jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (222 posts)

Aftordable Healthcare Act, is it working for anyone?

  1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
    tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago

    The question should not be who's to blame for AHCA, the question should be, "Is it working."  Is there anyone out there who has signed up, had a good experience, received much cheaper healthcare than before?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Okay........
      now I'll be eagerly waiting to see if anyone responds to THIS thread too, since it asks about the Affordable Care Act "instead of" Obamacare...............hahahhaaa

      And indeed the underlying issue IS always who is responsible for the unConstitutional mandate in this Bill.   Heck, fraud "works" for people for a while;   theft "works" for people for a while;  tyranny "works" for people for a while................

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        AHCA? Oh you mean the "The Tax Accountants' and Divorce Lawyers' Full Employment Act" (See http://oldpoolman.hubpages.com/hub/Anot … discovered) Well the answer to tirelesstraveler's question is a resounding "NOOOOOOO"  End of story. and here is one reason why by an X Obama henchman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvcGSTe3JuM

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know?  Thousands of people signed up.  I suspect they had a reason to think it was a good idea.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So how's it working for you then psycheskinner?

            I wouldn't know. The site is so buggered I still can't even get onto the thing.

            I'd like to know how many of those "thousands" are just the new Medicaid recipients.

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have employer provided insurance and so don't need it.  But there have been time when the only insurance I could get was more than I could afford and I went without.  They interviewed several on the local news last night and showed how they could now access insurance when previously they could not.

              Whether or not you think it was the right choice for the country as a whole, some people are going to be helped by it.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Whether or not you think it was the right choice for the country as a whole, some people are going to be helped by it.

                Perfect statement because sorry, the idea behind government is to do what is right for the country as a whole.

                We'll see how "right & great" the President & the Democrats truly believe this law is. The GOP has just presented a clean CR to reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling. The only stipulation is that the President and the Congress must live by the law they've shoved upon the American people. Guarantee you they won't agree. Tells the whole story right there.

          2. tirelesstraveler profile image86
            tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I heard last Thursday, about 60,000 people signed up in California and only 6,000 bought the insurance.  At least the website is working in CA.. Why didn't the people who signed up buy the insurance?.
            We were told we can, but we won't qualify for any assistance.

          3. Seth Winter profile image84
            Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "How do you know?  Thousands of people signed up.  I suspect they had a reason to think it was a good idea."

            Penn and Teller's skit to ban Dihydrogen monoxide a.k.a water comes to mind. Just because people think something's a good idea, doesn't mean that it is.

          4. tsadjatko profile image79
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Here is how I know - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk7hT5e9c4Y
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ykNicsCDo
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPHDFXC3s4I

            The government will not give out any number of how many subscribed because it is pathetic

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because they don't know, the states have not all reported the numbers.

              1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
                tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Heard today the administration isn't going to release the numbers until next year.  Listened to a computer web designer talk about the security breaches in the website. I would be scared to death to put my information on that site.

              2. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not true.
                State run exchanges are reporting their numbers.
                The only one not reporting numbers are HHS run websites.

                Oh still can't get on either.

                1. tsadjatko profile image79
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8451308_f248.jpgThe White House would not reveal Wednesday how many consumers have actually enrolled in new plans at HealthCare.gov, though Press Secretary Jay Carney did highlight several success? stories. "In Delaware, a small business owner found a plan that cost her $150 less than the cost of her previous plan," Carney said Wednesday. That particular example is notable because officials in Delaware told Fox News on Wednesday that they only know of one person who has actually enrolled at HealthCare.gov. Her name is Janice Baker, 59, from Selbyville, Del.
                  So Carney thinks that only one person in the state of Delaware enrolling is GRRRREAT news because she saved money?? What a clown. We should call him "Carney the Tiger" ..."We're Grrrrrreat!"
                  Now that a big part of the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect, there's a new crop of scams that fraudsters have come up with to secure unauthorized use of your personal information. You need to be aware of what the bad guys are doing and clear about what information should and should not be shared with strangers. Here are the most common threats:
                  PHONY ACA INSURANCE CARDS
                  IMPOSTORS POSING AS ADVISERS
                  MEDICARE CARD SCAM
                  FAKE WEBSITES

                  http://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/retire … -1.6274218
                  If you believe you have been the victim of identity theft, you are not alone. According to a survey by Javelin Strategy and Research, 12.6 million Americans had their identities stolen last year, and the criminals stole nearly $21 billion.
                  Gee...Obamacare, a government program that is fraught with fraud..who'd a thunk it?

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, so glad you noticed. You have made my day.

    2. MarleneB profile image96
      MarleneBposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is it working? No! Well... I take that back. After two weeks of trying to get into the website to do what the government TOLD me I HAD to do, I finally was able to submit an application. But, that's all I have been able to do. I have not been able to select a health care provider because the system for that part of the registration process is always "down". But, here's what's really sickening - even if I find a health care provider, they may not be accepting new patients. In fact, I started calling around and discovered many of the providers in my area are not accepting new patients. So, good luck if you can get an application submitted and good luck if you can find a provider who will take you as a new patient.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How sad. I was hoping for something positive.

        1. Seth Winter profile image84
          Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          MarleneB it's funny, everyone thinks Obamacare is going to be good for this nation it won't be. Your going to see more and more things crop up like what MarleneB is experiencing.  Overall universal healthcare where we all go buy insurance is destined to fail, instead give subsides to hospitals/clinics for patients that are having problems paying or actually create some smart laws.

          I remember here in California when our Surgery Center was told we could no longer give out free samples of drugs to patients, that instead they had to buy the drug. Many people thought this law was a GOOD law. But some like our patients saw it for what it really was. Instead of getting a small bottle of a drug they needed to take for 7 days, they had to go out and spend 175 dollars for a 30 day supply.  Idiot law makers should stay out of things they don't know anything of.

          1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
            tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Too true.  Can't tell you how good it was to get a sample of cream instead of trying to find money to buy it. Those days have been taken away by people who feel people are greedy and government is saintly.

      2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Can't wait a month or so for healthcare insurance? You must be in great health. And yes, some providers have opted out of ObamaCare. But there is at least 2 providers in every area of every state and some have up to 7, like in L.A.

    3. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      News of Obamacare’s imploding launch went from bad to worse Thursday: Healthcare.gov contractors say they are falling ill and “fainting in conference calls” because they can’t keep up with demand to fix the program’s glitches.
          Soaring cost: The cost of the Healthcare.gov online insurance website soared from $93.7 million to over $500 million since April
          Copyright violation: The Obamacare website has reportedly violated licensing agreements for copyrighted software.
          Minimal testing: The site wasn’t even tested until less than a week before its launch.
          Old technology: Technology experts are reporting that the federal exchange was built with “10-year-old technology that may require constant fixes and updates for the next six months and the eventual overhaul of the entire system.”
          Nancy Pelosi complains: said the system “has to be improved,”
          No accountability: Carney refused to answer whether anyone would be held accountable for the botched roll-out.
          Designers distance themselves: Now even the designers who helped create Healthcare.gov have erased all references to their Obamacare-related work from their firm’s website.
          Contractors fainting: “There’s a lot of frustration,” a staffer said. “People are getting sick, fainting in conference calls.”
          Navigators frustrated: Other community organizations and nonprofit groups that had been hired to help millions of Americans sign up for Obamacare are now expressing frustration over the enrollment process. (Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, is now participating in the Obamacare “navigator” drive.)
          Tremendously low enrollment: Three weeks after the website’s launch, enrollment numbers remain very low. Washington state has only enrolled .36 percent of its population. Only .25 percent of Californians have started applications. Only .08 percent of Nevada’s population has created an account. Just .3 percent of Kentucky’s estimated population has purportedly enrolled. While 28,000 applications were submitted by Kentucky residents, page views were said to have exceeded 5.5 million. About 100,000 New Yorkers were said to have “qualified” for health insurance. Only .22 percent of Minnesota’s population has applied for coverage, but one-third of that number is said to have enrolled. Millard Brown Digital, reporting that fewer than 1 percent of the people trying to enroll in Obamacare had completed the enrollment process in the first week, released the following chart: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/10/health … funnel.png
          Americans losing insurance: Also Thursday, Americans began tweeting their anger and surprise over insurance cancellations and the higher premiums they will be forced to pay under Obamacare.
          Sebelius won’t resign: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will not resign over the disastrous Obamacare website roll-out despite numerous calls for her to be fired.
          Sticker shock: The Heritage Foundation released the following chart showing that insurance on health exchanges will cost more than existing insurance:
      http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/10/premium_chart.jpg

      “As we see the actual implementation of Obamacare hurt actual people, people that are herded into the exchanges even though they were promised they could keep the health care that they had, young people that will be forced to buy something they can’t afford and others that will see their jobs cut or their premiums increase, all of those real factors are going to prove us right and the Democrats wrong as we head into 2014,” Freedomworks President and CEO Matt Kibbe said.
      Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/obamacare-tr … 2JcBghi.99

      Need anyone say more? It ain't gonna get better - this IS the train wreck the co -author of the bill (and conservatives before it was even passed) said it would be before it launched!

      http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8446259.jpg
      US Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) recently
      commented that Obamacare is a "train wreck."

      1. tsadjatko profile image79
        tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This just in, October 18, 2013 - two people in Alaska have signed up for Obamacare...not two more...the first two...WOW we are on our way!

        What's that you say? The government says 7,000,000 at least have to sign up for this to work and most of that has to be young people?

        Over how many decades?

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This entire thread begs the question:
          Where are all the hubbers who've been out there blowing the trumpet in celebration of this law? Where are all our success stories?
          Still can't get on.

          1. tsadjatko profile image79
            tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Even those obamazombie hubbers know they can't defend a catastrophe like this, especially when it was predicted years in advance. But don't worry, they'll just become closet zombies cause once a zombie is infected with Barackteria there is no cure. Their brains are damaged beyond repair.

      2. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You would have thought someone would admit this thing is a disaster and shut it down.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals never admit when they are wrong - if they can't change the subject or blame someone else they just don't show up for a battle they know they can't win so no one can say they were defeated. It's never about the truth with them, it's all about deception.

        2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What is the disaster people keep harping about? The ACA is working great in California. Thousands of people have signed up and purchased private policies. Also, many of the abject poor ($700 a month or less) have gotten on to MediCal. So all is well is California....even the chief complainer, Representative Darrel Issa (R/CA) is being quiet on the issue for a few days!

          1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
            tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Dr. Billy did you know there are 38 million people In California?  Thousands doesn't seen too significant,

          2. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Dr. Billy,
            What are your sources for this success in California? (not that thousands have signed up, because that is NOT a success, you need way more than that). But simply that it is being successful for low rates, etc.
            I've searched and searched but can find nothing on it other than articles back in May giving a projection of success. Not any reports of actual success.

            Edit: Nevermind. I found it but, their figures are misleading.
            "The figure reported is for people who completed the full application process and were found eligible for an insurance plan. "

            The full application process is what you fill out before you can even look at plans. They consider that "signed up". It is enrollment numbers you need and oddly, they are not reporting those.

            Oh but wait! The news gets even better out of Washington State!
            "Washington state said 9,452 people have fully enrolled in coverage set to begin Jan. 1. Most of them, about 8,500, are going to be covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program for low-income people, with the remaining 916 covered by health plans sold by private insurers through the online state marketplace. "
            Nearly everyone who signed up in that state so far are Medicaid recipients. What a surprise. Which is why soon, no one will be able to afford health insurance.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              When is soon and would you care to put your money where your mouth is?

              Since most people who are not on the medicare allowance are covered by their employers those numbers are exactly what was expected. Not alarming at all.

              Also the medicare subsidy stuff is covered directly by the ACA funding measures meaning it has zero impact on the cost of insurance.

              Israel instituted an almost identical similar system in 1995. As we know Israel has since collapsed economically and is now destitute and no one can afford healthcare.

              Wait it rose in  the US healthcare rankings almost 25 places? Huh. Well this is sensationalist rubbish then.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm already putting my money there! As are the rest of us! We're being told we have to.
                I always love the words "almost" and "identical" when used as an oxymoron. Almost disqualifies identical. Which means there were differences. I will look into what they implemented though and all that.
                No it is not covered by ACA funding measure, which btw require millions tof healthy, young Americans to sign-up to succeed. Not happening right now by far. No those numbers are NOT what they expected. Now you are just blowing smoke.
                And below is the reason why you should research things and not rely solely on some "system" where the very indicators save one, that they measure is designed to make socialized medicine look great.
                "Israeli health care ranks high in OECD, but public system still showing signs of distress"
                These impressive figures from the OECD seem to contradict the signs of distress the public health system has been showing in recent years − and as Yair Lapid claims. But there is no arguing with the data showing a severe problem of infrastructure in the health system: Israel is near the bottom of list in the number of general hospital beds, 27th out of 30, with only 1.93 hospital spaces per 1,000 people.
                the number of nurses is very low, 20th out of 22 with 4.8 nurses per thousand residents, compared to 11.3 in Germany and 9.6 per thousand in Britain. Israel has the highest rate of hospital occupancy in the OECD, 98.8 percent on an annual basis; which testifies to rates of well over 100 percent for almost half the year, again, well above the accepted norm in other developed nations.
                Another explanation for the impressive OECD numbers is the high percentage of Israelis who have supplementary health insurance: 80 percent, said Israel Medical Association deputy chairman Dr. Yitzhak Ziv-Ner. “Too many [people] in Israel pay for supplementary insurance, which is gradually becoming an additional health tax above the general health tax. ... this shows the lack of faith the Israelis have in the basic system, which is not enough for them,” he said. "
                I guess I'm going to have to put more money than I thought where my mouth is....in order to get adequate care I'll need supplemental insurance like 80% of Israelis.

                One more thing - while I can't define "soon" this entire law is a grand design to eliminate health insurance and move to a single payer system. Reid already admitted such.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No I will not put my money where my mouth is.

                  Soon is just histrionic sensationalism it means nothing.

                  I don't understand my own post as I first quoted that too many people on the medicare subsidy are signing up and said they are mainly young then argued not enough young people are joining even though young people who are not on the subsidy are joining via their employer.

                  I still have not read the ACA legislation thoroughly and don't understand it. " CHIP enrollment process: Low-income individuals and families above 100% and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies directly funded by PPACA taxation revenue measures".

                  To clarify that those subsidies come directly from the funding taxes, not who signs on.

                  I do not know about the Israeli healthcare system even though it is the closest analogue to ours.

                  Israel does impressively in the OECD and UN despite being not incredibly wealthy. It's system scores far better than the US's but it is not as good as other more socialized systems.

                  And wind out with a conspiracy theory. (On a side note I hope that conspiracy is true)

                  Fixed it for you.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    1. Reading comprehension is your friend. I did not say too many on Medicare were signing up. I said too many on Medicaid.  As for saying they are mainly young...what?  I said it requires so many young & healthy Americans to sign-up and agree to pay the inflated premiums in order to even begin to have affordable premiums. Which isn't happening.
                    2. Um..dude, it's called a search engine, reading, researching. Which is what I did and found out that the Israeli system is not the great thing you are claiming. I notice you just ignored all the issues it is having.
                    3.  Read it and understand it. How about you? Do you even know what 400% actually equates to in real life? I'll wait.
                    4. What taxes would those be? Besides, who do you think is paying those taxes? Or are they taxes from the magic money dragon?
                    5. Not a conspiracy theory, unless you think Harry Reid is starting a conspiracy theory about the Democrats.
                    6. Fixed what? I stated facts & truth. You've stated your opinion and then don't even read the post correctly.



                    "n short, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., never really thought the exchanges would work.

                    He just sees the Affordable Care Act as the first step to a fully government-run health care system, something that could be easier to achieve after the glitch-riddled, problematic opening of the federal health insurance exchanges this month.

                    During an appearance on a Las Vegas PBS program in August, Reid said he sees a national single-payer health system as the natural next step for health care in America.  Reid said the nation had to “work its way past” insurance-based health care, according to a recap provided by the Las Vegas Sun newspaper.

                    “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said."

            2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just got my Insurance Plan Update:
              My private insurance is increasing 9.8 % due to taxes that will be included in my premium.
              Q. Why am I being taxed more? 
              A. "To support the expansion of coverage, there are ACA taxes that will be included in your premium. Your premium is increasing due to ACA taxes as well as the cost of providing health care services. Your plan's new premium will be effective january 1, 2014."
                    Currently I am paying $444/ mo. Can't afford almost $500 a month. I am dropping it. I will not give the government all my info in signing up for ACA. I will heal myself, If I die, I die. Unless, I can find a job with insurance. Good luck with that. So, I will be fined for not having insurance at all. Its the principle of the matter. I'm being forced to help others obtain care when I myself can't afford it!  Does that really sound right? really?
                   No wonder they want a cashless society. An under the table job would be best at this point. Or living under a bridge and not working at all.
              Hope and change.
              Ain't it grand?

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Get ready to be told that your personal experience is anecdotal evidence that doesn't matter and conflicts with "data" that can be found on the Internet.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I see, well, the quote is directly from my Blue Shield Update Brochure which I received today.
                  Its the principle of the matter. Its called forced social democracy. Did the left really vote for this?
                  REALLY?
                  Is THIS what Democrats and/or liberals wanted?
                                                             SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?
                  well, you've got it.
                  THANKS for NOTHING.

              2. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
                SomewayOuttaHereposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                no...that doesn't sound right if you personally have to pay almost $500 per month....is there not help for people who can not afford that premium if not covered via an employer...but then again i'm sure if you are forced to pay.....it would be a pain to have some civil servant determine whether or not you can afford the premium or not......gov't would  have to define affordability somehow....omg

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not covered by the public school district I work for, here in CA. The government ordered the school district to give their subs insurance of some type, so they referred us to Covered California: ACA (!) My husband is a flooring installer. He makes good enough money but not good enough to afford HC. The 444.00 was just for me. He has never had coverage, as he is self-employed and we are paying mortgage, maintaining our home and saving for retirement. We are lower middle class. We WERE doing just fine. Just fine.

                  1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
                    SomewayOuttaHereposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    My health care in Canada is about $500 per month (includes extended health benefits etc - not just the min. medical insurance).  and that is just for me - 2 people are double that and a family (more than 2) around 1,500 plus.  Luckily my coverage is paid for by my employer.  Many working Canadians have no idea of what health care coverage costs are if their employer covers it.  The premium for my coverage is cheap compared to those who work for gov't in one form or another here.

                    good luck KLH.....

      3. MarleneB profile image96
        MarleneBposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wait, wait, wait... I'm envisioning people fainting in conference calls. That's hilarious. But, seriously, if we're talking about Obamacare... it ain't gonna work!

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We all agree don't we, that universal, affordable health care would be a good thing? No one is disputing that are they? If you don't think the ACA will achieve that, fair enough, but at least present a viable alternative. All I'm seeing in this thread is people complaining about the ACA. Not one person has suggested a viable, alternative solution that addresses the issues the ACA is intended to address. Not one! This is the issue in my view. It's not good enough to just say "I don't like the ACA". That's just  unhelpful. Now I'm not interested in those that don't like the ACA on the grounds that it's socialist, or because it's Obamacare and they believe Obama is the devil incarnate. Both those views are idiotic. I am however interested in those who genuinely believe there is a viable alternative, and I want to know specifically what that alternative is and how you think it can be achieved. That, in my view, would be a more positive, constructive approach this the subject.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The ACA does not address heath CARE, it addresses health INSURANCE. It is 99% regulations, penalties, taxes and fees. It redefines full time as 30 hours, which is costing everyday working people and smaller businesses. We all know that the big companies will survive but business is also about the bottom line, so those that worked 35 -38 hours are seeing their hours cut drastically.  Few are even hiring full time workers anymore because of it, and that hurts everyone.
        If we're going to regulate something, I would rather have seen our time spent regulating the crazy profits on things like a box of tissues and aspirin that hospitals charge. The cost of hospital CARE has not been addressed at all with this law.
        As for the insurance part, it would have been much better (not to mention have way less glitches and issues) to allow insurances to compete across state lines. That would have fostered REAL competition to lower insurance rates rather than the false promise of competition that this law created. In many states there is little or no options, driving the cost of insurance up.
        This type of universal health care is not sustainable in the long term, even if it manages to climb up from the depths of failure it has so far achieved and be successful in the short term. A look at countries like Greece has already proven that.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the only way to effect health care reform is to address the private sector including tort reform - like Dr. Ben Carson said "ObamaCare is Not The Way Intelligent People Do Things!
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Enpo3vIjwLQ
          Who in their right mind would ever even entertain the idea that the government can run the best health care system in the world ... and improve it? Ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!

        2. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The insurance is used to pay for health care (please note the use of italics to emphasize words rather than capitalization, which avoids the impression that you are SHOUTING)



          Nonsense, the ACA mandates that employers provide insurance to employees working at least 30 hours a week, or pay a penalty. That prevents employers gaming the system by cutting hours. It doesn't "redefine" anything.

          And the business mandate only applies to business with more than 50 full time employees. 96% of all businesses in the US have fewer than 50 full time employees. Of the 4% that are over the threshold, currently 99.8% of them already provide insurance. So the business mandate will affect 0.2% of the 4% of businesses it actually applies to.



          In other words, the ACA isn't perfect. I agree. So why don't you give us the details of exactly what you would like to see in it, rather than just complain about it?



          Laws are not set in stone. They can be amended. If the benefit of what you are suggesting can be demonstrated, then the law can be amended to include it. That's how laws improve over time, but you have to start somewhere. The ACA is that start.



          The suggestion that Greece's health care system is what caused it's economic problems is idiotic. Do I really need to list all the countries in the world with some degree of universal health care that are economically stable? Stop scare-mongering.

          Regardless, you hope you are proven wrong about Obamacare, don't you? I mean, you do agree that the best outcome is that Obamacare proves to be a success and benefits the country, right?

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How does fining them prevent them from gaming the system? They pay no fine for cutting hours of employees, which is exactly what they are doing. The law clearly states that for the purpose of health care full time is defined as 30 hours. That is redefining full time providing health care, where previously only full time employees (those working 35-40 hours) received such benefits.
            I did tell you what I'd like to see. I'd rather we address the actual cost of care, not insurance. And I'd like to see real competition, not government invented competition. It is real competition that would control the cost of insurance.
            I don't think the government forcing you to buy something should be in it at all. It sets a very bad precedent.

            The problem with claiming ACA is that start is that the Democrats & the President refuse to acknowledge all its flaws. Currently they refuse to entertain even any minor changes to the law. The President really missed a grand opportunity with this entire shutdown thing IMO. With all the issues surrounding anyone even being able to sign up for it if they want it, he could have come out and said, "you know what, the sign-up isn't going like we hoped, so we're going to delay the individual mandate until next year to be certain everyone is able to sign up". 
            There is no way it will benefit the country as a whole. It is an economic drain by its very nature. Nothing comes for free, despite what they are trying to lead people to believe. Someone is going to foot that bill, and it's going to be the average everyday working Joe. In a time of economic prosperity, the country could take the short term hit, realize the mistake, and take measures to fix it. In our current economic situation, it will turn bad into worse.

            As for your claims regarding the percentage of small businesses, you are incorrect. Small business is defined as one with fewer than 500 employees, not 50. Your 96% number is the number of businesses with fewer than 500.
            The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy defines a small business as one with fewer than 500 employees.  As SBA says: 99.7 percent of the approximately 6 million businesses with employees are small businesses.

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sassy! Dam you for giving the impression of shouting! I guess imaginary shouting gives him the impression you are hurting his imaginary ears. Maybe he actually reads your posts out loud and feels compelled to yell (at himself?) That is certainly such an important point he had to make it first so Sassy, try whispering.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                lol Honestly it was just for emphasis. I hate the formatting options for the forums.

                You'll note in my answer I gave that point the attention it deserved. smile

                1. tsadjatko profile image79
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A PATHETIC attempt at a put down...or as likely a control freak -  Must not feel his points hold water so he starts with a put down. What is with the triple spaced paragraphs?

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              1) The threshold for providing an employee with health insurance is 30 hours, for those business that are eligible. Studies like this one suggest that in 2013 the number of employees that work between 26 and 29 hours (0.6%) is virtually the same as in 2012;  2) just because a business says Obamacare is the reason it is cutting hours, that doesn't mean that's the case. Some businesses are using Obamacare as an excuse to cut hours. In San Francisco (a health care law applying to employers with 20 or more employees has been in place since 2008) some restaurants have been adding a 3.5 - 4% surcharge to to cover what they explicitly state are "health care costs", yet an investigation by the WSJ revealed that they have actually spent nothing on employee's health care, or only a tiny fraction of the money; 3) Less than a third of workers say they work less than 30 hours because of their employer's decision, but instead because they choose to work those hours for various reasons. 4) God forbid anyone should have to pay an extra 25c for their burger so the guy behind the counter can get decent health insurance! 5) Hoe much will companies benefit in the longer time by having a healthier workforce?



              The desire for corporate profit is stronger than the desire to ensure people have good, affordable health care. That's one of the issues the ACA aims to address. The idea that "real competition" will reduce costs is nonsense. If that were the case there would be no such thing as monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, barriers to entry, price fixing, predatory pricing etc. As I said in one of my hubs four years ago it's not a question of regulated market or free market. It is a question of regulated market (by the state in favor of consumers, represented by many), or a controlled market (by corporations in favor of profit, represented by few). Human health is too important to be left purely in the hands of organisations who's sole aim is to make profit. Corporations have demonstrated again and again that they are not capable of making moral choices.



              Minor changes? Like repealing it, or defunding it? Hardly minor. As for delaying it, that's just putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. With any major reform like this, there will be problems. I would be amazed if there wasn't. Even private companies have problems when they roll out new products, or implement new ideas. The point is that you identify the problems as they occur and fix them. Plan, Do, Check, Act. Look it up, it's a basic business management principle that allows for continuous improvement. It would be incredibly naive to think that any such a significant change would pass off without a hitch.



              It's called the Affordable Care Act not the Free Care Act. The clue is in the title. You may think it's unaffordable, but the CBO have said repealing the ACA would in fact add to the deficit. Moreover the individual mandate was originally the idea of the Heritage Foundation back in 1989. In a document entitled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" they said:

              "[the mandate] assumes health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Second it assumes there is a contract between household and society, based on the notion that health care insurance is not like other forms of insurance. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. . . If a man is struuck down witha heart attacj in the street, Americans will care for him whether he has insurance or not. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this impl i cit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself (p.6, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Foundation)



              Sorry, but you are wrong. In relation to the business mandate, the ACA explicitly defines a large employer (and therefore implicitly a small employer). You can find it on page 136 of the Bill:

              "‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘applicable large employer’
              means, with respect to a calendar year, an employer who
              employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees
              on business days during the preceding calendar year."

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I wasn't arguing the businesses affected by the mandate. I was arguing your figure as to how many businesses are affected. It is not 96% that have fewer than 50 employees because the definition of small business is those with less than 500, not 50 by the SBA and that is where your figure is coming from. Or rather, the figure used in the blog post where you got that information. Their figures are incorrect because they did not use the proper definition of "small business" by the SBA.
                This does not protect society from the costs of those without insurance. This mandates that society pay for those without insurance. You can make an argument that perhaps society was paying for them in another fashion. I can concur with that, however, this also mandates that now society is paying for those with any health issues (pre-existing conditions), anyone with a child aged 21-26 years, and a few other things. Previously, the specific group of society with those specific needs did pay more. No different than if you choose a different type of car insurance and pay more. Now, the working stiff, the one just over the threshold of poverty lines as defined by the government, is forced to pay more than they can afford to shoulder the needs of the few.
                Further, I might add, that while those already on Medicaid or Medicare will be fine, the majority of physicians have already stated that with the smaller reimbursements for those services, they simply will not take new Medicare & Medicaid patients. It is not cost feasible. This now restricts the care for anyone just entering those plans now or in the future.
                Minor changes like the tax on medical devices which even most Democrats are against. Which Reid was against until the GOP asked for it. Delaying the individual mandate is NOT a major change, it is a delay in order to attempt to fix all the problems. Do you really think they are going to fix all these issues by January 1st? Really? Not a chance.
                Furthermore, it is odd that if the GOP asks for some change it is a major change, damaging it blah blah blah. But, it was fine for the President to circumvent Congress and make changes to a signed law (unconstitutional btw) with no legislative process by issuing thousands of exemptions. None of those for the average American either, but for all his campaign contributors.
                I can sit here and quote the jobs report to show you the trend is from full time to part time work, and not by choice. Almost 8 million Americans want full time work but can only find part-time. Do you really believe that is a coincidence? If so, you are naive.
                Just because you hold a certain opinion about a free market does not make it a fact. Certainly you need some regulations, but a market regulated to death, dies.
                Make no mistake, this is set-up to put insurance companies out of business until the only choice is the government insurance. Then they can do what they will and the public is powerless to stop it. Reid has already admitted as such.
                said.

                "The Las Vegas Sun reports that Reid made the statement during a Friday appearance on the PBS program “Nevada Week in Review.” Reid said that Congress could eventually reform the Affordable Care Act into one providing universal health care without relying on the private health insurance industry.

                “What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

                When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

                http://news.yahoo.com/-harry-reid-says- … 01028.html

                Better wake up and smell the game.

                Oh and just for the record on the so-called "competition" that will bring rates down:
                "An average of eight insurers compete for business in 36 states that had exchanges run or supported by the federal government last month, the Department of Health and Human Services says. (Idaho has since started its own exchange.) But just because an insurer sells in a state, it doesn't mean it sells in every area of a state so many residents have far fewer options.
                Vermont has two, Kentucky has three and Nevada and Maryland each have four.
                In New Hampshire, the exchange has just Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which greatly reduces the number of hospital options, says State Sen. Andy Sanborn. Since more than 90% of doctors are affiliated with specific hospitals, the new plans will also exclude many doctors, he added."

                Just a few issues with competition, rates and availability of care.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The 96% figure comes from the SBA. To be accurate, it is in fact 96.31% of firms that have less than 50 employees, and 99.69% that have fewer than 500. The business mandate only applies to large employers, which is defined in section 136 of the ACA as any employer with more than 50 employees. So as I said, the business mandate is not applicable to 96% of businesses in the US. Whether those businesses are defined by the SBA as small businesses or not is irrelevant. I've put a link to the raw data below. Feel free to make the calculations yourself.

                  The ACA mandates that people take personal responsibility. Health insurance is not like car insurance. There is no a societal expectation for us to pay for repairs to your Porsche if you crash it and don't have insurance. There is a societal expectation not to let you die on the grounds that we do not like the choices you have made. E.g. if you got run over because you chose to get blind drunk, there is an expectation that people would not leave you to die by the side of the road, but would come to your assistance. That is one of the differences between a civilized and an uncivilized society. The ACA is a manifestation of that societal expectation, a codification of our values as a civilized society. It is not a political statement.

                  The "working stiff" as you describe people who are just over the threshold of poverty lines, could easily become the unemployed stiff, so to speak, through no fault of their own. At which time they themselves may need assistance. In my view, the ACA is about mutual assistance. Is there a minority of people who do not contribute to society that will benefit? Yes, but that is a price worth paying to help the majority who genuinely need assistance with their health care costs, and who, when they find their feet, will pass that assistance on through paying their own dues.

                  "a market regulated to death, dies". That's a circular argument, but I understand the point you are making. Getting the balance between regulation and a free market correct has always been a challenge, but that is something that can be tweaked once real data starts coming in about the performance of this policy. But you have to start somewhere.

                  For the sake of brevity I'll forego addressing the other points in your post.

                  *http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ … us(2).xlsx (Excel, 4mb)

                  1. 60
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yay! My insurance is only going to be $210 a month. Thanks affordable care act!

                    I mean, this year I would have had to pay $65 to get a plan that's slightly better than what I get for over THREE TIMES AS MUCH!

                    The ACA worked for me!

    5. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      My healthcare costs a few dollars less a month, not a significant change. On the other hand thanks to the ACA it is now unlimited insurance. So yes much better really.

    6. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      About 100,000 people with pre-existing conditions were able to buy and use their new health care policy this last year. Some had the money and had been waiting in line to get insurance for 10 years. I think that is a success. I know a shrink who was able to get back to work--helping people.

  2. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    I'm sure you'll be able to find people who love Obamacare.  Can America afford it?

    Can you name a single instance when our government was efficient?  I'm sure, with a lot of thought, you can, but it requires a lot of thought.  The health industry is 1/6 of our economy.  Would anybody really put 1/6 of their income in the hands of a negligent, irresponsible person (government) who can't even come up with a budget?  That's what Obamacare does.

    What did Reagan say?  "The nine scariest words in the English language are:  I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

    1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Lincoln did pretty good winning the Civil War.
      Roosevelt did pretty good winning WWII.
      Medicare works fine.
      Social Security is the only income 25% of America's seniors get.
      Going to the moon was good and the interstate highway system works OK.

      1. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How many of these are/were efficient programs or events?

        lol

  3. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Watch how defenders of Obamacare have changed their claims over time as more evidence has been brought to the table. Look closely, or you might miss it.

    Obamacare will provide everyone with cheaper insurance
    V
    Obamacare will provide everyone with insurance, and the prices won't rise
    V
    Insurance might get more expensive, but at least everyone will be insured with Obamacare
    V
    Some people might not get insured, and it may get more expensive, but at least some people will get insured with Obamacare
    V
    If one person gets insured, it will be all worth it.

    1. 84
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Good points.

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You forgot - go back to 2009 when it all started "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E, the lie repeated over and over by the LIAR IN CHIEF and he knew all along it was a lie, anyone who read the bill knew it was a lie, just like everything said to pass it  was alie - it's cost, it's benefits, the tax (that wasn't a tax?) - you name it.

    3. MarleneB profile image96
      MarleneBposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yep! Yep! Yep! And... let's say you get all signed up and all is good in Obama Health Care Land. You have medical insurance. But (get this) a lot of the medical facilities are not accepting new patients! Yeah, that's a reality, folks. Unless more facilities and doctors are added to cover the additional people being insured, a lot of people will be insured without a place to go get medical help. Who's going to address that little fiasco?

  4. kineticpoet profile image62
    kineticpoetposted 3 years ago

    I've found cheaper insurance there than what my (Fortune 100) employer of 8 years has offered since they haven't changed the plan... since I started. So, it might be working for me later... no point signing up now w/ all that is going on and I haven't seen what my elections will be like for next year w/ my awesome company.

    1. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Found it where? on the healthcare.gov site? and it is cheaper than what your employer offered over the past 8 years? or cheaper than what they are offering this year? (which would be forced higher because of Obamacare) I find this hard to believe - what are the co pays and deductibles compared to your employer - is the coverage exactly the same ?- I doubt it. How about some details since you say you did the comparison - show us how obamacare is cheaper for you and in what state so we can tell others to check it out. Maybe you overlooked some important aspects of coverage and we can keep you from making a mistake. A second opinion never hurts.

  5. 84
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    I know somebody who will pay a lot more now.  Her husband's company dropped health insurance because of Obamacare.  Now, she will have to put her family on the school's insurance plan, to the tune of almost half her monthly salary!  She's a teacher in a VERY low-paying area, and money will be very tight for her family now.

  6. 60
    squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago

    If it works for Canada and other places, it will work here. Eventually the bugs will get worked out. Our technologically savvy programmers have been busily designing the programs. Where is the patriotism of the people? We need faith in science, faith in our president and faith in our government. They will indeed deliver what we have voted for! They will indeed bring forth the change and hope we wanted. Nothing good comes without patience.
         Eventually the US will institute social democracy. In modern society human nature is yielding more and more to the aspect of the whole and less and less to the aspect of the individual. The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations. Especially in light of the global threat of technologically advanced warfare. Eventually, even the preeminence of nations must subside, considering the obvious necessity to eliminate all causes of war. After all, we are in this world, on this planet in the entirety of mankind. This truth and reality can only manifest without concerns for the individual or regards for national borders. Let us have peace. It all starts with PPACA. Have patience; the much contemplated future will surely be worth the wait.
         However, those of us who would rather maintain our own autonomy, might have to move to the moon.

  7. tsadjatko profile image79
    tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago

    "Eventually the bugs will get worked out."???  it appears you haven't read anything on this forum - there are no bugs the whole healthcare.gov structure is outdated (thanks to your programers), they used 1990's technology and it can't be fixed, they have to start over. This government is holding itself unaccountable for everything they do. We have a Democracy, was the greatest on earth! We don't need your social democracy. "The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations"?  -  why don't you crawl back under the rock (with Stalin, Mao and Marx) where you came from.

    1. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image77
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know tsad, "The concept of the individual must yield to the significance of the whole of society and of nations"... "yielding more and more to the aspect of the whole and less and less to the aspect of the individual". Sounds to me like this guy is a jihadist - we should all be Muslim, after all worldwide there are more of them than us. So glad he lives in Canada and not the US.

      1. 60
        squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think we will all agree with the last sentence "those of us who prefer autonomy might have to move to the moon..."  if social democracy is instituted and if the New World Order guys/ puppeteers  (and/or jihadists !?) have their way.
        It was a joke, son!
        PS Look up the word   a u t o n o m y !   A very good word, indeed.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You have an odd sense of humor - actually I'd say no sense of humor because your last sentence in context with the two paragraphs you wrote in no way implies your comments were a joke. "However, those of us who would rather maintain our own autonomy, might have to move to the moon" is actually an accurate deduction from what you said which in no way implies YOU were looking for autonomy nor meant your statements like "Eventually the bugs will get worked out." were a joke.  But despite your horribly failed attempt at "humor" ,  if that is what it was you'd have to agree my response to what you said is appropriate and you demonstrated you are totally uninformed about the Obamacare rollout or was that part of your "joke". "Eventually the bugs will get worked out."???  Yeah right - praise your Canadian programers, or was that all a joke too? Glad you're not a socialist, or communist but just a bad joker - I apologize for not getting your "joke" but a little advice for you, I wouldn't give up your day job to become a comedian... c o m e d i a n - look it up.

          1. 60
            squeeknomoreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            - lighten up, would you? I was testing the waters. That no one reacted favorably or in agreement is a darn good sign, if you ask me.

  8. tsadjatko profile image79
    tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago

    As Obama said even when he was a senator single payer was the end game. I think that is why they went ahead with the roll out knowing it wouldn't work. That is why he won't fire Sebelius - she probably told him they weren't ready but he said go with it because if it fails and he is in power he wants to replace it with single payer. I think they all knew it would eventually fail, it was meant to fail, even Dr. Ben Carson said ObamaCare is "Not The Way Intelligent People Do Things" (I say - unless it is their ruse to take a step closer to single payer)

    1. tirelesstraveler profile image86
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have the highest respect for Dr. Carson, neurosurgeon. US Senator?  Youngest head of John's Hopkins neurosurgery department . He knows what he his talking about.

  9. barryrutherford profile image37
    barryrutherfordposted 3 years ago

    All i have to say give it time to work people I understand are still signing up till March next year.

    It is clear that 54 million unisured Americans was unacceptable & this plan attempt to address that...

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy.

    2. tsadjatko profile image79
      tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah right. The CBO said even if Obamacare works there will still be over 30 million uninsured and where did you get the figure 54 million? That is no where near the number of citizens who are uninsured - it is currently more like 30 million - you aren't naive are you. What you are saying is like building wings out of feathers and saying lets jump off a cliff to see if they work. Anyone with intelligence who has looked into this knows Ovomitcare will not work. Try doing some homework.

      I'll leave you with this bleak appraisal of healthcare.gov (via CNN Money):
          Experts say the major problems with the Obamacare website can't reasonably be solved before the end of 2013, and the best fix would be to start over from scratch. After assessing the website, Dave Kennedy, the CEO of information-security company Trusted Sec, estimates that about 20% of Healthcare.gov needs to be rewritten. With a whopping 500 million lines of code, according to a recent New York Times report, Kennedy believes fixing the site would probably take six months to a year. But would-be Obamacare enrollees only have until Dec. 15 to sign up for coverage starting at the beginning of 2014. Nish Bhalla, CEO of information-security firm Security Compass, said it "does not sound realistic at all" that Healthcare.gov will be fully operational before that point. "We don't even know where all of the problems lie, so how can we solve them?" Bhalla said. "It's like a drive-by shooting: You're going fast and you might hit it, you might miss it. But you can't fix what you can't identify." Several computer engineers said it would likely be easier to rebuild Healthcare.gov than to fix the issues in the current system.
      There's no way the Obama administration would throw away several years and $300 million-worth of work...would they? That would be too painful an admission of failure. But the fact that experts now believe blowing the whole thing up and starting from scratch would be more effective than trying to fix the current mess is a deeply damning indictment. Tick tock, Democrats. What's your plan?
      http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ … aign=nl_pm

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh the fact checking as usual, always amusing reading your posts tsadjako.

        Current uninsured according to the Census Bureau is almost 50 million.

        http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

        It's expected to fall to something like 27 million under the PPACA according to the kaiser foundation.

        So that would be close to halving the uninsured population.

        The CBO found 30 million.  That is still a reduction of massive proportions.

        As for the Tick-Tock well I would suggest looking at some polling for 2016 not only are you getting crushed in all of the traditional battleground states (7% margin in Florida) but even states like Georgia and Kentucky are drawn. Hell Texas is only a couple of points.

        Tick Tock to Republican extinction.

        1. tsadjatko profile image79
          tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Try again Josak - I said citizens - US citizens - you do understand there is a difference between citizens and illegal aliens. Your numbers include illegals...you really think the taxpayers should be providing health insurance to illegal aliens? Well we'll have them send their bill to you. Nice try to tell the lie. Of course you only picked the one thing in my comment you could spin a lie about while ignoring the rest of the facts - that's all you know how to do josak, ignore the facts and spin what you can with deception. Good liberal that you are.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Let me introduce you to basic mathematics 101.

            There are 11 Million Illegals in the US five million of which are uninsured.
            http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … -uninsured

            Now the difference between 50 million and thirty million is 20 million.

            Can you do the math?

            1. tsadjatko profile image79
              tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You don't stop do you - your numbers are wrong but again when it comes to illegals these are estimates and could be off by millions - nobody really knows so quit it - YOU LOSE. Anybody with a brain can see right through you.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                SO your argument now is all the estimates which coincide across several studies by left and right wing organisations as well as neutral ones are off by a magnitude of 400% big_smile tongue

                That committed to being wrong huh?

                1. tsadjatko profile image79
                  tsadjatkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, my argument is that I wrote three paragraphs about Ovomitcare and you, propagandist that you are,  picked out a tiny portion of a statement, and I quote "where did you get the figure 54 million?" to make a diatribe  that has nothing to do with my reply to ole barry's naivete' or anything else being discussed. The facts are the estimates of uninsured American citizens not including illegals are around 30 million which is what I said and  all the smoke and mirrors you try to throw out there don't change the facts or negate anything I said - but then that is exactly what we have come to expect from you when all you know how to do is avoid the facts and pick on some trivial statement to spin into what youwant to be a discrediting of he person who is presenting the facts you don't want to hear and can't refute...we know your game plan, give it up.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No I picked out a lie you told. You claimed data, it was a lie, or at best you being too lazy to actually look at the figures. Thus your post was misleading, so I corrected it.

                    I also presented the correct figures.

        2. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Tick tock?

          Republicans were saying the same thing back in 1980.

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The non white vote has doubled since 1980 and is expected to double again by 2035 yet the proportion of that vote Republicans are getting is actually falling.

            So yeah barring a big trend reversal that requires a big policy change it's pretty much inevitable.

            1. 84
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Democrats control the White House and have a majority in the Senate.  Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority of governors.  The Republicans are far from extinct.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Have a majority in the house and states because of population distribution, have a look at the last congressional vote, most Americans voted for a Democrat Congress.

                1. 84
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol  Don't you love our constitution?  Each state, regardless of population, has equal representation in the Senate.  Each state has its own executive branch.  Ironically, the Republicans control the House of Representatives, the one part of Congress that varies based on population.  Don't you find that interesting?  lol

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually yeah and I don't begrudge Republicans holding it on that basis at all. My only point was to demonstrate just how tenuous the hold really is, when you are in government with a minority of the votes your position is not a good one and certainly not a safe one and it bodes very poorly for elections that are not decided in this way (like presidential elections).

  10. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Yeah, I know, but the money always comes from somewhere.

    Premiums didn't go down, it's just more redistribution.

    Heck, I get to subsidize others. I'm not rich by any means, but I have to help pay for other people who are either less fortunate or have been less wise with their lives.

    Affordable care act, lol. Nothing affordable about it.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If you will subsidize my insurance I can buy it.  Now who can I get to cover the deductible and copays?  Because it will take my entire medical budget to buy the insurance even with your subsidy.

  11. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    It's sad that so much of the world now believes that theft is moral sad

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Capitalists have made you believe that theft is moral for many decades.

      1. 60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        At least we can always count on John to come along and redefine the entire language to fit his views.

        Strangely, I have never had anything stolen from me, except by government, and I have never stolen from anyone. Even with all these years living in a capitalist country. I really must be missing something.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          See what I mean?

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are.  Missing something, that is.

          Government is not called theft; it is "redistribution of wealth" or some other wording meaning the same thing.  Not theft.

          That's because it is not illegal for govt. to forcibly take - theft is illegal.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But when capitalists redistribute wealth from you to them . . .

            1. 60
              AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No capitalist has ever taken my money without my permission.

              The government does every year.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If that is what you believe then I'm sorry for you.

                1. 60
                  AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Educate me. When did a capitalist ever take my money without my permission? I would love to hear examples.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You have worked have you not?

                    The fact that you have given them your money is no different from giving a mugger your money to avoid a beating.

          2. 60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's just an example of the government redefining a language. It's conditioned people to accept that the government forcefully taking form you is different than an individual forcefully taking from you.

            Someone with a gun saying "What I'm doing is right", doesn't make it right.

            Theft is only defined as illegal activity in the most narrow sense, and specifically because corrupt men in governments have created the problem.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Cool in which case every arrest is assault, every trial is kidnapping and every jail is a massive case of wrongful imprisonment so we should let them all out, after all those people never agreed to be subject to the law anymore than you agreed to be subject to taxation.

              You should start a campaign to let them all out. Surely you support this? Otherwise you are just a hypocrite.

              1. 60
                AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not true.

                If one person attacks another, and is arrested, that is just.
                If one person is minding his business and is arrested, that isn't just.

                Government can only be just when it is acting by proxy of natural rights. It isn't moral for you to harm someone for no reason, so if you do government is justified in arresting you.

                You don't have the right to steal from your neighbor, so it isn't moral for the government to steal from your neighbor by proxy either.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Unless your neighbour is a capitalist and then it's OK to be robbed by them

                  1. 60
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. If a capitalist takes something that doesn't belong to him by force, then that's theft just the same as if you do it or I do it or the government does it.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So now government does have the right to decide what is moral and what is not.

                  Since there is no agreed upon natural law.

                  And given such they DO have the right to decide taxation is moral (or rather the people have the right through government to do so).

                  Your argument is self defeating.

                  1. 60
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, government doesn't have the right to decide what is moral.

                    Essentially, it's up to the people. Morals vary, and I believe in the non-aggression principle. Unless you are ok with someone attacking you or stealing from you, then you probably believe in it too(even if you won't admit it).

                    Of course this gets into moral relativism, and the need for a foundation. This country has a foundation, and it would be considered immoral within that foundation to do certain things.

                    In the end, the strongest people end up getting to choose what is moral. Ironically, as time has moved on, the power has moved from small groups to entire populations, which allows for the most universal decision on morality.

                    The funny thing is, in America, most people support the NAP, but they might not be honest about it, or they will be hypocritical about it when it doesn't apply to them.

                    My argument isn't self-defeating, because these morals I speak of are the morals that our government is built on. As it stands, we have a government that is inconsistent, due to irrationality and emotion. On that basis, many actions of the government are currently immoral(according to its own framework of morality).

                    Essentially, it's a bully telling little Timmy that stealing is wrong, but it's ok if he does it to Timmy.

  12. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Oh sad, what happened to the upset person who called me a roll?

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Was that a cheese roll?

  13. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Yep, more theft. Those rich people deserve to be stolen from.

    It's no different than walking down the street to a mansion, breaking in, and stealing their things to give to someone else.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Taxes are theft and arrest is assault.

      If the people through the instrument of government do not have the right to decide what is moral and what is not then no law or order can ever be had.

      1. 60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Of course the people have the right to decide.

        Perhaps it's a semantic issue. I don't consider a hypocritical position to be moral. Ever.

        If you say it is immoral to harm another person unprovoked, but then 'give' yourself permission to do so, then you are acting immorally. You might try and distinguish, that it's only immoral for others to do that, but it's still the same action.

        So if society decides that individuals can't harm a person unprovoked, it would be immoral for them to set up agents to do it by proxy.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again the definition of what is right and what is wrong (including the non aggression principle) are subjective and no I do not agree with it.

          I am a utilitarian moralist, therefore if a person has a hundred loafs of bread and 99 were starving around him from my moral perspective the unprovoked taking and fair distribution of them would be the moral action because that is the greatest good for the greatest number. Now you may disagree and I don't expect you to convert but this principle you claim is universal is anything but.

          So your claim of soemthing being immoral (like taxation) is merely an opinion not a fact.

          1. 60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you have no problem with me attacking you for no reason?

            I don't claim it's universal, I know there are many who would prefer a complete lack of morals/right/wrong. I just think the majority feel that way.

            Yes, morals are subjective. We've been over this. No need to repeat it.

            I'm claiming that something being moral is dependent on its own framework.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm peeing myself laughing at the double standards shown here.

          1. 60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What double standard?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your hypocrisy. Re-read what you posted.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is very simple, there is no such thing as a natural law, I have very different expectations of what is natural than you and we in turn have a different expectation to someone else.

      Thus the only method of deciding what is moral and what is not in a legal sense is by democratic means.

      If you don't like what your community decided then you are free to go somewhere else.

      1. 60
        AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True.

        The problem is, this country has an agreed framework, and the current government is acting inconsistently with that(ie immorally).

        Do you think it's ok for me to take from you or harm you, unprovoked?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          SO your claim is that the agreed upon framework of this country does not include taxation...
          big_smile

          Even if this were true (and it is most definitely not) it doesn't matter, the founding principle of something does not decide it's continuation nor does change imply immorality.

          1. 60
            AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The framework of this country(Are you in the US?) is based on inherent personal rights against aggression. Taxation is one of those inconsistencies. There have been many inconsistencies in our framework, some have been added, and some taken away. Inconsistencies in a moral framework are always immoral.

            I'm still wondering, are you ok with someone harming you without cause?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am not currently in the US (away on business) I am a US citizen. Inherent personal rights against aggression is again just your opinion, the founding fathers supported taxation as a principle so obviously an incorrect opinion but still.

              I have already made clear that as a utilitarian I do not ascribe to the Non Aggression principle if I was the person with a hundred loafs of bread a day while 99 men starved around me (and assuming for some reason I was not distributing them myself) then even though I have committed no aggressive act I believe the taking on 99 of those loafs from me to be the moral course.

              1. 60
                AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The founders also supported equal treatment of all along with slavery. They were not perfect, and you cannot take both sides of an issue and call them both moral.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I never said they were perfect but they did found this system so that is what is in question not their moral perfection. That is what this system was founded on.

                  I am at no point holding both sides of an argument. I have made it clear I do not support the NAP so there is no hypocrisy.

                  You are logically out of options in this debate as to win it you must prove a moral precept (the NAP) to be a fact. That would allow you to claim taxation is factually immoral. But you cannot establish the NAP as fact only as subjective opinion. Therefore your views on taxation are also simply subjective, unprovable opinion.

                  1. 60
                    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You said though, that because something is part of this system, then it is therefore good under the system. That's not true though. A system cannot support both sides of an issue.

                    Why can't I just come up and attack you and take your stuff cause I want to?

  14. 60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    Tax the wealthy. For some reason, we have not only the right, but the imperative, to take away from them.

    Don't take from me though bro!

 
working