jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (153 posts)

If we do not repeal Obama Care...

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

    If we do not repeal Obama Care...what will happen to the nation?
    Will we ever enjoy the same amount of liberty that we had before?

    For instance, I was fined $200.00 for not having health insurance.
    I know others who were fined $400.00 this year.
    Next year we will be fined even more. How much more we wonder?


    I no longer feel in charge of my bank account.
    I no longer feel in charge of my life, my choices, my decisions, my destiny.

    I understand and accept that we must insure our cars to be able to drive them on the roads.
    But, is it right that we are forced to insure our bodies to live in this nation?

    If I took a job offering health care, I would not be fined.
    But how many jobs are available which still offer health care today?

    Wondering.

    1. dianetrotter profile image81
      dianetrotterposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      Wow!  I know some people who say they have been helped by Obamacare. Most of my doctors hate it.  I have medical on my job so I really don't have an obvious impact.

      1. chuckandus6 profile image56
        chuckandus6posted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I find the Obama care to much of violation of our freedom.along with the idea obama had for micro chipping  thank good that didn't happen.
        .

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          YET! yikes !

    2. tacitinc profile image60
      tacitincposted 19 months ago in reply to this

      Watch out for the HMOx plans - its like being on the MalcomX Healthcare Plan of 1960 in Selma Alabama or something lol the worse

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

    For instance:
    Today, in order to survive, students will have to, (thanks to Obama Care,) obtain a master's degree and a career which offers healthcare insurance. We can already see throughout elementary and secondary school, there is increasing pressure from teachers and parents for kids to maintain high grades. After graduating, students will be forced to continue their education (in a college/ university) for at least six more years. And parents will be financially obligated to help their children through college.

    And what type of jobs will be offering health insurance?
    These are the types of jobs students must shoot for whether they have interest / aptitude or not.
    They must work in the medical field or become presidents/CEOs of companies, school administrators, government empoyees, state teachers, etc.  The competition for these type of jobs will become, (or already is,) extreme.

    What will happen to artists, writers and musicians? What will happen to entrepreneurs?

    What will happen to retirement packages? What will happen to the percolating economy we had in the 60's and again in the 80's?

    Have we really thought this health care thing through?
    Are we doomed?
    OR NOT?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      I mean, what if everyone just caves due to the pressure
      and no one can even afford
      to pay into Obama Care?
      (I know of one tax man who checks the box: "Has insurance" whether his clients have it or not!)

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        To all of the above, we are living under a dictatorship.  The government has no business being in healthcare.  It also has no business mandating healthcare.  Our healthcare was fine before.  Those who wished to, even the poorest poor, received health care.  This is ridiculous!  Obama"care"  is a disaster.  Welcome to the USSA!

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          That's simply untrue. Before Obamacare, I wasn't able to afford ANY healthcare. I had to get my $1000 a month meds through the med company's program. The meds didn't work and I went through a year of on and off psychosis. Now I get Medicaid through Obamacare, so I can get my antipsychotics I need that work.

          For the mentally ill, Obamacare is a Godsend. Now I can go to the hospital if I need to and get the meds I need.

          But don't worry, Obamacare will be repealed when the GOP takes office in 2017. Those of us who really need it will be floundering once again. I'm just glad I have one more year of sanity before I won't be able to afford my meds again. How many mentally ill do you think will be on the streets because of this?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Kwitcher fussin'.

            Last year my tax bill grew, not $200, but $1200 due to Obamacare.  Due to unexpected costs during the year I had to withdraw more from savings than planned, whereupon Obamacare says my income was too high to qualify for the free Obamacare.

            Already this year, I needed some medical tests done which, after Obamacare insurance, cost me $1100 ($6,000 deductible).  So...back to the same thing.  Withdraw from savings to pay the bill whereupon Obama will say I "earn" too much and have to pay more for insurance, meaning further withdrawals and I will own yet more.

            Oh, it's a great plan, all right...for anyone already getting insurance from their employer.  For anyone else it's a total flop while the insurance companies rake in the dough.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Then what is the solution?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Don't worry Janesix. Jeb will be elected and he has no intention of repealing Obamacare.
                You'll be fine.  Those who have to pay for you… they won't be… Those who can't even afford  $100.000 thats ($1,200 a year) extra a month to pay for a MINIMAL (next to nothing) amount of care... those who are struggling just to save ANYTHING for retirement. They won't be.
                Basically, I would say the hard working, endlessly struggling, work-ethic driven middle class will not be fine!!!
                At all.
                So thanks for nothing.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                  PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Janesix, I am glad you are able to afford your meds and remain healthier.  I don't mind contributing to a system that does that.  Just wanted to let you know we don't all feel like Kathryn.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    - happy YOU can afford to pay for others and their multiple meds and aches and pains. I am not. I will not. 
                    Others can have fun with that.

                    1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                      PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      You are entitled to your beliefs.  That is why we vote.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Accept that we are not rich enough to provide the kind of health care for everyone that is being demanded.  Accept that we have no built in right to health care.

                And, above all, accept that Obamacare is NOT about healthcare; it's about buying healthcare insurance and with a built in profit for insurance companies.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image89
              Quilligrapherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Hi Wilderness. How are you doing otherwise?

              I am truly sorry to read in your post that "Last year my tax bill grew, not $200, but $1200 due to Obamacare."

              However, it seems to me that something is missing. Your post indicates your tax bill grew $1200 last year due to personal circumstances and a decision you made, one unrelated to Obamacare. Obviously, the ACA did not create the IRS regulation that treats those withdrawals as earned income. Had you withdrawn funds from an ordinary savings account that would not have happened. But, if you withdrew from a tax sheltered account holding pre-tax contributions, such as a traditional IRA, then you made the decision , not Obamacare, that led to an increase in your earned income and to the loss of your health care premium subsidies. Those funds would have ultimately been treated and taxed as ordinary income regardless of whether the money was spent for health care, to buy a car or to repair your roof. It may have been the only choice available to you, but, never the less, it was a decision you made and certainly not one forced on you by Obamacare.

              Based upon the facts as I know them, I can not agree with the statement "Oh, it's a great plan, all right...for anyone already getting insurance from their employer. For anyone else it's a total flop while the insurance companies rake in the dough."     

              The stated goal of Obamacare was to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by providing access to affordable health care insurance. In this regard, the ACA continues to be successful, continues to cost 20 percent less than originally projected, and continues on a fiscally sound footing toward reducing the budget deficit and the national debt in each year of the next decade. {1}

              It is also hard to accept the broad, unsupported declaration that Obamacare is a “flop”, which I find is easier to say then it is to prove. Granted, it projects a negative connotation without having to supply any facts. More importantly, the personal anecdotes posted do not reflect the experiences of the other 270 million non-elderly Americans affected by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

              However, this does raise a legitimate question. How many Americans actually have only negative things to say about Obamacare?

              The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll provided the answer in March, 2015, when it found only one out of four Americans (22 percent) reported the law hurt them in some way. One out of five, however, reported the law helped them (19 percent) and a majority of the public (57 percent) said that the health care law has had no impact, good or bad, on their family. Hence, a full 78 percent reported not having had a negative effect from the law.

              It is also a fact that only 14 percent said the law caused their health insurance cost to rise. Another 4 percent said the law made it more difficult to get the health care they needed while only 2 percent reported the law caused someone in their family to lose insurance coverage. {2}

              I find, one full year after the implementation of most of the law’s major provisions, more Americans are saying they are in favor of Congress keeping the law as it stands now or expanding it compared to the number of Americans that advocate constricting or repealing the law. To me, this does not indicate the law is a “flop” particularly when the expressed sentiments of all respondents are nearly identical to the opinions voiced by declared independent voters who are more likely to judge the law based on its merits and not on blind ideology. {3}

              It is hard to agree with the claim that insurance companies “rake” in the dough without seeing an iota of supporting data. It is hard because I know that the ACA controls how insurance companies use the premiums they collect and it places limits on the profits they make. This provision is called the 80/20 Rule, sometimes referred to as the Medical Loss Ratio. It requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on the health care of policy holders including quality improvement activities other than administrative, overhead, and marketing costs. Insurance companies selling to large groups (typically more than 50 employees) must meet a higher standard to spend at least 85 percent of premiums on care and quality improvement. All overhead, executive compensation and net profit are restricted to 15-20 percent of total premiums. {4}

              In one year, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee (BCBSTN) spent only 76.6 percent of a total of $253,702,194 in premium dollars on health care and other activities to improve heath care quality. Under the terms of the ACA, they were required to refund 3.4 percent of every premium dollar to policy holders. In that year, the company reported...
              76.6% Claims and quality improvement expenses,
              3.4% Rebates,
              18.9% Administrative costs (i.e. claims processing, marketing, broker commissions/sales, fraud prevention), and
              1.1% Net Income (profit).

              After complying with the law, BCBSTN issued 3.4 percent in rebates and realized a net profit of 1.1 percent. {5}

              Is this example typical industry wide from coast to coast? Probably not! But those that claim insurance companies simply “rake” in extraordinary profits following the enactment of the ACA are refusing to acknowledge that the market has grown by 19 million Americans who did not have access to health care insurance before Obamacare. 
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … imates.pdf
              {2} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 4
              {3} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 14
              {4} https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care- … te-review/
              {5} http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/277419 … -insurance

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Great job, Mr. Q.
                Were you one of the ones who voted for us to fined?
                Were any of us??
                NO.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Quill, I know we're on opposite sides of the fence here, but I never expected you to support my position that way!

                Yes, it was my choice to withdraw from an IRA.  The same IRA that has been pushed by government for decades and virtually demanded as SS has steadily fallen.  So now I not only pay taxes on it (always a part of the program) but also get penalized for earning the money in decades past.  Somehow it became a matter of not only putting off taxes that would come due, but suddenly also putting off insurance costs that never WERE due.  As far as the IRS; the IRS did not make the law and can only collect what the law says.  Which is to consider IRA withdrawals as not only taxable but also as a base for cutting subsidies.  Put simply, a method of rapidly using up retirement savings and putting more people on the public dole where they become subject to the whims of the politicians.

                But let's take your figures and spin them the another way; same figures, different comment following them:

                22% got hurt, while 19% got helped.  So 81% had no positive effect (your math didn't add up).  And for this wondrous result (more people hurt than helped) the country is paying in the trillions.  The net effect of Obamacare (cancelling out 19% of those that got hurt with the 19% that got helped) is to hurt 3% of the people.  A trillion dollars spent, with the net result being to harm a million people.  Doesn't sound so good when put that way, does it?  And yet you're touting it as a great success!

                14% found their insurance cost to rise, but I don't see any numbers that indicate a price decrease for anybody.  Is that because there isn't any or just because it is too low to report?

                Your reference {5} also is just a trifle misleading as it refers to operations in 2011; long before Obamacare was implemented.

                But here's a question for you, that I haven't been able to find an answer for.  What has the cost of health care done in the past year as opposed to prior years.  Not insurance, but care itself.  One should expect it to rise dramatically as far more people are now insured and using the care system, but long term healthy living hasn't kicked in yet.  Assuming that doctor/hospital costs remain the same (or growing at the same rate) our nations health care costs should rise.

                But the best I find is that they haven't.  We've spent trillions on extra insurance - why aren't those newly insured people using the care system?  Your figures show that 80% of the money spent must go to care - where is it being spent?

                I can't find the numbers.  I can't even find the number of health care workers (which should also go up) for last year.  Can you do any better?  Can we actually show what we're getting for those trillions being spent?

                1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                  Quilligrapherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Thanks for your detailed comments, Wilderness. You fed me a lot to chew on and even more to digest. Your comments have been fair and honest. I hope mine live up to the same standard. I have used a rhetorical question to separated topics. 

                  A million harmed v. 16.5 million newly insured?

                  I truly welcome and respect your opinions even when I do not agree. "A trillion dollars spent, with the net result being to harm a million people.  Doesn't sound so good when put that way, does it?  And yet you're touting it as a great success!"

                  I would prefer to see comments with facts mostly because distorting what I said accomplishes nothing. Earlier, I said the respondents to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll in March, 2015, reported the ACA hurt them in some way. I went on the explain that 14 percent, who already had some form of insurance I might add, said the law caused their health insurance cost to rise. Another 4 percent, who also had some form of insurance before, said the law made it more difficult to get the health care they needed while only 2 percent reported the law caused someone in their family, who obviously already had health care insurance, to lose their former insurance coverage.   

                  You did not say how you extrapolated one million hurt from my remarks but that is really not important. It is important to notice, however, that in all of these cases the respondents were previously protected by health care insurance before switching to new policies. Therefore, when you say Obamacare had  "the net result being to harm a million people.  Doesn't sound so good when put that way, does it?" your straw man response conveniently ignores the FACT that Obamacare now protects 16.5 million Americans who DID NOT have insurance before. One million hurt v. 16.5 million newly insured. Now, does that sound better? {1}

                  Do I tout Obamacare as a great success?

                  Not at all, although I do demonstrate when necessary that the law is far from being the “flop” you imagine. As a national program, it is a mixed bag of noteworthy, as well as historic, achievements and an assortment of still unrealized goals. I merely present facts in response to those who only see negativity. Facts that some find unpleasant to face, perhaps, but facts anyone may refute should they be untrue or exaggerated.

                  Social Security has steadily fallen?

                  Please clarify this statement about SS having steadily fallen. "The same IRA that has been pushed by government for decades and virtually demanded as SS has steadily fallen."

                  The average monthly Social Security benefit
                  paid to retired workers has steadily increased from $22.71 per month in 1940 to $1262 in 2012. {2}

                  Penalized for earning money? 

                  Please clarify the statement that you were penalized for earning the money you have now decided to use to pay your bills: "So now I not only pay taxes on it (always a part of the program) but also get penalized for earning the money in decades past."

                  Actually, far from being penalized, your traditional IRA has rewarded you by making it possible to defer income taxes on past earnings until you have a need to spend the funds. Further, you enjoy the added benefits from being able to invest the full non-taxed value of all the sheltered earnings so as to yield additional investment income that is also tax deferred until needed. Now that you need the money, a day of reckoning is at hand but there is absolutely no “penalty” except when distributions are taken before age 59-1/2. There is no penalty, only the necessity to treat traditional IRA withdrawals in the same calender year as income after “decades” of avoiding income tax. Simply stated, you are blaming Obamacare for your decision to put all of your retirement eggs in the same basket and further blaming Obamacare for your decision to withdraw those funds to pay your bills.   

                  Premium decreases: there isn’t any or just too low to report?

                  You also asked two questions about premium deductions: "14% found their insurance cost to rise, but I don't see any numbers that indicate a price decrease for anybody. Is that because there isn't any or just because it is too low to report?"

                  Wilderness, both of your assumptions are wrong! With all due respect, if you looked for an answer, you looked in the wrong places! You will find a 9.3 percent premium reduction for the Boise, Idaho, region in the list below.

                  Monthly premiums in 2015 for the second lowest cost Silver plan covering a 40 year old non-smoker earning $30,000 a year have declined before subsidies in the following markets:
                  Arizona    Phoenix            -10.0%
                  Colorado, Denver        -15.6%
                  Connecticut, Hartford    -5.0%
                  Idaho, Boise        -9.3%
                  Indiana, Indianapolis    -7.0%
                  Massachusetts, Boston    -7.5%
                  Mississippi,    Jackson        -25.5%
                  Montana, Billings        -6.6%
                  N. Hampshire, Manchester    -14.6%
                  N. Mexico, Albuquerque    -11.8%
                  Pennsylvania, Philadelphia    -10.7%
                  Rhode Island Providence    -11.2%

                  In addition, there are 11 more markets in which premiums declined by under 5%. {3}

                  Apparently unknown to you, outside your neighborhood, your city, your own state line, beyond your horizon and the range of your personal experiences, a great many Americans  are feeling the positive effects of the ACA. This is a factual reality that can not be diminished by individual, uniquely personal anecdotes.

                  For example, a caption in the New York Times on July 16, 2013 announced Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50%.

                  “State insurance regulators say they have approved rates for 2014 that are at least 50 percent lower on average than those currently available in New York." {4}

                  It seems, Wilderness, that only negative news about Obamacare is reaching you.

                  My reference to premium refunds is misleading?

                  The following statement is totally false and rooted in another flawed assumption rather than from sound research: "Your reference {5} also is just a trifle misleading as it refers to operations in 2011; long before Obamacare was implemented."

                  When the ACA was enacted in 2010, some of its provisions took effect in 2011. Please refer to the following quote from The Washington Times on July 23, 2014, which confirms (1) my “reference {5}” is factual and quite accurate and (2) your grossly inaccurate assumptions are in fact more than “a trifle misleading”

                  “Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced that a relatively obscure facet of Obamacare has returned $9 billion to consumers since 2011.

                  The provision known as the ‘80-20 rule’ requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on patient care or quality improvements or else cough up a refund. The agency’s report said the recouped dollars from all insurance markets resulted in an average refund of $80 per American family."
                  {5}

                  Are health care costs rising dramatically?

                  I think your hounds are barking up the wrong tree if you believe you can correlate gross health care cost with the declining number of uninsured Americans. You asked, "What has the cost of health care done in the past year as opposed to prior years. Not insurance, but care itself.  One should expect it to rise dramatically as far more people are now insured and using the care system,"

                  Historically, the cost of health care has been soaring year after year for decades. As a result, more attention is focused lately on the rate of increase each year rather than on the actual number.

                  It is too early to look for 2014 data, but in 2013 health care spending increased by 3.6 percent to reach $2.9T or $9,255 per person. From another perspective, costs have been a steady 17.4 percent of GDP in each of the five years since 2009. {6} {7}

                  The actual rates of annual increases have cooled down to a relatively modest range of 3 to 4 percent since the ACA was enacted. Members of the current administration suggest this is a result of Obamacare, however, most analysts identify the great recession and the sluggish economic recovery as the major factors. Still, the shift in the health care paradigm, increased competition among insurers, and growing efficiency have had a minor, yet undeniable, role in taming the 6.5 percent nationwide average annual increase seen from 1991 through 2009. By the way, in Idaho, the average annual increase was 7.9 percent during the same period. {8} Current forecasts predict 6.0 percent average increases each year moving forward.

                  Number of health care workers?

                  I am happy to help in your quest to count health care workers. "I can't even find the number of health care workers (which should also go up) for last year."

                  The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tracks health care workers as a group that includes ambulatory health care services, hospitals, and nursing/residential care facilities. The number of employees in this category was reported to be 14.9 million in March, 2015, up from 14.6 million the year before. {9}

                  I apologize, Wilderness, to you and to everyone else, if my reply is overly wordy. I try hard to balance quantity and quality. Thanks for listening, thanks for asking, and thanks for keeping an open mind.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {1} http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … /24852325/
                  {2} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780010.html
                  {3}   http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie … ketplaces/ Table 1.
                  {4} http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/healt … p&_r=0
                  {5} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
                  {6} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … rical.html
                  {7} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … EGDP13.zip
                  {8} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … tables.pdf
                  {9} http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
                  Table B-1.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    Sorry if my math didn't come through, but the one million hurt comes directly from your figures.  According to those figures, 22% were hurt by Obamacare, and 19% helped.  22-19=3% net, and 350,000,000*3%=one million in round numbers.  Now, the degree of hurt/help should be considered as well, but that's tough when you talk about getting insurance as equivalent to getting care.  My experience is that that is not so, which is why I asked if you could help with the research (you seem better than I at that).

                    And you did help.  Cost figures are not available, but the number of care givers went up from 14.5 to 14.9 million - an increase of 2%.  At the same time, according to your numbers, the number of insured people went up 16.5 million, or nearly 5% (16.5/350).  The question then becomes how an already overloaded care system, without enough employees, can cover an additional 5% of the patient load with only an increase of 2% in the labor force?  It would seem that insurance does NOT equal care as those newly insured are not getting the care.  Just insurance.

                    However, that's not entirely fair, either as some uninsured got care from ER rooms without paying.  Or from free clinics in a relative handful of cases.  So did those numbers go down now that everyone has insurance?  Are the ER rooms no long stuffed with cases of the flue or a cold?

                    I will leave you with those comments, plus an aside that "returning" 9 billion while charging 100 billion isn't much savings.  Much like the EIC, where "refunds" are given on taxes that were never paid.  It makes for a nice spin, and a wonderful endorsement to the ACA, but as is normal from the politicians "forgets" to give the rest of the story.

                    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
                      Quilligrapherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Good evening, Wilderness. I will not respond to remarks about spin and forgetting to give the rest of the story. I do not believe those comments contribute to a cordial conversation.

                      Other than that, I think the post above contains both good and bad elements. After considering all of the facts I posted, I am happy to see there is no mention of any being untrue. That’s good! On the other hand (as Tevye would say), I see a great many invalid assumptions that I believe are inaccurate or untrue. That’s bad!

                      The first example is the statement: "22% were hurt by Obamacare, and 19% helped. [Edit: my cited data] 22-19=3% net, and 350,000,000*3%=one million in round numbers.[Edit: your math]"

                      Since declaring Obamacare is a “total flop”, every attempt to justify this claim has included a false assumption. I am guessing now, but I think the 350 million number in your math represents the total population of the country. If so, the problem with this assumption is two fold:

                      (1) the entire U.S. population was not effected by Obamacare. The number of Americans (non-elderly, previously insured and uninsured) effected by Obamacare in 2014 was 270 million, and

                      (2) 3% of 350 million does not equal 1 million. {1}

                      In either case, both the arithmetic and the assumptions are utterly false. 

                      In lieu of meaningful information, the paragraph that follows attempts first to introduce and then to attack a straw man you created. "The question then becomes how an already overloaded care system, without enough employees, can cover an additional 5% of the patient load with only an increase of 2% in the labor force?  It would seem that insurance does NOT equal care as those newly insured are not getting the care. Just insurance." [Bold font added] I do not believe that the newly insured are not getting health care. Please supply evidence to support your claim that the 16 million newly insured are not receiving the health care they need.

                      The next paragraph contradicts your own straw man. "However, that's not entirely fair, either as some uninsured got care from ER rooms without paying. Or from free clinics in a relative handful of cases." So, it now seems you are saying 16 million newly insured Americans do not translate into 16 million new users being added to the health care system. This is not only true but it makes the calculations to compare new users and the available workforce quite useless. The ultimate number of newly insured under Obamacare, I will add, is not expected to exceed 25 million in the next decade. {2} 

                      I also submit that assuming the number of health care workers must expand in one year is another unrealistic stretch of the imagination. Medical professionals and support personnel are recognized as one of the fastest growing labor sectors in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported last June that the nation’s health care workforce grew by nearly 1 million since the ACA was enacted in March, 2010. Last year, the industry added 400 thousand jobs. If the number of care givers continues to expand at this rate, the industry will add another 1 million workers every 2.5 years. This is math based on facts and the numbers are far more reliable than those generated by false assumptions.   

                      Since you claimed the ACA is "a total flop while the insurance companies rake in the dough," you must have plenty of data to prove your statement is true. Please share your figures with us!

                      Some hard data will be a lot more meaningful than oblique comments like, "‘returning’ 9 billion while charging 100 billion isn't much savings." Not a word in this statement addresses the original point that the ACA contains provisions that limit all the overhead, executive compensation and the net profit of insurance providers to 20 percent or, in some cases, 15 percent of their revenue from premiums. {3}

                      One has to wonder why $9 billion in refunds is being characterized as a “savings” in this strand. This amount was not “savings.” The Washington Times clearly indicated that under the law insurers, who did not pay out 80% of the premiums collected for benefits or health related quality improvement activities, were required to refund the un-used portions to their policy holders.
                      {4}

                      While I provide real verifiable facts about refunds to Americans who actually paid premiums, your post talks about the Earned Income Credit (EIC) “where ‘refunds’ are given on taxes that were never paid.” There is no connection between the EIC and the Medical Loss Ratio in the ACA but it does serve as another straw man.

                      I am sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by “while charging $100B.” There is no explanation given that I can see. Perhaps it was meant to imply $9B is an insignificant amount. If so, it certainly does not diminish the intent or the impact of the 80/20 Rule.   

                      I hear you loud and clear. You do not like the ACA even though more than half of the Americans polled are saying Congress should keep the law as it stands now or expand it. {5}

                      All of the individual personal anecdotes about sour experiences are not consistent with the benefits being reported in the 29 states, both red and blue, plus the District of Columbia where Medicaid programs have been expanded to include low-income families. You may sincerely believe the law is a “total flop” but in other states, the results of Obamacare clearly demonstrate this is one claim that is far from being true.
                      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                      {1}
                      http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … imates.pdf Table 2.
                      {2} ibid.
                      {3} https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care- … te-review/
                      {4} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
                      {5} http://kff.org/health-costs/poll-findin … arch-2015/ Fig. 14

          2. dianetrotter profile image81
            dianetrotterposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            My nephew has emotional challenges.  I think Obamacare has been beneficial to him.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Exactly.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago

      Doom and gloom.  Just like when the Social Security Act was enacted.  It benefits all of us to take care of our citizens' health, including yours.  I know you don't see it.  That won't change, regardless of the facts.  It costs us less to prevent illness through consistent, quality health care from birth than to wait until the poor are desperately ill, then incur costs they can't pay.  We all end up paying for that.  Why don't we pay up front to minimize costs?  It's only logical, as well as humane.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I don't know as much about the particulars of the ACA as I would like, but the fundamental principles behind the programs could not have been explained better than you have here and I concur with them.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Why, thank you, sir Credence.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      There is a way to stay healthy and to have robust health and to be physically fit... and did I mention be HEALTHY???
      THERE IS A WAY!

      My PPO Blue Shield health care insurance increased to the point that I could no longer afford it. Now I have none.
      So, I have increased the yoga, bicycle riding (wearing a helmet) and swimming and have cut out ALL bad/junk foods. I feel better than I ever have!
      (No chips, ice cream, cake, cookies, muffins, candy, soft drinks, sugar or white flour/processed chemical laden products...) 
      I have come to believe that the cause of many health/mental problems and old age is overeating processed foods and bad mixing of foods, and not enough nutrition.
      When I walk through Ralph's I see food, food everywhere… but nothing  truly nutritious to eat.
      Well, nowadays they have organic vegetables… but who can afford those?

      Grow your own I say!

      PS I would say I am Self Insured, based on my Healthy Lifestyle.

      Furthermore:
      If I am living a healthy lifestyle AND putting away $100 + a month for my own health care needs in the future,
      I SHOULD NOT BE FINED!

      TWISI

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Glad to hear it, and I can understand your philosophy.  Can you understand that not everyone has the ability or opportunity to do the same, and that we, as a society, have decided to provide them health care so that they have a better chance to be healthy and productive members?  Contributors, even?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, that is far from the truth.  We have, as a society, forced people to buy health care insurance for others; insurance that is useless in anything but a major accident or illness.  It does nothing for smaller, everyday injuries (broken arm) or illnesses (strep throat) and even less for living healthy.  It is a sop to the liberals that think everything in life is free and a boon for the insurance companies; nothing more.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            I think that is spot on. No really. Don't faint.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              OMG.  How could that ever happen?!? smile

          2. PrettyPanther profile image87
            PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Obamacare is not perfect.  We wanted Medicare for all.  Because of people like yourself who fall in line with the powerful monied interests, we had to compromise and give the insurance companies a gift.  It is an interim step, though.  Progress is being made.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              So what was the compromise?  I see the money to the insurance companies, but am failing to see any actual care being provided.  Just money, so just what "compromise" was there?

              Plus, don't forget, there was no compromising at all; the bill was rammed through before any one could even read it, let alone digest the ramifications.  But hey, it gave something away for free; it must be a good thing, right?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                You fail to see the care being provided because you willfully choose to.  People have posted on this thread about how it has benefited them or someone they know. 

                The bill was posted online for anyone to see the entire time it was being considered, with proposed amendments, as are all bills. Sorry you didn't realize that at the time, although I recall myself and others posting the link to it numerous times right here on these forums.  Maybe you didn't "see" it?

                You keep saying how much it costs you and now you say it is "free."  Okay.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  You're right - a handful have benefitted.  At enormous cost to the country for the total program.

                  Really?  Then what was "We'll have to vote it in to see what's in it" all about?  No one in congress has a computer?

                  That's the way it was promoted; as free health care to those that couldn't afford any.  Didn't work out that way, though.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image87
                    PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    More than a handful, if you care to "see."

                    You're an intelligent man.  I'm sure you understood the meaning of that statement, however clumsily worded, or are you one of those people who takes everything literally?  You heard what you wanted to hear and saw what you wanted to see, and you're still seeing what you want to see and hearing what you want to hear.  Plain and simple. 

                    And no, it wasn't promoted as "free" health care; it was promoted as "affordable" health care.  It is called the "Affordable Health Care Act."

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Well, my insurance was affordable AND excellent before.

                    2. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Yes.  Affordable, which means "free" to those that have no excess income.

                      PP, I just look at my own situation, which I do not believe is unusual at all.  Those that cannot afford good insurance don't get it, not unless they are absolutely destitute.  And at the bottom of the list is the "free" insurance that is worth exactly what is paid for it: nothing. 

                      As another said here, I can afford some $100 per month for health care, and Obamacare forces me to spend that (and more) on insurance that does absolutely nothing for me.  The result?  Nothing left for a doctor's co-pay for even an office visit, so no health care.  Just insurance payments.

    4. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago

      We are plenty rich enough.  We just have our priorities screwed up.  We have no built-in right to health care.  True that.  Some of us want to take part of the enormous and excessive amount of tax money spent on defense and spend it on things that actually matter, like health care, infrastructure, education, for example.  You see, when you all say we can't afford it, we all look at the budget as a whole and say yes we can.  We just need to redirect our priorities.

      1. feenix profile image60
        feenixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I am a retired life-and-health insurance executive; I worked in that industry for more than 40 years. Additionally, I have broad experience in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid, because the company I worked for was contracted by the federal and state governments to administer those plans in various regions of the country.

        Straight up, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, is a joke and that is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of a great many highly-experienced insurance men and women. Because of our vast knowledge of the way that the provision of healthcare insurance is supposed to work, we know that Obamacare is nothing but an amateurish, ego-driven attempt by Obama to carve out a lofty place for himself in future history books.

        The truth is, it was unnecessary for either Hillary Clinton (remember what she attempted to do when she was the First Lady?) or Barack Obama to come up with a grand plan to "insure all Americans." The mechanism for providing healthcare insurance to those who are not provided coverage by their employers, and those who are not eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid, is already in place -- and has been in place ever since the mid-1970s.

        Specifically, the only thing that has to be done to provide uninsured Americans with the means to obtain affordable healthcare insurance is to expand Medicare.

        Yes, that's right. All that is required is the expansion of Medicare.

        Here is an example of how it would work: A self-employed married couple in their 30s with three children would be eligible to enroll in Medicare and would pay a monthly premium of about $250, and have an annual individual deductible of $500 and family deductible of $700.

        Now, multiply the above example by 10, 20, 30 or 50 million. That translates to Medicare receiving as much as $1.5 billion in additional premiums each year. And due to the fact that a major portion of the new enrollees would be young and healthy people, the level of utilization would be much lower than it is among those who presently account for the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries, people age 65 and over.

        Furthermore, expanding Medicare would not be the setting of a precedent; the plan has been expanded before -- to cover dialysis patients and individuals under 65 who are receiving Social Security disability benefits.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Yes, I get it.  Earlier in the thread I said Obamacare was imperfect and Medicare for all would have been the best solution.  However, it was not politically possible.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        We are not WE. We are individuals responsible for ourselves and our loved ones and NOT strangers. WE are rich enough? WE have our priorities screwed up?

        Is self-survival a screwed up priority?

        If more people took responsibility for themselves, THEY would not need OTHERS to pay for THEIR health care insurance.

        Is there some problem with actual family members helping one another, rather than mommy/daddy Government?

        (The real problem is this: Mommy Daddy Govt. will/has become worse than Mommy/ Daddy Govt.
        It will/has become Tyrannosaurus Rex Govt. yikes)

    5. Steven Slivka profile image83
      Steven Slivkaposted 19 months ago

      Unfortunately we don't have a single-payer system in this country. The ACA isn't perfect, but it's better than what we had before. Thousands of people died every year because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor.

      The insurance companies are the biggest crooks in all of this.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        As it has always been "free" to go to an ER, I'd sure like to see documentation that thousands of people (in the US) die each year because they can't afford a doctor.  Any links?

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this
          1. Steven Slivka profile image83
            Steven Slivkaposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you, Jane. The number is absolutely staggering.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Exactly.  It is an interim step.  We will eventually have Medicare for all.  It is what should have been done in the first place.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      I really think every hospital needs to issue/offer their own insurance policies, as Kaiser does… well, did.

    7. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      I also think it is wrong to fine citizens who cannot afford any insurance at all. Why are we putting up with this unfair tax/fine?
      Furthermore, I refuse to contribute to Govt. Insurance because I do not wish to rob anyone for MY health insurance.
      I would rather pay for my own health care insurance directly.
      This Govt. Health Insurance just gives me the creeps. I don't hink George Washington would agree with it...
      at all.

      Thank you for this freedom of speech.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Just to be accurate, you would not be paying into government insurance if you purchase a health insurance plan through the exchange. 

        However, you already pay into government insurance.  It's called Medicare.

    8. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
      Kathleen Cochranposted 19 months ago

      What do you think Medicare is?

      1. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I think they "forgot" they already pay for people to get insurance for free.

        1. Steven Slivka profile image83
          Steven Slivkaposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          EXACTLY. People who were fine with the status quo before the ACA keep referring it to "free" for others, when it's not free at all. Twas a massive hidden tax that covered everyone else.

          Having said that, if the old way was so perfect, why were were as a country spending double than most other Western-civilized countries and getting HALF of the health care?

          How could anybody think the old way was acceptable?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Strange - I've seen a deduction from my check for 40+ years to pay for my medicare when I'm older.  No, it's not free, but neither will it be paid for by others.

            I don't think we paid twice as much as other countries (per capita) and I'm absolutely positive we got more than half the health care.

            1. Steven Slivka profile image83
              Steven Slivkaposted 19 months ago in reply to this
              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                After reading it, I pretty much agree with everything said.

                But nowhere in the article is there anything about getting half the care for double the cost.  That seems an unsupportable exaggeration used to trigger an emotional response and little else.

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      How is it fair that I am being fined????
      What about those who do not have computers?
      What about those who do not like to use computers?
      How about those who don't have the patience or desire to sign up for Obama Care?
      Why are they NOT allowed to NOT participate?
      Where does that fine money go?
      How about they tell me where my fine money goes before they dare fine me.

      One more question:
      How do they dare to FINE ME?

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Life isn't fair. I think you are old enough to have figured that one out.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          That philosophy is Good Enough for the likes of Some.
          NOT ME.
          The founding fathers agree
          and right now they're pretty darn old.
            (One just told me this:
          "That philosophy is good enough for socialists and communists...
          and those who WELCOME govt. intrusion.")

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Oh well. Deal with it.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Oh, well... NO!

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                What are you doing personally to make this country "fair"?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  I study the Constitution and read the Federalist Papers and keep the Spirit of 1776 alive. I talk honestly wherever I am asked. I speak honestly to my family and tell them the truth about life and human nature and I do not engage is the phony cool hipness of Liberalism.
                  I am hoping it will rub off on the younger generations on some level.
                  They are our only hope.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    And is that working for you? Is it making a change? Are you politically active?

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Why do you ask?

                      To refresh:
                      How is it fair that I am being fined????
                      What about those who do not have computers?
                      What about those who do not like to use computers?
                      How about those who don't have the patience or desire to sign up for Obama Care?
                      Why are they NOT allowed to NOT participate?

                      Where does that fine money go?
                      How about they tell me where my fine money goes before they dare fine me.

                      One more question:
                      How do they dare to FINE ME?
                      OR ANYONE?
                      Answer:
                      Cuz we let em. They work for us...
                      and we forget that.

                  2. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    Oh yeah, I remember now. You were telling your students that you hoped the world was going to end soon. Is that what you mean?

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Low blow.

                    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      It was a joke.

                      To refresh:
                      How do they dare to FINE ME?
                      OR ANYONE?
                      Answer:
                      Cuz we let 'em. They work for us...
                      and we forget that.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image87
        PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Isn't it one of the principles of conservatism that life is not fair?  It certainly seems like it given how often that phrase is used when discussing helping the poor.

        Your $200 fine is a piddling amount in the grand scheme of things.  It is just money.  We are talking about saving peoples lives here.  Sorry you miss your $200 so much, but I just can't summon up any pity for you.

        1. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          A $200.00 is a lot especially for those on limited incomes.  No one should be mandated to have health insurance, it is an individual choice. Our health care was fine that way it was before Obama took over and dictated that health care is a MUST.  $200.00 is a lot of money for some people.  Kathryn is right to be nonplussed at being fined.  She is right, HOW DARE THEY, HOW DARE THEY INDEED! Welcome to the USSA.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image87
            PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, $200 is a lot for some people.  However, if she is being fined $200, then her income is such that she does not qualify as needy.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          It is the PRINCIPLE of the matter. Where is that money even going?
          I should know where that money of mine is going.
          Maybe I would give that money to a local church or charity or homeless person camped out under a freeway bridge in LA...
          But, NOOOOOO…..mad!

      3. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!

    10. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      What can we people do to get rid of an unfair fine?
      Fire the president and the party which inflicted it by voting them out the next election.

      Thanks for the line of questioning, JS.
        Finding a solution depends on isolating the difficulty/problem...

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Exactly. I actually hope it happens, even though I will lose my benefits. Why? Because it is unfair to the majority.

        The problem with democracy is that majority rules, and what the majority "wants' isn't always what's best for the country. I am personally a socialist, but I realize why socialism doesn't work. People get lazy and demand too much entitlement. People don't want to work for what they get.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          If you see so clearly, why are you still a socialist?

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Because I often think with my feelings instead of my mind.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              To become conscious of what is right/accurate/true is half the battle. The other half of the batttle is to stop trying to be hip and cool! lol cool
              (You already are. Stop trying so hard.)

    11. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      We are democratic republic and there are many checks in place. The founding fathers knew full well the pitfalls of pure democracies.
      The size of the country is one check… and may be a reason why govt. healthcare insurance may flop, despite everyone's best hopes/intentions.

    12. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      Mr. Q, you have all sorts of facts and figures, but time will tell how it all works out. 
      Other considerations involve surrounding issues.
      For instance, my son pays one hundred dollars a month for Govt. health insurance. He and his wife are entitled to six co-pay visits a year. Their baby has medi-cal benefits. Medi-cal is bottom of the barrel. The parents are young and healthy and are not going to use their six visits. So, they pay twelve hundred a year for others. Or maybe it goes to the insurance companies or the govt...who knows? Is this ambiguity good enough?
      Furthermore, if each visit costs a hundred dollars, thats only six hundred dollars. If they just paid for the visits, if they needed to, it would be cheaper for them!  Or the twelve hundred could be better spent on superior insurance coverage for their baby.

      Now, I understand that insurance is basically for catastrophes, but how are catastrophes defined or dealt with under Obamacare?

      How many businesses had to lay off employees because they couldn't afford to pay insurance for all of them as required by law?

      How many people had superior health care which they could afford and then along came Obama care and all of the sudden the insurance companies had to raise their rates? Mine went from $250.00/mo to $500.00/ a month for just myself alone! Now, I am fined for having no insurance when I can't even afford a hundred a month for Govt. insurance, due to my current circumstances.

      IS this fairness to you, Mr. Q?
      I ask!

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        "Now, I understand that insurance is basically for catastrophes, but how are catastrophes defined or dealt with under Obamacare?"

        Not so.  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/130072#post2726746  It is intended to provide basic care as well, preventing serious illness from ever developing.  That your son (and myself) can no longer afford that basic care (paying the monies for insurance instead) is conveniently set aside and ignored while still expecting frequent check-ups to catch serious problems before they develop.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          You are right! If my son wasn't forced to pay $1,200 for others, he could pay for his own baby's medical needs, whether insurance, care or both.
          Or save up for his college education!
          ( Since his baby is quite robust. big_smile)

          May I please take this opportunity to remind everyone that I raised two children without ANY insurance what-so-ever!
          Isn't that astounding? yikes !

          No, when you consider that all the generations before us didn't either!!!!!

    13. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      <"Hence, a full 78 percent reported not having had a negative effect from the law.">
      ..YET!
      - time will tell. Hopefully, they will get adequate care.

      ...especially when one considers what wilderness mentioned:
        <"Assuming that doctor/hospital costs remain the same (or growing at the same rate) our nations health care costs should rise.">

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        "<"Hence, a full 78 percent reported not having had a negative effect from the law.">
        ..YET!"

        That's rather odd, and would seem to indicate that 78% are not paying income taxes.  Taxes which are higher because of Obamacare and would seem to be a negative in and of itself.

    14. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      Q. Will we still have the same amount of liberty which we had before ACA?
      A.  No.

      I guess the real question is
      Q. Does anyone care about liberty any more?
      Apparently:
      A. No. (outside of this forum)

      ...since few people / POLITICIANS (any?) seem to be saying one word regarding the unfair taxation being advanced by PPACA.
      Warning: Next year if you do not have insurance, the tax/fine will increase.

      BTW I did not vote for this fine.
      No one did.
      Who would?


      This govt. mandated insurance-or-else-fine issue is bad when you really think about it.
      (To get around it and live our days in contentment we have learned not to think too much. I understand.)

      TWISI

    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      "Since state lawmakers failed their constituents by approving this terrible bill, we will take the question directly to the public and have great faith they will repeal it at the ballot box," the American Progressive Bag Alliance said."
      http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2014/09/30 … tewide-ban

      The nation’s first statewide ban on single-use plastic bags will not go into effect this summer after all. The California secretary of state’s office announced Tuesday that a referendum to overturn the measure has qualified for the November 2016 ballot.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/2 … 47452.html

      This gives me hope. It is what should happen as far as the PPAC Act, as well.
      We need to vote directly regarding this matter. If the country votes to be taxed/ fined I would shut up about it.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Won't happen, and in the unlikely event it does happen it won't be voted down.  The public has been hornswoggled into thinking it is affordable, and that it applies to care, not insurance. 

        Plus, of course, we've become an entitlement society, and we're all entitled to free health care.  Or at least care paid for by someone else - whether it's actually free to the country doesn't matter as long as it's free to the recipient.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          I don't know, Wilderness...
          Maybe some year the kids will wake up and scratch their heads… why am I busting my butt for THIS health care? Wouldn't it be easier if I didn't have to pay for heath care at all? I'll just pay for it as needed at whatever doctor/hospital I choose! What a novel idea!

          The actual problem was emergencies and catastrophic illnesses.  It was the doctors/hospitals who got the short end of the stick in these cases.
          Q. Are THEY better off under Obama Care?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Oh I fully expect it to die one day...or at least become something totally different.  Probably a one-payer system with Uncle Sam picking up the payment as it's cheaper and everyone is covered plus the most important of all - people get the "free" care that ObamaCare is not providing.

            Whereupon people will gripe that it isn't quick enough (England) or doesn't cover enough (Canada) until it it changed to cover everything that is possible to go wrong with the human body or that anyone wants.  Plastic surgery.  Multi million dollar, computer controlled prosthetics.  Sex change surgery.  Organ transplants for any and every minor problem.  Whatever John Q wants, at the drop of a hat.

            And the country will be broke, putting us back to the 1800's with a doctor and a handsaw for surgery.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              Don't worry, it will never happen.

              Eventually (sooner rather than later) they will realize we can't keep spending money we don't have. There simply won't be a choice.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                So far the evidence points the other way.  We all know the results of excessive borrowing so we...borrow more, and for anything our tiny brains decide we want.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  How long can that last though? And how long will other countries take our "money" that is worthless?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    LOL  They're doing it now, aren't they?  And we're already past any point where we could hope to pay it back.

                    1. janesix profile image60
                      janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      Yes they are, but for how long do you think we can get away with the nonsense before the dominoes fall?

    16. 61
      AVOldGuyposted 19 months ago

      My health insurance turned to crap and it cost me more. I got fined for not having insurance even though I filed the paperwork and sent it in; the government lost it, well actually there was a problem, they put me in an exception file so every time I contacted them they could not find me because I was in the exception file. They would add all the new info and then automatically I would be sent into the exception file, but no one followed up or even noticed there was a problem with my file. They mixed me up with my son, never name your son Jr. later in life there can be a bundle of problems because insurance, government and others will not put Jr and Sr on your name therefore begins an adventure for you and people doing paperwork that refuse to or can't read. Btw it took seven months to straighten out the problem.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Oh dear.......I feel your pain.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          This is what scares me from venturing anywhere near the site.

          again I ask


          What if you don't have a computer?
          Is there another way to sign up?
          Like over the phone? Whats the phone number?
          not that I would want it.
          ew... gross…
          So Mr. AVOldGuy, was it worth the hassle and wait?

        2. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          You can do it over the phone, but the number is found on the website.

          Silly, I know.

          EDIT: sorry this was meant for Kathryn

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            I had to look at the web site and now my eyes are blurry. I would have to confer with an insurance agent. No working phone number was given (several that were not working)  In my view, it is not possible to sign up over the phone as there are so many confusing options to choose from and issues to consider, such as varying co-pay amounts and deductibles. Yeah, I could pay $2 per month but what would I be paying for? and more importantly: contributing to?   
            The phrase "Too good to be true comes to mind."

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              I would like to hear:
              "Yes, the coverage is great or (even adequate) and it helps me a lot."
              How come no one has said that?
              (...except for Janesix.)

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Like I said, it's not fair or good for the majority. It only helps the poorest adults who didn't have Medicaid before.

                Another side effect I just learned about today is that it also raised the income levels for getting food stamps(for some weird reason) so now there's an extra added expense that wasn't there before.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Do you think I should pay two dollars a month and get govt. insurance coverage in order not to be fined?
                  If I do, I will be paying $24.00 more than the fine. (If the fine remains the same…which it won't. It's going up according to my tax lady.) At least if something catastrophic/expensive happens I will be covered…
                  right? yikes

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    It just depends. Is it a matter of money, or a matter of principle?

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      I am wondering if people say its worth it!  If its worth it, its worth it!
                      The value/proof is in the pudding/putting.
                      I do not want to pay the fine.
                      Two dollars a month is a pretty good deal, but if I am paying for 0 coverage… not so much.
                      So, in conclusion, principal and practicality go hand in hand.

    17. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      "Taxes which are higher
      because of Obamacare and would seem to be a negative in and of itself."

      Fees are being charged by way of mandatory insurance for some and by way of fines for others. Is this what you meant by "taxes which are higher," wilderness?
      or what?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        No.  Something has to pay for Obamacare; that something is higher taxes.  Which we all pay, and which I anyway view as a negative.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          ...and we did not agree to pay for those higher taxes which traditionally we have always voted for.
          We did not vote for this "Act."

    18. peeples profile image89
      peeplesposted 19 months ago

      Even as a liberal I am unsure how I feel about the whole Obamacare thing. We are paying out $500 a month for health care. We are a family of 5 so I don't know if this is high or not. What I do know is that $500 is almost a house payment, it's more than a car payment, and 2 times as much as all of my utilities each month. Only 2 of us even really use it (me and my daughter).  I am also in a state who opted out of the medicaid expansion, which I think we would qualify for.
      So I am torn. We are the low middle class. The people who can't qualify for any assistance yet we are going broke paying for insurance. I NEED insurance now that I have been diagnosed with some bad illnesses, but will that insurance do me any good if it makes me homeless? In short, there has to be a better option where the middle class doesn't end up being screwed!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Exactly.  Which is why I, as a low income person, should not rob you. I qualify for 2 dollars a month!
        Who all would be helping me?  Who all who would be (much) better off if they did not have to help me?

        1. peeples profile image89
          peeplesposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          At the same time I have to admit if I qualified for $2 a month I would jump on board quickly!
          If our government were spending their money more wisely wouldn't it be possible to make it $2 for all that need it. After all poor/middle class working people do pay taxes. So really it is all of our money. I'm happy if my taxes help you have insurance. My taxes will be taken no matter what, it would be nice if that money were going to good instead of wars and other countries.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, I understand, but in the grand scheme of things here is the reality:

            I am low-income because of my choices. My husband is low income because of his choices. The money that the govt. collects for taxes should not compensate me for my choices. No. It should go where it was allocated to go BY US when we voted!  Did you vote to help me?

            Why would you? I am an utter stranger to you! You do not know why I am low income. Maybe because I prefer to sit around in my pajamas and watch TV all day... or play video games, or surf the web all night and can't get up the next day, or live in my mom's basement selling pot. The money is to go for the defense of the country, to build more parks, create better neighborhoods and whatever else we voted for. Not to compensate for sluf-offs for or those who choose to have no responsibilities. 
            Maybe I will become high income next year when my mom tells me I have to get out of the basement because she needs to sell the house... and I have to put that expensive law degree my father paid for to good use… and I find a decent position in a law office…

            And who checks to see if my status has changed?

            My status will change. Or maybe not... if I get too comfortable on the dole… I could get food stamps, I could get discounted gym membership, I could get welfare… I could become way cozy with all the govt. wants to steal from you to give to me.

            And I could just loose my conscience regarding all the help I am getting and sail along until I die.

            In heaven, God will ask,
            " So what did you do while on earth…?"
            "Oh, not much," I will say. "… just sailed along."
            He will frown.  Will he blame the govt.?
            No. He will send me back to earth to try again.
            He will say,
            "And next time stand up on yer own two feet and
            live a LIFE! "

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Thank You Ms. Williams!!!!
                - What if that many people stood up for this way of thinking… and resisted accepting the stinking Govt. dole-out???!!!

            2. peeples profile image89
              peeplesposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              You're human. It doesn't matter if you are an idiot, low life druggie who became poor of your own doing or if you are poor because of issues outside of your control. I would help you, and hope others would help, simply because you are human and you don't deserve to have to choose between healthcare and rent. I know many believe that everyone has an equal opportunity in life and can fight to get what they need through hard work, but reality is that many can't. What should be done with them? Should we all just assume they are losers who don't try hard enough? Or should we help others when we can? It's really not all that complicated. Our country has the money to spend on foreign aid, so obviously they have the money (if they stopped spending elsewhere) to help the people here.  I've paid taxes for almost 17 years. At some point if I need it I should be able to collect some of that if I needed it for my family. It is OUR money. If a person needs help they should be able to get it without anyone standing on a high horse as if the lessers should just go off in a corner somewhere.
              I have worked since 15. I was diagnosed 6 months ago with Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Sjogren's syndrome, Raynaud's disease, and hypothyroidism. There will come a time when I can no longer work, and it's fast approaching. My husband will not be able to support our family alone and no matter how much documentation I provide our screwed up system will deny me disability for at least the first 2 times I apply.
              So I ask  you, If the government is going to steal from me anyway, why not want it to go to other people here who need it?  What's wrong with being ok with the fact others need something from me? I'd be happy to cover your $2 a month insurance over paying for the guns our country will supply other countries with.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                It is really a shame that we have these issues with the ACA. It is the best we could come up with a polarized country and a polarized Congress. Instead of figuring it out we have one side going it alone while the other side fights everything that was implemented. They made the thing with an IRS tax code sized set of rules and guidelines and it seems to still be a work in progress. It amazes me anything got done at all. But what do you expect from a group like we have on the hill?

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                "I would help you, and hope others would help..."

                But the question here is whether you, or anyone else, has an ethical right to demand, under force of law or death, that others follow your lead in helping.

                Your final sentence shows a gross misunderstanding as well; the cost is not $2, it is in the hundreds, if not thousands, every month (Obamacare says the insurance cost for just my wife and I is $900 per month and it's hard to imagine a more worthless plan).  Would you cover that?  Or just demand that others do it?

                1. peeples profile image89
                  peeplesposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                  Your points are why I originally said above that I am unsure how I feel about it. I have an issue with anything governments demand.  I find it sad when things ever get to a point where anyone feels they need to demand anything.
                  No one should be forced to buy something they don't want to buy, but at the same point then people who don't have insurance can leave hospitals with bills unpaid.
                  wildeness I think you may have skipped over my first post and her reply. She stated it was $2 (figurative or not I don't know). I also stated that we are paying more than we'd like for insurance.
                  However if we are talking about my tax dollars, which again are going to be taken like it or not, I would be happy if they went to you or anyone else that needs them. After all we are talking tax money here, not the money I have left to pay my bills.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                    The thing is that the cost to her is $2.  Not the cost of the insurance, which is in the hundreds.  Don't know about you, but my tax bill won't cover that, which means it must come from your "spending" money, not the taxes you pay.  Or, as is being done, simply raising the tax bill for everyone, leaving less of that "spending" (or "bill") money left to each of us.

                    As far as individually choosing where our tax money goes, it just doesn't work.  None of us agree with everything in the countries budget, but it's what we get when we pool our money.

                    1. peeples profile image89
                      peeplesposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                      There are FAR less people on financial assistance than not so there are plenty of taxes to cover it. Also considering the large majority of ALL tax money comes from the top 1% I am willing to bet a large amount of those hundreds of dollars would be covered. After all we have billions to throw at other countries even though our country is in debt, so it makes more sense to "pool" it and spend it on people here.
                      In an ideal world there would be no taxes to begin with and we would all take care of each other like decent human being, but in an ideal world we wouldn't have moochers, bums, or greedy asses either. Despite popular belief though, the majority of people are not greedy or moochers!
                      Again this is if it were an ideal situation, I don't plan on writing anyone demanding my tax money pay someone's health coverage, but it is a nice concept that doesn't bother me nearly as much as it seems to bother some.

    19. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      or maybe I have so many children I don't know what to do! And all their daddy's won't help me… or them!
      why?   'Cuz they're also on the dole…
      They can't afford to help me even if they wanted to!

    20. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      I tell you what would happen:
      A much needed revolution.
      Thomas Jefferson would be pleased.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Who do you expect to revolt? And against what? Do you really advocate violence to solve problems? Jefferson is probably rolling his eyes in his grave.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          If the working poor refused to be helped by the govt. and maintained a sense of independence and pride of their own personal strength... if those who could do financially better would do better by cutting up their credit cards, stop over-spending and manage their money within a budget ... if those who are popping out condom slip-ups would A b s t a i n…(until safely married...)
          ...thats the revolution I'm talking about. No violence needed.

          If all these voices would stand up to be heard in unison:
          "We are capable. We will make it without the help of nameless hardworking middle/upper class fellow citizens of the United States."

          Instead, we need to free up our natural resources, such as coal production, oil, natural gas, and reduce restrictive business rules and regulations, stop EPA harassment/carbon output issues/ eminent domain/ (theft of the land by Govt. decree), insurance tyranny,( including Obama Care) licenses/ restrictive building fees…
          In short do whatever it takes to get overburdensome Federal Govt. out of the way to allow businesses to flourish and the economy of EACH STATE to percolate. No violence needed at all.
          Just wiser thinking / doing / voting on an individual level.

          <"Jefferson is probably rolling his eyes in his grave.">  I disagree.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            If the working poor refused to be helped by the govt. and maintained a sense of independence and pride of personal strength, if those who could do financially better would do better by cutting up their credit cards, stop over-spending and manage their money within a budget ...

            >> agreed


            if those who are popping out condom slip-ups would A b s t a i n…(until safely married...)

            >> won't happen


            ...thats the revolution I'm talking about. No violence needed.


            >>That's a relief

    21. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
      Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago

      smile
      < if those who are popping out condom slip-ups would A b s t a i n…(until safely married…)>

      <">> won't happen">

      Girls just have to step away from the testosterone…
      Whats so hard about that?
      Oh, they also have to step away from dispensers of free condoms…
      (And maybe adults could stop freely dispensing them…)

      Surely, girls can WISE UP!

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        Well, I can personally .

        But the numbers show they don't. Have you seen the stats on unmarried mothers? It's atrocious. Something needs to be done about it. The numbers are rising.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
          Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Yet, you are for free condoms.
          In time, the school of hard knocks will teach us… but not if the govt. enables free unmarried sex with no consequences yikes !!!!
          What will it take?
          If the govt. stopped facilitating these births…
          Horrors… survival of the fittest and most aware… sounds so heartless.
          What are mothers teaching their girls????
          Case study:
          I know a girl, (young woman,) living in her bedroom in her childhood home. She got pregnant and had the baby which she is raising in her room. Well, the mother of the 34 year old found birth control pills in her daughter's purse… (the first child was a birth control silp-up…) If this woman/mother of 34 gets pregnant again, she has said she does not love her current boyfriend and will never marry him… She will have to have an abortion... or give it up for adoption.   Knowing them, they'll just put another crib into the small crowded bedroom … 'cuz the two year old wants a sister... like Elsa and Anna…

          AUGH!!!!~ yikes

          What does the mother/father say to their daughter?
          NOTHING!!!

      2. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

        I really doubt it's the girls who are using condoms who are getting pregnant. More likely it's the ones who aren't.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

          Pssst, it's not really about preventing unwanted pregnancies; it's about people daring to have sex just because they enjoy it. Specifically, it's about women daring to have sex just because they enjoy it.  If it were truly about preventing unwanted pregnancies, then free condoms would be okay, easy access to birth control would be okay, sex education for teens would be okay.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            You really think so? Maybe you're right.

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 19 months ago in reply to this

            Every girl today knows how to prevent pregnancy. They know about every sort and kind of birth control method. They don't dare have unprotected sex… No girl today!   I would say every unwanted pregnancy in this modern era is just a birth control slip-up/off!
            No?

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              "The researchers analyzed in-depth interviews with 49 women obtaining abortions in the U.S. and found that the majority thought they were at low risk of becoming pregnant. The most common reasons for this included a perception of invulnerability (just feeling like they couldn’t or wouldn’t get pregnant), a belief that they were infertile, and a belief that they were fully protected by contraception—even if they weren’t using it properly."

              http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/u … -pregnancy

              "Largely due to increased contraceptive use, teen pregnancy and birth rates have declined since their peak in 1990"

              http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public … ted-states

              "Not using contraception or family planning services.[6]
              Using contraception inconsistently or incorrectly.[6]
              Contraceptive failure (the method was used correctly, but did not work.)[6] Contraceptive failure accounts for a relatively small fraction of unintended pregnancies when modern highly effective contraceptives are used.[10] A condom breaking during intercourse or using a condom with a hole in it can lead to malfunctioning contraceptives."

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

            2. PrettyPanther profile image87
              PrettyPantherposted 19 months ago in reply to this

              No.  Teen birth rates are higher in highly religious states. Why?  Because birth control is hard to come by for teens, they are told to abstain which is nearly impossible for most young people, and when they fail they are unprepared and more likely to get pregnant. 

              If boys and girls are taught that sex is normal, you will have urges, it is better for you to wait until you are mature enough to handle the emotional aspect of a sexual relationship, but if you do have sex, be prepared by already having birth control available, then their chances of avoiding unwanted pregnancy are higher..

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 19 months ago in reply to this

                Exactly, +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

     
    working