Obamacare
Quote: RonCWTF are you talking about? He's welcome if he really wants to be part of the party. He joins whatever party that he wants to for the primary. He is doing nothing wrong, but he identifies himself as ain independent and not with either party...so it is not exactly the same as a long-time Republican voting for Obama.
I can definitely understand what you mean, I consider myself a Draconian Socialist and I asked for a Republican ticket in the Primary, which makes me a Republican for the next two years. I mainly wanted to have an influence on local primaries, so I went Republican, if I recall correctly. I believe I voted for Santorum in the Primary, don't agree with a word he says, but he and Paul tied, in my opinion, for the most honest and Paul had no chance of winning by then.
Quote: RonCWe have seen how many consumers will pay more (especially factoring in deductibles, which you WILL pay when you have a medical issue), we have been told we could keep our doctor and our insurance but found out that were lied to, and now there is even more news of doctors not being paid enough under some of the new exchanges to continue:
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,” he said."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540272#.UqLPd42Zl8I.twitter
When reimbursements get so low that doctors can't make any money, what do you expect them to do? These folks go to school forever to learn medicine, work initially under generally stressful conditions, pile up a load of debt, have huge expenses when running a practice, and now we expect them to accept $24 in payment for a patient's visit? $160 for a tonsillectomy? It won't work. They have to make enough money to pay their bills and they deserve enough money to have a higher standard of living than most folks.
I'm all for mid-levels (nurse practitioners and physician's assistants) helping and working at a bit lower rate than the doctors (but the clinic they work in still has tons of expenses, so it can't be too low) but the mid-levels I know all have patients who need to see the doctor. There are illnesses and conditions that fall outside of the scope of the mid-level education and experience and only an arrogant mid-level would assume they could handle the issue alone. Doctors are important and this law treats them like crap.
You kind of bring up another point. Who will be providing medical care 20-30 years from now. Mediciine used to attract the brightest of the brightest for one reason because there was always a light at the end of the tunnel in getting fair compensation for 10 years of school and internship. For this reason, when vip's from other countries needed a complicated procedure done....they flew to the good ole USA medical staffs. As more and more of our best and brightest go in to less govt controled fields, out medical infrastructure will deteriorate as less qualifies doctors appear on the scene and hospitals make old outdated instruments and devices last longer to avoid big expenses.
Quote: AZDuffmanLots of people will go to a doctor for more minor things when the price is low. If the price is higher you are more prone to walk it off and wait it out a few days. Walgreens is already helping here with their clinics so if you have common flu you can get a quick check and script.
Medical care is not immune to the laws of economics.
You illustrate your point even better than you thought AZ. People go to doctors, ER or clinics all the time for the flu and waste medical dollars. There is absolutely no reason for the average person to go to a doctor for the flu, nothing can be done for it. Antibiotics do squat for the flu except create more drug resistant bugs. If you are elderly, immune compromised or it is getting into your lungs go to the doctor otherwise stay home.
Quote: SanchoPanzaEspecially when other presidents have been impeached or forced to leave office for far less significant lies. Even in recent memory.
Nixon was a better president than Clinton and Obama combined. He may not have been conservative, but he did manage to get a crapload of things done, despite the fact that the rabid news media of the day had been calling for his head since his VP days.
Quote: Beethoven9thNixon was a better president than Clinton and Obama combined. He may not have been conservative, but he did manage to get a crapload of things done, despite the fact that the rabid news media of the day had been calling for his head since his VP days.
Wage and price controls as well as the war on drugs....two brilliant policies Nixon pushed for and got. Getting things done in Washington is almost always a bad thing. What are some examples of the crapload of stuff he got done? Just askin'
Quote: treetopbuddyWage and price controls as well as the war on drugs....two brilliant policies Nixon pushed for and got. Getting things done in Washington is almost always a bad thing. What are some examples of the crapload of stuff he got done? Just askin'
First off, Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs", but he didn't start it. Get the facts straight. To answer your question: foreign relations with China, the EPA, ending the draft, affirmative action, etc.
Like I said before, he wasn't conservative, and I don't agree with everything he did, but by all objective measures he was better than Clinton and Obama. It's quite obvious that you dislike him though.
Quote: Beethoven9thFirst off, Nixon coined the term "War on Drugs", but he didn't start it. Get the facts straight. To answer your question: foreign relations with China, the EPA, ending the draft, affirmative action, etc.
Like I said before, he wasn't conservative, and I don't agree with everything he did, but by all objective measures he was better than Clinton and Obama. It's quite obvious that you dislike him though.
I'm ambivalent towards Nixon. Nixon declared a "war on drugs" in 1971.....maybe check your facts. I loved Ronald Reagan. My dad was a delegate for Reagan at the 1980 convention.
Re-read my last post. He's the one who first used that term. Even Wikipedia says:Quote: treetopbuddyNixon declared a "war on drugs" in 1971.....maybe check your facts.
"...the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914."
Cool, at least we agree on this!Quote: treetopbuddyI loved Ronald Reagan. My dad was a delegate for Reagan at the 1980 convention.
Quote: Beethoven9thRe-read my last post. He's the one who first used that term. Even Wikipedia says:
"...the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914."
Your right.....1914 began a period where the whites were afraid that the black man would rape the white women if they smoked pot.
"Before the 1970's drug abuse was seen by policymakers primarily as a social disease that could addressed with treatment."
"After the 1970's drug abuse was seen by policymakers primarily as a law enforcement problem that could be addressed with aggressive criminal justice policies."
How's the war on drugs working out? We all know.
I know your answer......."just because it's not working doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying". -Beethoven9th
in hog heaven with Obamacare. For the last 10 years my
wife's policy thru where she works hasn't gone up all that
much, but the deductible has. Now everybody's deductible
is going thru the roof, that's what insurance companies do.
It has exactly the same effect as raising your rates, it keeps
you from seeking healthcare and possibly using your insurance.
Obama the tool.
Quote: EvenBobObama is just a tool for the insurance companies. They're
in hog heaven with Obamacare. For the last 10 years my
wife's policy thru where she works hasn't gone up all that
much, but the deductible has. Now everybody's deductible
is going thru the roof, that's what insurance companies do.
It has exactly the same effect as raising your rates, it keeps
you from seeking healthcare and possibly using your insurance.
Obama the tool.
Even people here who support Obamacare don't seem to understand the impact of deductibles. They will hit you at the worst time--when you are sick or injured and your ability to make money is impaired.
So many heads, so much sand, so little time...
Quote: RonCEven people here who support Obamacare don't seem to understand the impact of deductibles. .
A guy on TV just said it very well. Most people
will be paying higher premiums and getting
nothing in return. They'll never reach their
deductible and all the healthcare they get
during the year will be out of pocket because
the deductible is so much. This is a financial
nightmare in the making for most people.
My wife, being a middle aged woman, has about
4 doctors she see's. Dermatologist, GYN, internist,
and chiro. Her insurance covers all of them.
Under Obamacare she'll pay for all of them out
of pocket because she'll never reach the deductible.
When the hell did I ever say that? Fabricating quotes, I see...Quote: treetopbuddyI know your answer......."just because it's not working doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying". -Beethoven9th
This is what irritates me about you pro-drug guys. You people really need to use some decent arguments instead of relying on s2pid lines like this. Take Ron Paul, for example. His position is that all drugs should be legal because he thinks people should have the freedom to make such a choice. Fair enough. I disagree, but I concede that this is a perfectly valid argument.Quote: treetopbuddyHow's the war on drugs working out? We all know.
OTOH, I have to do a *facepalm* whenever I hear the pro-drug crowd scream, "The war on drugs isn't working!!!" And then they try supporting this ridiculous line by maintaining that it's not working because people still use drugs. (Duh! No one ever claimed that the war on drugs was going to reduce drug usage to ZERO!)
But let's put this s2pid argument into other contexts. If the War on Drugs has "failed" because people still use drugs, then the War on Drunk Driving has failed because people still drive drunk...and the War on Burglary has failed because places still get burglarized...and the War on Murder has failed because people still get murdered...and so on.
So if the war on drugs should end because it hasn't "worked", then shouldn't the war on all of these other things end as well??? Hmm... (See what a s2pid argument that is?) Again, I don't understand why the pro-drug crowd continues to rely on such lame arguments when Ron Paul and other libertarians have given them a perfectly valid one.
One more thing that irritates me is when the pro-marijuana crowd compares marijuana to alcohol, and then they cite statistics and claim that alcohol does more harm to society. While this is technically true today, let's say we legalized marijuana tomorrow. In 5 or 10 years, if marijuana-related deaths equalled or surpassed alcohol-related deaths, would the pro-marijuana crowd be honest enough to say, "Boy, we were wrong!" and fight to outlaw it again? Fat chance.
Quote: EvenBobA guy on TV just said it very well. Most people
will be paying higher premiums and getting
nothing in return. They'll never reach their
deductible and all the healthcare they get
during the year will be out of pocket because
the deductible is so much. This is a financial
nightmare in the making for most people.
My wife, being a middle aged woman, has about
4 doctors she see's. Dermatologist, GYN, internist,
and chiro. Her insurance covers all of them.
Under Obamacare she'll pay for all of them out
of pocket because she'll never reach the deductible.
Exactly right. I work for a company that employs over 250,000 people. A large percentage makes around 8-9 dollars an hour. I make over 100k. But both me and the lower paid workes pay exactly the same for healthcare premiums deducted from our paychecks by the company, We have the same deductables. This past year our deductables went from 750 to 3000. A family of 4 can easily have to pay 2-3 k in deductables a year. Espcially if a kid gets real sick or breaks an arm. So who does the higher deductables hurt the most...the guy making 100k per year or the parent of a family of 4 making 9 dollars an hour who probably voted for obama because he was for the lower and middle class.
Who cares if yourpremium went down 20 dollars a month, if you are going to be paying 2k more a year in deductables.
sometime u hear govt figures of "premiums going down"......that is just window dressing. Insurance companies will gladly reduce your premiums if you are willin to pay a few extra thousand a year in deductables.
so lets recap, people will have to blow up their continuity of care by getting a different doctor in their new network, and in exchange they will have the ability to pay more. What a deal.
do ya think if obama was honest and told us that we could very well be forced to change doctors, and our yearly net outlay for medical expense would go up....it would have been voted in?
The Affordable Care Act forces companies with more than 50 workers to buy them all health insurance or pay hefty fines
The IRS says volunteer firefighters are 'employees,' even though the Department of Labor says they're 'volunteers'
Out of more than 1 million fire departments in the U.S., 87 per cent are staffed entirely or mostly by life-saving volunteers
Members of Congress are weighing in, but the Obama administration hasn't taken any action yet to carve out a fire-fighting exception"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520979/Obamacare-mandates-set-shutter-THOUSANDS-volunteer-d
Every day it is easy to find more reasons to dislike this law and the implementation of it...
The same is true for health care premiums--your prices may go down, but the deductibles are going way up. It'll work out okay until you are sick or injured; just as high-deductible auto insurance works out until you get in a wreck and have to pay the deductible.
We're going to cover 30 million more people and reduce the rates we pay doctors that will treat them.
It is not going to work...not this year, not next year, and not in twenty years...
Quote: RonCEvery day it is easy to find more reasons to dislike this law and the implementation of it...
Nancy Pelosi: ”But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
As the proponents of this monstrosity gladly state, "it's been passed, and it's the law".
Now everyone gets to "find out what is in it".
Wonder when Nobama and his minions are gonna participate and adhere to the law like the rest of us?
Quote: Beethoven9th
One more thing that irritates me is when the pro-marijuana crowd compares marijuana to alcohol, and then they cite statistics and claim that alcohol does more harm to society. While this is technically true today, let's say we legalized marijuana tomorrow. In 5 or 10 years, if marijuana-related deaths equalled or surpassed alcohol-related deaths, would the pro-marijuana crowd be honest enough to say, "Boy, we were wrong!" and fight to outlaw it again? Fat chance.
I agree with you on most issues. Believe it or not we are the same page on most issues.....for whatever that's worth. Hell, I'm pro-life. I believe live begins at conception. Your way off base when it comes to US drug policy. Your operating under the assumption that if drugs were made legal tomorrow the entire country would go to hell inside a year. Fact is, I wouldn't use illicit drugs nor would anybody I know if they were made legal. I'm certain you wouldn't partake of the devils weed nor any would anybody in your circle of friends. A certain percentage of the population will always turn to drugs legal or not.....
I'm certainly not a hippie but to make any comparisons between alcohol or tobacco (subsidized industries) against pot is way off base if you believe there are any similarities. Let your hair down for once in you life and take a hit of the devils weed. Don't worry it's OK. We can all agree having a war on murder and burglary (your example) is a good thing.
signing up. The cheapest policy of Obamacare for me is, $365
a month, $6000 deductible. I'd have to pay $10,500 out of pocket
before I got a dime of insurance. And after the deductible is paid,
there's a $30 co-pay when I visit the doctor. Right now my wife
pays $35 a month for both of us thru the company where she works
That includes a physical, lab work and no co-pays. $2000 deductible.
'Affordable' Care Act my ass.
Quote: LarrySExactly right. I work for a company that employs over 250,000 people. A large percentage makes around 8-9 dollars an hour. I make over 100k. But both me and the lower paid workes pay exactly the same for healthcare premiums deducted from our paychecks by the company, We have the same deductables. This past year our deductables went from 750 to 3000. A family of 4 can easily have to pay 2-3 k in deductables a year. Espcially if a kid gets real sick or breaks an arm. So who does the higher deductables hurt the most...the guy making 100k per year or the parent of a family of 4 making 9 dollars an hour who probably voted for obama because he was for the lower and middle class.
Do you think Obama did that, or your employer?
Your employer dumped the costs on you. At my large technology company, they have maintained the plans and deductables available to their employees at a cost of about $3,200 per year (for a family coverage) and $700 for a single employee. They did not change the deductables, but they did increase the maximum annual out of pocket expense by 25%. They did not screw the employees because of the AHA. Other companies and insurance companies are taking the opportunity to screw the middle class in the name of increased profits, and they blame AHA.
When the hell did I ever say that?? That's the second time you've put words in my mouth. *facepalm*Quote: treetopbuddyYour operating under the assumption that if drugs were made legal tomorrow the entire country would go to hell inside a year.
I'm not the one who brought up that comparison. The people on your side do. I especially hear it from know-it-all college kids.Quote: treetopbuddyI'm certainly not a hippie but to make any comparisons between alcohol or tobacco (subsidized industries) against pot is way off base if you believe there are any similarities.
You missed my point. I brought that up to prove how s2pid the "War on Drugs has failed!" argument is. God, it's f*cking irritating. It's just as s2pid as the pro-gay marriage people who say that gays should be able to marry "Because they love each other!" Then these same people turn around and blast polygamy when it actually has a richer history than gay marriage (which has NONE).Quote: treetopbuddyWe can all agree having a war on murder and burglary (your example) is a good thing.
No thanks, already tried it years ago. Wasn't impressed.Quote: treetopbuddyLet your hair down for once in you life and take a hit of the devils weed. Don't worry it's OK.
Quote: boymimboDo you think Obama did that, or your employer?
Your employer dumped the costs on you...
Obama did. This is what everyone was warning people about! Your next "solution" will be to give the government further control over employers.
Quote: boymimboDo you think Obama did that, or your employer?
Your employer dumped the costs on you. At my large technology company, they have maintained the plans and deductables available to their employees at a cost of about $3,200 per year (for a family coverage) and $700 for a single employee. They did not change the deductables, but they did increase the maximum annual out of pocket expense by 25%. They did not screw the employees because of the AHA. Other companies and insurance companies are taking the opportunity to screw the middle class in the name of increased profits, and they blame AHA.
Of course my company is dumping the costs of obamacare on me. The shareholders arent going to pay for increased costs of insurance. It all gets passed on. My old policy would cost too much for my company to bear the increase...so they had to go for inferior plans. And the lower class workers are being hurt the most with increased deductables. As far as actual dollars that my company pays per person for healthcare...that remains the same. So as obama care causes insurance companies to raise rates, employers have to get creative in ordr to keep THEIR costs stable.
So yes....my company passed on the cost of obamacare to me. As most companies are doing.
copays are at the time of service expenses of a lower rate
do you have any idea what you are talking about
That is directly attributable to the changes in business taxes enacted as part of Obamacare.Quote: boymimboDo you think Obama did that, or your employer? Your employer dumped the costs on you.
Not yet.Quote: boymimboAt my large technology company, they have maintained the plans and deductables available to their employees at a cost of about $3,200 per year (for a family coverage) and $700 for a single employee. They did not change the deductables.
Can you name some?Quote: boymimboOther companies and insurance companies are taking the opportunity to screw the middle class in the name of increased profits, and they blame AHA.
Quote: boymimboHey, EvenBob, at least you can sign in!
Noooooo, you don't have to sign in or have
an account now to see the plans. Its a new
feature.
Quote: EvenBobNoooooo, you don't have to sign in or have
an account now to see the plans. Its a new
feature.
Very new, been around in the private world since about 1998.
So if your employer is transferring a great deal of the costs to you, blame your employer and blame the medical industry, as per usual. They're scapegoating AHA.
Not that I'm defending ObamaCare. I'm not. It's an absolute POS.
Quote: boymimboSo if your employer is transferring a great deal of the costs to you, blame your employer and blame the medical industry
I prefer to blame the root cause..........which is Obamacare.
Quote: boymimboAnd who increased the cost of insurance? How did the AHA increase your cost of insurance? If you had an employer sponsored plan, more than likely it was already AHA complaint (as my American counterpart in my company was) and rates went up a modest amount. According to Aetna, the AHA should raise fees on plans by about 3%/year for the next five years due to the medicare tax on employees making more than $200K (0.9%) and the direct tax that AHA is collecting from insurance companies.
So if your employer is transferring a great deal of the costs to you, blame your employer and blame the medical industry, as per usual. They're scapegoating AHA.
Not that I'm defending ObamaCare. I'm not. It's an absolute POS.
You are naive, Are going to believe your eyes or what insurance companies are saying.
In the end insurance companies nw have to take a ton of people with pre-existing conditions costingthem billions of dollars. They pass this on to us. They dont print up those billions. Someone has to pay for it.
Its as if the govt tells your homeowners insurance company that after someones house burns down they have to provide a policy to the person and fix their home even if they didnt have insurance at the time of the fire. Imagine how high your homeowners insurance prices would go up.
so prices of insurance may be going down as far as premiums. But as far as deductables increasing , copays increasing, and procedures covered decreasing....that is how the insurance companies are going to pay for all the people with pre-exisiting conditions thrust onto them by the govt.
+1Quote: LarrySIts as if the govt tells your homeowners insurance company that after someones house burns down they have to provide a policy to the person and fix their home even if they didnt have insurance at the time of the fire. Imagine how high your homeowners insurance prices would go up.
A great analogy. For whatever reason, people don't understand that businesses aren't going to just sit there and let the government walk right over them. It's the same thing that occurs with high taxes, they get passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, liberals will never "get it".
Quote: Beethoven9th+1
A great analogy. For whatever reason, people don't understand that businesses aren't going to just sit there and let the government walk right over them. It's the same thing that occurs with high taxes, they get passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, liberals will never "get it".
when something sounds too good to be true...it is too good to be true.
the president tells the country that under the new plan everyone gets to keep their insurance and doctors if they want, and everyone with pre-exisiting conditions can get a policy with no questions asked..... that really sounds too good to be true.
the reality turns out that you cant keep your insurance and or doctor, and YOU and me will pay for the pre-existing condition people to get full coverage.
and most of the population still dont know they are going to pay alot more....until they start using the healthcare system and find that their copays wont kick in till they spend at least 3-4k out of pocket first. Then they will find procedures that arent fully covered or not covered at all.
as low income and middle income people pay an extra couple of thousand dollars a year on their healthcare....thats a couple of thousand that they cant spend in retail stores.....it will eventually have a negative effect on the economy....and employment. Its all interconnected.
but it did sound too good to be true a few years ago....roght?
Quote: LarryS
the reality turns out that you cant keep your insurance and or doctor,?
I kept my insurance and DR.
I have a good insurance deal through work and nothing has changed for me.
I kept my insurance, I kept my doctor.
That is my reality. Others may have a different experience but my reality is my reality.
Just keeping it real here.
Quote: terapinedI kept my insurance and DR.
I have a good insurance deal through work and nothing has changed for me.
I kept my insurance, I kept my doctor.
That is my reality. Others may have a different experience but my reality is my reality.
Just keeping it real here.
That is fantastic for you. The problem is that there are a large number of people, it looks like a majority, who are not having the same experience. I'm happy for you but I hope this does not decrease your diligence in watching how this law impacts those who can least afford increases in health care costs.
All of us look at things and see how they impact us, but we also have to see how they impact our fellow citizens.
In the end, you have escalating health care costs that are out of control. It's perfectly fine to cut someone off car insurance because people don't have to drive. People have to live. You have to provide them with health care. And according to everyone on this forum that says "everyone has health insurance" (a crock of crap), the fact is that the costs of "pre-existing conditions" are absorbed by the health care system somehow because apparently, they're getting cared when they are underinsured. Eventually, the cost is passed on to your policy anyway because hospitals and health care providers have to pass the cost of the "uninsured" onto the insurance companies.
Health insurance should be different than car insurance and home insurance. It's your life. A car and a home are just possessions. Health insurance policies had the beautiful gift of being able to simply cut off someone's coverage when they got sick. Effectively, they could set their own profit margins by just calling continual treatment a "pre-existing condition". And I'll say it again, and again, and again -- for the most part, you don't control it when you get sick.
Quote: boymimbo. And according to everyone on this forum that says "everyone has health insurance" (a crock of crap).
Please give a single quote from anyone on this forum that says "everyone has health insurance".
Or do you find it necessary, once again, to exagerate to justify your position?
Quote: boymimboI'm certainly am not going to believe what insurance companies are saying. I also don't belive what oil companies or what most large corporations are saying.
But you'll believe what the government says?? *facepalm*
Quote: boymimboI'm certainly am not going to believe what insurance companies are saying. I also don't belive what oil companies or what most large corporations are saying.
In the end, you have escalating health care costs that are out of control. It's perfectly fine to cut someone off car insurance because people don't have to drive. People have to live. You have to provide them with health care. And according to everyone on this forum that says "everyone has health insurance" (a crock of crap), the fact is that the costs of "pre-existing conditions" are absorbed by the health care system somehow because apparently, they're getting cared when they are underinsured. Eventually, the cost is passed on to your policy anyway because hospitals and health care providers have to pass the cost of the "uninsured" onto the insurance companies.
Health insurance should be different than car insurance and home insurance. It's your life. A car and a home are just possessions. Health insurance policies had the beautiful gift of being able to simply cut off someone's coverage when they got sick. Effectively, they could set their own profit margins by just calling continual treatment a "pre-existing condition". And I'll say it again, and again, and again -- for the most part, you don't control it when you get sick.
you say uninsured people are already using the healtcare system so our costs are not going to be driven up.
That s an uneducated view.
As more uninsured people get medical care, and many people who were nursing symptoms that they never complained about/// they can now get diagnosed and treated with their preexisiting conditions. Yesif someone has a pre-exisiting condition of a severed limb, they would go to an emergency room and get treated with or without insurance. But if someone has ongoing mild headaches and has been living with it..and now they find they have a brain tumor. If someone has a persistant cough and has been living with it for years, and now its lung cancer. If someone has had joint pain from being obese, and now they find a stress fracture of ther ankles....they will be treated. Alot of people will not get healthcare and pay the penalty...those are healthy people. Thereby leaving a higher percentage of people with pre-exisiting conditions that will grab the new insurance, just as someone who just had their house burn down would be happy to grab fulll coverage homeoowner insurance that will cover the event the day after the fire.
Mexico just surpassed america as the most obese country in the world. Thats just great. Not only are the american people taxing the healthcare system with their laziness and ensuing obesity....but now the visitors from next door here legally or illegally are taxing our system with obesity related healthcare issues like nerve pain issues, cirrculation issues, supporting joint issues, diabetes, and eyesight issues along with prescription medication needs for all these conditions.
You make a false argument that ALL the people with pre-exisiting conditions are already using out emergenvy rooms for free. But that is only ther people who feel they have symptoms severe enough to be seen in an emergency rooms. There are millions of obese people silently suffering with a multitude of symptoms, there are people with cancer that are silently suffereing with mild aches and pains or coughs, there are people who had a stroke, that will now get weekly therapy.
Now its nice that all these people are getting healthcare and treatment because our govt days it should And if the govt sees this as an important isue, they have the choice of redistributing our taxes to help these people out. You know..people on foodstamps, welfair, student loans, the arts, military.....can get their funds shifted to those uninsured on healthcare.
Instead in order to get these people covered and treated.....we get the pie in the sky explanation of obama care where everyone gets to keepmtheir docotr and insurance and theyleave out the part about who will pay for it,.
well we are seeing that we are paying for it. And the people getting hit the most are the lower paid workers who pay the exact same deductable as the higher paid worklers. I will pay 2k more a year in healthcare and I dont care because my base salary is over 100k. But the person making 9 dollats an hour will get the same increase...and its going to hurt them alot more than me. The working folks that voted for obama will be hit the hardest. The people on welfare who voted for obama, still gets their free healthcare...no change there.
Quote: LarryS
well we are seeing that we are paying for it. And the people getting hit the most are the lower paid workers who pay the exact same deductable as the higher paid worklers. I will pay 2k more a year in healthcare and I dont care because my base salary is over 100k. But the person making 9 dollats an hour will get the same increase...and its going to hurt them alot more than me. The working folks that voted for obama will be hit the hardest. The people on welfare who voted for obama, still gets their free healthcare...no change there.
I make significantly more than $9/hour and significantly less than over 100k, and I can say that the Affordable Care Act is going to save me a few bucks, I checked healthcare.gov yesterday. I think what may be relevant to that is that my employer doesn't offer health insurance, so I've had to obtain it privately, anyway, and the insurance companies really seem to like to penalize you for having your own plan as an individual.
Quote: Mission146I make significantly more than $9/hour and significantly less than over 100k, and I can say that the Affordable Care Act is going to save me a few bucks, I checked healthcare.gov yesterday. I think what may be relevant to that is that my employer doesn't offer health insurance, so I've had to obtain it privately, anyway, and the insurance companies really seem to like to penalize you for having your own plan as an individual.
I am not the type of person who is into te I I I I , ME, ME, ME, view of the world.
I look at the 250,000 in my company and know that now their deductable is 2k higher. People who dont use healthcare system will save about 25 dollars a month in premiums deducted from their paycheck in my company. A person like myself that has a cardiologis, urologist, and general practitioner. or a mother of 2 that has sick children througout the year., or an elderly worker who is continuing to work for the insurance to help a husband with a medical condtion...will all be paying 2k extra per year.
When I read accounts of others going through this same increase in expense....some seeing a 4-5k increase in expense I dont discount them because I am only seeing a 2k increase.
When I hear of people losing their continuity of care and being forced to leave their group of doctors that have been treating them for the last 10 years....I dont respond with....big deal...I can keep MY doctors.
Quote: LarrySI am not the type of person who is into te I I I I , ME, ME, ME, view of the world.
I don't like your implication.
Secondly, I'm not saying the program is good or bad, just refuting the position that every single person pays more.
Quote: Mission146I'm not saying the program is good or bad, just refuting the position that every single person pays more.
I have no doubt that SOME will save under this program...but my belief, and the experiences we have seen, is that the vast majority will have higher premiums and/or higher deductibles. That will make health care for them more expensive--with the added factor that the higher deductibles will kick in at the exact same time as medical needs lower income for many.
Quote: RonCis that the vast majority will have higher premiums and/or higher deductibles. .
If you're one of the people just struggling
to make ends meet, paying $350 a month
for insurance and has a $6000 deductible,
it's the same as not having insurance. You
have to pay out of pocket for a doctor visit,
a physical, lab work, everything, until you
get to $6000. You basically have emergency
insurance, which is useless for most people.
You're better off sticking the $350 in the bank
for medical care throughout the year, pay the
fines, and sign up for Obamacare when you
really need it. Make sure you don't get a tax
return and that takes care of the fines.
Quote: Mission146I don't like your implication.
Secondly, I'm not saying the program is good or bad, just refuting the position that every single person pays more.
that game could be played with any statement
Nazis killed millions of jews in the 40's
WAIT..i just want to say that Nazis didnt kill every single jew
There are reports of people on obamacare losing their doctor, having their policy cancelled, and paying higher
Wait- not every person in healthcare is losing their doctor, having their policy cancelled, and is paying higher
Its going to be sunny tommorrow
Wait I just wanted to let everyone know that there will be places in other parts of the world where it wont be sunny
You know some things are just obvious. Just implied....that when someone makes a statement it may not involve 100 percent inclusion
Most people realize that newsstories where millons of people got cancellation noticies in the mail...does not translate to "100 percent of all americans received cancellation notices"
When we see news stories of people losing their mD along with their insurance because their current MD is not in the new network.....does not translate to EVERY SINGLE american is going tolose their md.
Its kind of obvious.
