Why are some people so eager to take away healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions?
Who is going to pay for covering people with pre-existing conditions?
I asked ElSeductor who wrote "Why Seduce a Married Woman."
Why would that even be relevant to the current discussion?
How much do you think cheating costs me (the taxpayer)?
What are you talking about? If you ask an intelligible question, I am sure many of us would love to answer it.
Huh? You jump from covering people with pre-existing conditions to a hub El Seductor wrote to people who cheat on their taxes...
Connect the dots. The IRS is to enforce ObamaCare. The popular parts like covering pre-existing conditions and adult children was front-loaded by Obama and the Democrats to go into effect before the election. The controversial portions like the mandate to obtain insurance, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and the role of the IRS as enforcer go into effect later. Now, in the IRS you have a massive government bureaucracy that can not effectively accomplish its current mission. And ObamaCare is going to massively expand the role of that bureaucracy? At what cost to the taxpayer? Does anyone have any confidence that the IRS can in fact enforce the mandate or manage all these tax credits for the purchase of health coverage? When the POTUS raves about ObamaCare and how it covers pre-existing conditions and adult children, do you ever hear him add AND THE IRS WILL ENFORCE IT?
The IRS cannot legally enforce it except by keeping tax returns. Don't let the facts prevent you from panicking though.
Exactly my point, which I alluded to in a previous post on this thread. The IRS can do nothing except an offset on tax returns that get a refund. Of course, there are things that one can easily do to owe the government instead of getting a refund. HowardBThiname touched on it. Payment will become voluntary in many cases once people figure it out. People will pay out of a sense of duty? Yeah, right.
The vast majority of people who earn enough to have to pay the charge already get tax returns more than the fee, if they just simply skip the return it really does not matter since the government still keeps the same amount of money and yes many people will pay it out of a sense of doing the right thing, I would but I have tax returns so it's not really an issue it may surprise you that some people actually are willing to make a small sacrifice for others to get healthcare which is why those people supported it in the first place even though it will statistically be more costly for liberals.
As I mentioned earlier these things are already budgeted anyhow so it's not a problem.
C'mon man. It's already budgeted so it's not a problem? We've seen how the POTUS promises to cut the deficit in half and then does what again? Lol.
How exactly will ObamaCare be statistically more costly for liberals?
Give me some reason besides some sweet dream that individuals who do not purchase insurance will just fork over the penalty if they believe it can't be collected, especially when they object to it on principle?
People get tax returns when they overpay in taxes in respect to their income bracket.
So you are saying we should all have our taxes raised to pay for the sick and unfortunate? Is that what you are saying?
People get tax returns for a wide variety of reasons but the tax from Obamacare isn't really for the sick and unfortunate it's for your own insurance costs so when/if you need medical the country doesn't get stuck holding the bill if you don't ave insurance. .
If I needed medical, I would pay for the bill myself.
Here in WA, medical facilities first bill the insurance, then bill the patient (or charge a copay, based on what your insurance plan says). You get a bill; typically a late fee is added ever 30 days. After 90 days, its sent to a collections agency. Then, you're boned.
Of course, medical facilities are authorized to charge less to those without insurance. The ER definitely does. And it's smart to check to see if they do that beforehand, especially if it's a private clinic. Some do sliding scales, others don't.
Don't use a service if you can't afford it. That's my motto.
Debt collection is incredibly expensive for everyone involve, usually the debt collection agency buys the debt on cents on the dollar (thus the money is not returned) and then after man hours etc. the debt agency will usually settle with the debtor for a middle ground, debt collection never get's the money back in full and sometimes doesn't get it back at all that does not work as a system which is why the medicare funding etc. runs a massive deficit.
For most services this is not an issue as they are optional but if you get hit by a car or have heart attack etc. etc. etc. then leaving you lying in the street is not an option.
Not everyone gets hit by cars. Actually, I only know one person, thoughout my entire life, that has ever been hit by a car.
These kinds of accidents are abnormalities. They are the exception, not the rule. I don't mind paying to help unfortunate people, such as those who get hit by cars, or ravaged by tornadoes.
But you really can't separate them from people who get such injuries from choosing to put themselves in harm's way (playing sports comes to mind). I don't want to pay for those people.
But I don't get a choice about that. It seems to me that people feel they are entitled to health insurance. When really, they're not. Many people choose not to buy it, for the reasons I stated in an earlier post.
The choice, however, is gone. That is what I dislike about Obamacare.
Also, if you fail to pay a bill, you'll end up paying it in one way or another. Your credit score will tank, and you'll pay with higher interest rates on any loan you get, or be unable to get a loan, period. Leasing agencies will turn you down, banks will turn you down. Ever try to buy a house with bad credit? EVer try to rent a house with terrible credit? ALso, many employers do credit checks before hiring. If not that, oftentimes, the establishment will end up brining you into a lawsuit for the bill you neglected to pay, the fees associated with legal, and so on and so forth. Although that usually only happens when its a big bill.
Don't use a service if you can't pay for it. Legal stuff related to things like getting hit by cars, or losing your house in a flood, however, can usually be expunged from your record by an attorney. Neglecting to pay your bill, however, because you chose to get a more expensive service (white fillings on teeth, rather than silver, for example) is a completely different story.
One third of people will suffer cancer during their lives, accidents are common almost 40% of people will have a serious accident in their lives, there are massive variety of diseases one can be affected by, the thing is in the past you weren't choosing not to have insurance, people were choosing to have the insurance the government provides without paying for it, basically leeching and they expect (and society expects) that when something terrible happens we will help them, that isn't how it works, people who can afford to pay for insurance should they should not get it for free by living off the government.
"Don't use a service if you can't afford it." I'm glad we didn't think of this sooner. Hey poor people, from now on, do not get sick, ok? You obviously cannot afford to go to the doctor, so just tough it out. Hey people with pre-existing conditions. You cannot afford to be taken care of, so you are SOL. Sorry, but you can't afford medical attention. Just sit in the corner and die. Save the rest of us some money. Next.
They have free clinics for struggling people. You also don't need to go to a doctor if you are sick; oftentimes you can call in and have some medicine recommended for free, you just have to go out and buy the medicine. I have gotten prescriptions for medications *not* over the counter, over the phone before. There are other ways, asides from forcing the entire country to pay a tax, to get healthcare. State-supported healthcare for those who cannot afford it already exists.
Also, I found your responses to be respectful, and discussion-friendly until you started mocking me with sarcasm. I'm done talking with you; good-bye.
Actually, the IRS has stated that they will NOT collect the tax. That shoots another hole in Obmacare because once folks figure that out - payment, for all intents and purposes....becomes voluntary.
Everyone who is insured pays for other people's benefits. That is the way insurance works. That is the way insurance has always worked. That is the point of insurance, to have a lot of people pay for the benefit of those who need it.
I do not understand what your question has to do with people being against providing care for people with pre-existing conditions.
Obamacare is much, much broader than just preexisting conditions. That is only one component of the extension of health insurance coverage to as many Americans as possible. It gets more people insured so they can get appropriate care sooner (including emphasis on wellness). It reduces the number of people getting the most expensive care in the emergency room -- or not at all.
On the provider side, it provides funding to build capacity, train more health care workers, open community health clinics, make health care more efficient, more effective, and thus less costly overall.
It also will provide tax credits to help people afford health insurance.
Why are people so against it? Because they listen to right wing radio and read right wing blogs that fill them with misinformation about what it is, what it does, and what it means for them.
You will hear over and over 2 arguments:
1. It is a TAX.
2. DEATH PANELS will determine who gets care.
Other than that, the naysayers really can't tell you anything specific about their objections, because they don't know. They are reciting talking points.
For the vast majority of Americans who get their health insurance through their employer, it doesn't mean ANYTHING.
For millions of Americans who have not been able to purchase health insurance for themselves or their families, it is a GODSEND.
I am passionate about this issue. Already, even before 2014, I have been able to obtain health insurance for my husband and my adult son (in different states) ONLY because of Obamacare and the implementation of Preexisting Conditions insurance pools (PCIPs).
I am also reasonably knowledgeable about the ACA, having been involved in the writing of my four-county region's ACA implementation plan. Meaning, the actions our hospital systems, doctors and health clinics planning to get ready for a quarter million more insured citizens in 2014.
It's perceived as a HUGE POSITIVE with systemic changes that are long overdue and that will make a HUGE DIFFERENCE in individual and population health improvements.
So expect me to chime in here to correct lies as I see them.
Some detractors don't listen to right-wing radio - some recognise that healthcare can not be a right as that right has to infringe on others, some recognise that Obamacare is making medical care even more expensive than it was already, and some recognise that tying people to a medical system through violence is immoral and in fact diminishes families' choice and therefore quality of care.
Is that specific enough for you?
Not to mention that the IRS is to be ObamaCare enforcer.
ObamaCare - so good, it has to be enforced.
Just because a law is enforced does not mean it is a bad law. People often do not do the things that are good for them.
I'm referring to Obamcare as an idea that has become law. The automobile was a good idea - you didn't need to force anybody to use them.
"People often do not do the things that are good for them."
So? If an individual accepts the consequences of his 'bad' actions, that's his own business isn't it?
"If an individual accepts the consequences of his 'bad' actions, that's his own business isn't it?"
No. Our government and about half the population have decided that Americans are not responsible enough to take care of themselves and that they are not competent to make decisions about their lives. Govt. must thus do it for them, as for any other little children.
Actually the law ADDS responsibility, previously if you made bad lifestyle choices and got sick with no insurance then the hospital would save your life and no one would pay, you could just lean on the government for everything, now you have to pay for it just in a measured way so people don't die. Hence what was once responsibility free now has obligations and will also be more effective and cover more.
People like to speed, don't they? So, the government creates laws against speeding. The police has to enforce those laws. Right?
Speeding is not good for everybody. It can lead to accidents which can kill people. If people did the things that were good for them and for society, we would not know the meaning of the words "police" and "enforce".
Yes, speeding can lead to accidents that kill.
But if I get cancer - it's not going to affect you at all.
No, it's not.
You didn't just "recognise" these things in a vacuum.
You got these "insights" somewhere.
Pretend I'm from Missouri and SHOW ME.
Well once you've been exposed to and learned good principles you can recognise a lot of things for yourself through deduction. You don't need some higher authority to tell you these things.
1. How do we know that healthcare can not be a right? If we are assuming that a 'right' is a universal 'should' (we do not accept that some people have more rights than others), and that everybody has the right to free association, healthcare can not be a 'right'. In order to exercise this 'right', someone on Earth has to provide medical care - obviously, some are not going to want to provide medical care for whatever reason - it may not be economically feasible for them to provide it, or they may not have the resources, or this person may be a criminal and has offended them in particular. However, this person has a 'right' to healthcare. How on Earth can this be when the doctor already has a right to free association? Clearly one has to go - two rights that contradict each other can not exist in the same society.
Weighing them up, the right to free association is far superior, because it does not present the problem of violating anybody else's rights simply because it exists.
In conclusion we have to accept that healthcare can not be a right, unless you discard the right to free association - and that opens up another can of worms.
We've just figured that out through logic, not through some Soros/Murdoch controlled media outlet.
2. We can see how Obamacare is going to make costs rise by studying economics.
Obamacare forces insurance companies to cover a whole lot of things in their packages, even if the customer doesn't need/want them. In order to pay for all of those things, the price is going to have to rise - it's just an economic inevitability. Also, the apparently wonderful decision to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is going to make prices rise too - a bigger liability for the insurance company means higher insurance costs. It's not too difficult to understand I don't think.
The cure is competition: in a truly free healthcare market (which hasn't existed since the 1800s - I'm not talking about simply pre-Obama healthcare, which I agree was terrible), insurance companies battle it out to provide the best packages at a decent price. If forced to provide a one-size-fits-all policy universally, the natural reduction in prices from competition is gone. One could argue that Obamacare is great for insurance companies, because it is akin to making a medical insurance cartel, with everyone force to comply to the rising prices, and every patient tied to the system (and 'liberals' support this ) . This isn't socialism folks, it's fascism.
3. How is this immoral? It's financed through theft, and the system itself is a violation of free association.
Economics fail, understand this, due to Obamacare insurance companies will receive significantly more business with a slightly lower profit margin ie. lower profit margin but more profit margins equals same profits.
Obamacare after full implementation make it illegal for insurance companies to raise their prices outside the rate of healthcare inflation, the professional economic analysis is that the insurance companies will make MORE not less money due to Obamacare and thus have no need to increase prices anyway, take a look at their shares and profit margins since implementation if you want a real world demonstration the profits have gone way UP.
Yes we know tax is "theft" (in your interpretation) thus Obamacare is just more theft... not an argument that carries much weight here... or really any other country.
I like how you're agreeing with me that Obamacare is great for insurance companies - that's nice, but I'm more concerned about the customer.
My argument is not that insurance companies will make less money, my argument is that insurance is naturally going to get more expensive. First, prices will rise (and they have), then after full implementation, someone is going to have to pay for all of this care that isn't necessarily needed - that's going to be the tax payer. So in one way or another, the customer is going to pay for it.
Can't you see that you can't artificially make something less expensive?
Let's make this simple so we don't waste time it is literally IMPOSSIBLE fro the insurance companies to raise costs after full implementation... IMPOSSIBLE so how will the cost be passed to the consumer?
The insurance companies will be rewarded by more customers to offset the higher costs they must incur simple as that.
Again, where is the violence related to this issue? Also, is social security a right?
To compel a person to buy insurance is violence - it's not a voluntary contract.
Social security is an entitlement, not a right. If you're not sure, use the test I presented to prove that healthcare could not be a right: can it exist without violating anybody else's rights?
MM - SCOTUS said it was a tax, so I guess it must be.
My problem with Obamacare is that it's going to leave millions - 30 million - by the CBOs last tally without any kind of insurance. About 6 million of those will pay the "tax" so others can get healthcare but not themselves.
This is potentially the worst thought-out plan they could have passed. Medicare is already making cuts to come into compliance - red tape is up - WAY up and the insurance industry and Big Pharma are loving their cut.
We can't pay for two entire industries - the healthcare industry and the insurance industry. Yet, that's what Obamacare attempts to do.
Please elaborate. How are 30 million people going to not benefit from Obamacare? I can throw out numbers too, but then we are not getting at the truth.
I mentioned it was from the CBO. Here's the link.
Did you read the paragraph? The 30 million people consists of non-elderly people. We know that that people up to the age of 26 will be covered by their parent's insurance. So, if we define elderly as people 65 and up, that means that the 30 million will consist of people between the ages of 27 - 65. A large part of the 30 million includes unauthorized immigrants. The other part of the 30 million likely includes people who work part-time and people who just do not want insurance. The paragraph also states that these people will be exempted from paying a penalty.
So, what is the problem?
Bottomline: If you want insurance, it will now be available to you. If you do not want insurance, then you do not have to get it, and you will be exempted from paying the penalty.
Where is the big problem with this policy that everyone is talking about?
30 million. That's over twice the original estimate.
But, it's going to be even higher - watch and see.
Very few will be uninsured because "they don't want to be." That's a pipe dream.
What you don't know yet is that millions who WILL have coverage will still not be able to afford healthcare. Why do you think Obama grandfathered it out until 2014? I can tell you have a lot of surprises in your future.
I think you bring up valid points, but you forgot to mention those of us who own small businesses and how it would/could cripple us to be forced to provide healthcare for all employees. That key point could be the making and/or breaking point for the struggling small businesses.
It's not that they want to take it away from others, it's about how it negatively impacts them. (Okay, maybe some people ARE assholes, but for the most part, we aren't).
The reason that I don't like it is because its a REQUIREMENT to have healthcare. If you make a certain amount of income or lower (I think something like 15k/year), you don't have to pay for healthcare; it will be provided to you, for free, with Obamacare. Above that? You either have to pay for healthcare, or pay a fine.
Healthcare isn't a good deal for people like me. I am young, and I rarely use it. SO I pay into it, say, $60/month. And there's a $2500 deductible. (Everyone's plan is different, but this is mine, used as an example). The deductible, once met, gives me 90% coverage (they foot 90% of the bill, only IF it's 'in-network,' but networking is a whole 'nother gimmick which I won't get into now). Until then? No coverage. My bills go towards the deductible.
So, I basically have to pay $3220 per year before I can use my healthcare to pay for medical expenses.
Umm.... Or I could pay $300 for a dentist visit, $80 for an eye exam, and $150 for a check-up. You do the math. Young, healthy people will find it cheaper to just not buy healthcare.
But now, coming 2013, we will be forced to.
The healthcare reform helps mainly the elderly, the ill, and the poor. Doesn't really do much for me, aside from annoy me. Feels like car insurance to me. Except, not everyone chooses to drive, therefore not everyone needs to get insurance.
I don't like feeling forced to pay money. Especially since I'm not very high income. This will hurt the most, people who make between 15k and 45k per year: Where health insurance costs make a bigger impact (huger chunk of a paycheck) in our wallets. I cringe at the thought of college students, who happen to be over 25, or parents can't/won't carry them for whatever reason (death, unemployment).
I have nothing against the people who it helps, and don't walk around saying "I hate Obamacare because it HELPS people." That's absurd.
You are young. Do you have a job where healthcare is offered through your employer?
Do you have car insurance?
You have healthcare through your employer, so you do not have to worry about Obamacare. If you have a choice about car insurance, then you do not live in California.
If your concern is choice, then how do you feel about the fact that you do not have a choice about paying into social security?
I am not concerened by it, because the idea is that when I pay into it, I get it back later in life.
The ACA actually does put regulations on private insurance companies, by the way.
Also, do you not have a choice between State Farm, Geico, All State, Farmers, and other such insurance companies in California? I couldn't imagine not seeing those ads on TV with the gecko! In my state, it is a requirement to have insurance if you choose to own/drive a car. Not everyone drives, and some people that do have the license just have it for ID purposes, or so they can rent a car if needed (in which case they would buy temporary insurance from the rental car company, if it's not included on their credit card plan).
So private insurance is crap, and we need a universal system.
You are required to have it because without lots and lots of young, healthy people effectively subsidizing older, not so healthy people the financial fiasco of Obamacare would be glaringly apparent in just one or two years rather than the 5 or 10 it might take now.
Good thought, though, that it is primarily the young, healthy people that aren't yet earning high salaries that will bearing the worst of the cost.
Many poeple oppose Obamacare because they recognise it as socialize medicine and that socialized medicine will not work for the same reasons that socialism does not work. They recognize Obamacare as the largest entitlement program in the history of the world. Obamacare places the taxpayers medical dollars in the hands of the government rather than the individual. Since the government controls the money, who do you think will make the important decisions- you guessed it, the government?!
Many are rightly leery about handing over one sixth of our economy to the federal government! Most poeple know that the government has never and will never save us money, the private sector always outperforms the government by a country mile! They recognize that the current problems with our healthcare system are largely due to existing government regulations and controls- So why would it make sense to hand all of it over to the government now!
There are other issues, like whether the Constitution allows the government to coerse private citizens to buy a product made availible by the government. Many realize that Obamacare is a large step towards socialism and tyranny and another move away from the founders vision of a self governing nation.
"Private industry always out competes government by a country mile"
That is why our private healthcare was six times more expensive and less effective than the UK's as well as most of the first world.
Don't forget about poisoning our air and water, and drastically heating up the temperatures. That's efficiency if I ever saw it!
"The number one worst polluter on Earth is the US Federal Government"
http://ivn.us/2012/04/18/the-number-one … overnment/
According to your source (which is biased) the Federal government produces 126 million tons of carbon emissions yearly of course to assume that without it those emissions would not exist is very often false for example the truck that fixes the road still has to go there no matter who is in charge of it.
But what really makes the whole point utterly laughable is that the clean air act of 2011 a relatively minor bill to reduce emissions and just one in a very long line will save an estimated 960 million tons of carbon emissions making the federal government WAY WAY WAY beyond carbon neutral.
So hilariously weak.
I'm not arguing that without government, nobody would build roads (I'm surprised, that's usually the statist's line of argument ), I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of promoting statism compared to capitalism for environmental reasons. You don't disagree with me that government is the biggest polluter, and your bill won't necessarily change that - one's carbon footprint is not the only environmental concern. No private company is dumping white phosphorous on communities by itself, nor fire bombing nor drone striking. This can't be good for the environment.
You haven't had a private healthcare system for like a hundred years, and as the man says, "the current problems with our healthcare system are largely due to existing government regulations and controls". There was a time when there was an abundance of private mutual medical aid programs, the fraternal societies, that catered for the poor for less than a day's wages per year, but in the UK, the NHS came along, and in America, the AMA decided to impose sanctions on doctors who worked in the aid lodges. This was the beginning of the end for cheap healthcare.
And do you call the inability to buy insurance across state borders due to government regulation a symptom of the private sector?
I would strongly argue against implementing a truly socialised healthcare system in the US. The NHS now is on its last legs, crushing under the weight of all that bureaucracy and dependence. Our health is in fact getting worse, not better, with depression-related illnesses, obesity and heart problems through the roof, the already strained budget stretched to its limit. When you go into an NHS hospital, expect long waiting times and about 6 different doctors, none of whom give you a proper diagnosis. And the cases of abuse in NHS hospitals are too numerous to count.
Let's bring the mutual-aid fraternities back!
It is a blank check. There is no limit. it gives the government the right to "tax" you for the medical bill with no limit. Want to pay $25,000 a year for medical? Get ready cause it is legal if they want to tax you any amount for it.
It's give the government the right to tax you for the medical bill?
WTF does that mean?
And like I requested of innersmiff, please cite your source of this bit of information.
It's common sense. There is a chart for how much the tax is in the first year, the second year, the third year and so forth. The tax in the schedule is the law passed by your Congress.
If Congress wants to change the schedule they just need to change the schedule of the tax the same way they pass any other law.
As for the right to tax you for the medical bill, whatever do you thing the tax is used for? Is it not for paying medical bills effectively?
Mighty Mom if you stop insulting people and thinking several steps ahead in economics you will readily understand the effects of the Obamacare tax.
I did not make this up. I read it in the Obamacare bill. It is public information. You might enjoy reading it some night before lambasting others.
And I have asked you and will ask you again to provide documentation of the claims you are making.
You are asking us to accept your interpretation as fact.
So again, please post a PDF or a link to the page or pages you are citing.
Mightly Mom---no---you can fnd it with a simple Google. If you don't want to do a few finger search consider yourself lazy.
If you want us to consider your argument, you should back it up. You do not see a prosecutor telling the jury, "Go and do your own investigation. I'm telling you that the defendant is guilty. Don't be lazy. Look through the piles of evidence in my office. Here's the key."
Please point to the section of the Obamacare bill that specifies what you just wrote.
Please show us where in the tax act it says that the tax has no limit. It is nice when we can deal with hard facts and not just conjecture that is meant to cause fear.
Elseductor-----do you not understand taxes? Congress sets the tax. If Congress wants to raise the tax they vote to raise it.
There should be fear in all of this because there is no limit on what Obamacare will pay for on an individual basis. That's what I mean when I say there is a blank check.
There is no lifetime maximum limit. When more money needs to go to fund this fiasco Congress will just vote to "raise the tax" and that means no limit on the tax and this results from having no cap on per individual healthcare.
So like they could do with any other tax... Oh the horror.
You are failing to mention that there is great emphasis placed on preventive care. See, the idea is this: provide a way for people to prevent and/or mitigate the need for serious healthcare. This is a brilliant idea. The hope is that people take advantage of it.
There are two sides to the coin. You cannot pick up one without dealing with the other.
great answer mighty mom...
additionally, people are so scared of "obamacare" because it is a HUGE change. we all know that change, of any magnitude, good or bad, can be tough. Ever tried to diet? Stop smoking? Quit drinking? Start exercising? Made a new year resolution? Catch my drift?
so, we have a huge daunting change in front of us, and quite frankly, people who don't understand are frightened. but if we could just all pause for a second to realize that we all agree this is a huge change and a huge challenge, we could use that platform of mutual understanding to build a healthier america, which will, unfortunately, not benefit my generation as much as will all the generations to come.
pre-existing conditions aside, there is so much illness on the rise in america - obesity, depression, diabetes - to name a few.
we built that america.
WE BUILT THAT!!
but guess what? we built it wrong. and now it's time to rebuild it. rebuild it for our kids. rebuild it for a healthier america!! we need to get it together and "get 'er done!"
i'm not saying that obamacare as it presently is in its entirety is the absolute best answer to bring us forward toward a healthier tomorrow, but i do think it's a great start.
I liked something of Obama's healthcare reforms. But a full term in the white house is dependent on much more than universal healthcare. Obama had another priority. He needed to get America and the rest of the world into economic growth again. Obama hasn't stimulated America's economy or stopped the world's economies from falling further into recession. Given the lead status the United States economy has over the rest of the worlds financial affairs Obama has got to give adequate time to the international recession. His first full term in office did not yield great economic results. Is he going to stay in power. He can't hold the electorates attention on just one popular issue of universal healthcare. What about economic growth. ?
You are bringing up broader issues. We are discussing why people want to eliminate the coverage of pre-existing conditions for other humans.
Do you have an opinion about that?
How about those of us who exercise daily, do not eat sugar, and stuff ourselves with organic green leafy vegetables.
I don't want to have to pay for a gastric bypass for someone else who has no desire for personal self control and discipliine. They should pay more for insurance and I should get to pay less.
So because they were too poor to eat healthy, or too uninformed or just made an error they deserve to die right? There are a multitude of benefits to living in the United States with those privileges comes a responsibility to help fellow Americans through taxation, simple as that, if you don't like it leave.
What does being poor have to do with eating healthy?
Fast food is more expensive than going to the grocery store and buying the "parts" for a burger and fries yourself. And it has like 1/2 the calories if you cook it yourself (depending on how you cook it-meat over flame has the least fat, and meat deep-fried has the most fat).
And most poor people have food stamps, which generally can only buy them "healthy" food anyway (I worked at a grocery store; no candy, soda, or other shit ever ended up on those orders).
Exercising is up to them, but hey, most poor people don't have cars either, so they get to walk, ride bikes, and hop buses; all burning much more calories than those of us car-affording-people do while driving.
The amount of obesity in this country? There is no excuse. Even if there was, being poor wouldn't be it (who sees fat homeless people, btw?) Either way, I find it hard to believe that such a high percentage of people have some health problem that prevents them from losing weight, or causes them to gain weight, as so many people claim. I'll pray to every God in the book for our nation if that were the case.
There is a strong correlation between poverty and obesity statistically speaking, mainly because good ingredients are expensive so foods that are affordable tend to be high fat meats and high salt content foods.
Are we talking about poverty, or middle income here? Poverty are those making less than 13k/year. Many of them get food stamps and other assistance, and never eat out. This includes homeless, who are lucky to eat one meal a day. Fat? I think not.
I think you are discussing middle income people, who don't qualify for food stamps, or other assistance, yet don't make enough to put healthy things like meat and veggies in the budget.
I do not always agree with war. Does that mean that I should be able to tell the government that I do not want my tax dollars to go to buying missles?
The procedures you are talking about help prevent more serious healthcare issues later. We are Americans. We pig out. That just goes with living in a country where food is readily available. We should be thankful that most Americans are not starving. At the same time, I agree with you that people should be more thoughtful about exercising and health in general. At the same time, people rarely place trash in the trash can. People rarely clean up after themselves in public restrooms. Therefore, people will likely not give a damn about watching what they eat. So, we have to be realistic. People are going to be fat and will likely need a lap band, etc. So, given that people learn the hard way. I am all for providing a surgery that reduces the chances for more serious health problems later, which will cost even more money.
Life is unfair. Pay your taxes and move on.
Just to throw this out there...
There is a clearly defined limit on the amount of tax you will pay for healthcare if you don't have coverage.
It's my understanding that the penalty for not buying coverage ranges from $695 a year for lower-income people to $12,500 for a higher-income family.
How do you suppose the IRS is going to collect that money?
wellllp, if you have a refund due, the IRS may take that out of your refund.
However, if you don't have a refund coming, there are currently no penalties for failure to pay.
Again, please show us where you are coming up with these numbers.
Cody Hodge 5--the limit is clearly expressed for the next three years. After that Congress can charge whatever they want.
You sound like the people who bought the lie back when the income tax was first passed. Oh----but but but the income tax will only apply to the top whatever percent......and it will only be 1 percent.....ummmmm right.
The issue of "pre-existing conditions" could be easily addressed with regulatory legislation that does not require the federal government to plop down smack dab in the middle of the healthcare industry where it has no business being in the first place. One might also take notice that for all supposedly Obamacare does for those covered by it, there is nothing to address the issue of litigation....one of the biggest factors affecting escalating healthcare costs. There is current more unknowns than knowns about Obamacare at the consumer level though in State after State it is becoming more apparent that healthcare costs to the individual will rise under this program. Medicare alone will go up on premiums by $100 per month in 2014....a result of Obamacare. That is approximately a 100% jump in rates to those covered by Medicare....a signicant chunk out of the monthly Social Securiy check. Lastly, Obamacare is a representative move toward a more socialist society for this nation. Socialism is nothing more than a Marxist progression toward the communist state in which the government basically owns and controls everything and the people enslaved. There are far less dangerous ways in which to address "pre-existing conditions" and still maintain our freedom of choice as Americans under our Constitution. Obamacare is just one example of the methods employed to slowly take those freedoms and rights away from and eventually destroy the middle class in this nation. Once this nation has its financial back broken (and that is close to reality), then the end result is a country of improverished people who look to an all encompassing government for their subsistence. At that point, we will all suffer a "pre-existing condition". ~WB
THe whole comment is largely incorrect but just as an illustration you may want to look at a dictionary and understand the difference between Socialism a system far older than Marx or communism and the Marxist usage of the term (which was a transitional period between capitalism and communism) the one some are advocating is the first a system that far predates Marx and thus it having anything to do with Marxism is just hilarious.
First, any American who believes that the United States is a 100% capitalist nation is sadly mistaken. If the United States was a purely capitalist society, there would be child labor, people would work 80 hours a week with no benefits, and the distinction between the haves and have-nots would be even more obvious than it is now.
The US is a socialist/capitalist society. We can start a whole other forum on this issue.
Getting back to your concern about the middle class being wiped out and being enslaved. The extreme capitalists in this country are responsible for the crippling of the middle class. One glaring example of this enslavement is student loans. Republicans voted overwhelmingly against student loan reform. Student loan debts are currently enslaving middle class people in this country. Purely capitalist people will never do anything to change this. Again, this can be a whole other forum.
My biggest issue with Obamacare is that it sets a precedence that Congress can now TAX you for NOT purchasing an item, or NOT doing a certain thing.
I am 100% against our federal government when it tries to take upon itself more power. The larger it gets, the more problems we have.
Try to not pay social security taxes and see what happens.
Social security taxes you on money you earn. If you don't earn an income, you don't get taxed for it. JaxsonRaine is discussing taxation on items you don't receive. You are being taxed on the money you receive with Social Security. With no particular monetary value involved with not buying something, I am perplexed as to how they determine how much to tax you.
The real peroblem with health care is greed in the medical community. You can just rot with no insurance, or get robbed with it.
Is there any community where greed isn't a problem? The beauty of the free market is its built in mechanism for accountability. If you don't produce you'll be replaced by someone who does, if your product or service is overpriced you lose customers... ect
by lauravan 5 years ago
What, if any, role should the government play in determining individuals' adoption of health insurance? If you think everyone should be required to have some form of health insurance, why? If you don't think it's necessary, why not? Consider the effects of pre-existing conditions, monopolies on...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
The Trump administration just came out in full-throated support of Killing ACA and allowing insurance companies to deny you insurance because you are sick.https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/politics … index.html
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
I have been retired for five years and since Obama Care has been in effect, I have realized significant changes in my medicare plan. My out of pocket drug costs are much lower now. The donut hole is closing and will be closed in 2014. (That's the amount insurance pays up to limit and...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money where there arehospitals and/or other medical facilities that offer very low cost and/or free health care?The "purpose" that President Obama "intended" for his to be implemented...
by Holle Abee 9 years ago
According to ABC, 67% of Americans polled want to kill the law completely or kill the individual mandate. Could the law work without the mandate? Any ideas?http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 … l-mandate/
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|