate you offering us a link to a credible source that evidences your contention that most Americans pay no income .....etc.

 

[Benvolio]

Simply google, who pays income tax. This has been gone over so many times before. In the US, the States have a variety of taxes, including real estate and sales taxes. But the Federal government is separate and almost all its revenue comes from the Income Tax. But most people pay none. 47% of people who file returns pay none, but millions more do not file returns.

 

[opinterph]

I would appreciate you offering us a link to a credible source that evidences your contention that most Americans pay no income .....etc.

47% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax​

 

[Love me 2]

http://occupydemocrats.com/paul-ryan-16-other-hypocritial-republicans-caught-begging-for-obamacare-funds/

...and 16 others are begging for Funds while they are Publically against ACA.

 

[TX-Beau]

47% of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax​

The real crime here is that 47% of Americans are TOO POOR to pay income taxes.