So, where are pro & con

[slngsht]

I did not say that. I know there are many factors at play.

 

But I think it is fair to say the ton of money that is spent in the US does apparently not help us live longer or be healthier. The waste in the current "system" is quite obvious and its growth rate is unsustainable. Unfortunately the ACA does not do much to reduce it (at least in the short term) but IMO better than doing nothing and watch the industry suck up more and more of people's wealth or go uninsured.

 

This creates another group of formerly independent citizens who now find they have to depend on government subsidies, with all the strings attached. Not to mention simple transfer of wealth. And then there is more transfer of power to an absolutely corrupt federal government. Not my definition of better than nothing, but nobody is going to change anyone's mind. :cheers:

[bigdog]

I quite frankly don't trust the government to do any thing in an honorable way.

I spent 20 yrs. in the military. Part of the contract I had with them. Was that my health care would be covered if I made a career of the military. Well. The government just announced that if I live more than an hours drive from a military base that has a doctor. Then I'm shit out of luck. At least if I have a grievance with a hospital, doctor, Or insurance company. I have some chance of redress in a court. But since I can't sue the government for breach of contract. I'm once again shit out of luck. Therefore. I can't wait for the big government socialists in America. To be shocked back into reality in a few years when the death committees start retracting their promise of free health care for all.

 

PM Thatcher once said in a 1976 T.V. interview. and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

 

In reality. It might be a nice thought and a lofty goal to want to save every life from every calamity. But that is pie in the sky thinking. Just think of the food/energy shortages. The over population. But of course. The government. Who's main goal is to obtain power. Gleefully tells us that all we want to do is help. All it requires is your money and your liberty. Give us those two things and we promise to take care of you. I call BS.

[Off Road SHO]

Big Dog, did you just buy a lot of periods on sale somewhere? It seems. as though. you use them. a lot.

 

Just messin with ya.

 

Tom

[slngsht]

anyone who still thinks ACA is a good idea, given who is implementing it, how it was passed, and what we know about it today, watch this and dispute each and every one of the points made here. Do it with data, not emotions.

 

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=90510&sitesection=youngcons&VID=25379751

[lucky dawg]

For those who don't understand the Affordable Care Act:

1. It is not a government run health program (unlike Medicare & VA);

2. It's primary objective is the requirement that everyone have health insurance, which is provided by insurance companies (similar to states requiring that you have liability insurance on your car);

3. There are no government death squads (maybe in the CIA or NSA but not the ACA);

4. We (taxpayers) are already providing expensive subsidies to uninsureds every time they show up at an ER, call 911 for a minor injury, or skip preventative care and we pay for the worse result;

5. Many of the people I have met that are complaining the loudest are on Medicare and love their government provided insurance. This just makes no sense unless Fox or talk radio is their primary source of news (see #1).

 

I hope this helps.

[slngsht]

For those who don't understand the Affordable Care Act:

1. It is not a government run health program (unlike Medicare & VA);

2. It's primary objective is the requirement that everyone have health insurance, which is provided by insurance companies (similar to states requiring that you have liability insurance on your car);

3. There are no government death squads (maybe in the CIA or NSA but not the ACA);

4. We (taxpayers) are already providing expensive subsidies to uninsureds every time they show up at an ER, call 911 for a minor injury, or skip preventative care and we pay for the worse result;

5. Many of the people I have met that are complaining the loudest are on Medicare and love their government provided insurance. This just makes no sense unless Fox or talk radio is their primary source of news (see #1).

 

I hope this helps.

1. Nobody is saying it is.

2. Why is this the business of the Federal government?

3. What is the definition of a "death squad"? That's a very dramatic term. RIGHT NOW, if you have a plan and a doctor who is successfully treating you for cancer, and you got your cancelation letter and can't get the same team, nobody is condemning you to death, but your care is affected.

4. True.

5. I'm here... not on any government program (other than IRS contributor). I'm complaining.

 

Now, here are some of my questions:

1. Does it require me to get services I don't want?

2. How does the federal government gain the authority to tell me I have to buy a service I do not wish to buy? What are some other examples of this?

 

Following the ACA logic, there is study after study that shows children need stable families to reach their full potential. The cost to our society in terms of crime, welfare, loss of productivity for children without stable families is ASTRONOMICAL. Therefore, federal government should step in and solve this problem for the greater good. Many options are available - like terminating babies to single moms, forcing the biological parents to marry, or the always popular option of forcing wealthy families to raise the kids. Would you support such a program? It will benefit us all.

 

How about CAFE standards? Instead of setting corporate guidelines, wouldn't it be more effective to tell individuals what rules they have to follow? Every family with income over $100K must have a hybrid car before they can buy a SUV.

 

Of course these are crazy examples. But in terms of federal government authority, how are these different than forcing health care coverage on us?

[yellowss7]

Mazda, Mazda, Mazda, you know you shouldn't play with your "fruitloops" Now stop wasting time and get in the garage and finish that bike engined Caterham.

 

Tom :seeya:

[slngsht]

Mazda, Mazda, Mazda, you know you shouldn't play with your "fruitloops" Now stop wasting time and get in the garage and finish that bike engined Caterham.

 

Tom :seeya:

I'm downright certifiable Tom :lol:

[lucky dawg]

1. Nobody is saying it is. From bigdog "The bureaucrats in the government have never ever been able to run anything properly, fairly, Without mountains of red tape nor on budget. Why did the American people think all of a sudden they (bureaucrats) should try to run health care. ..."

 

2. Why is this the business of the Federal government? That is what governments do by definition, they govern.

 

3. What is the definition of a "death squad"? The term "death squad" was initially coined by Tea Party activists. On this forum bigdog referred to it "... in a few years when the death committees start retracting their promise of free health care for all.

 

4. True.

 

5. I'm here... not on any government program (other than IRS contributor). I'm complaining. My exact words were "Many of the people I have met ..." I have not yet met you.

 

Now, here are some of my questions:

1. Does it require me to get services I don't want? No.

 

2. How does the federal government gain the authority to tell me I have to buy a service I do not wish to buy? Elections

What are some other examples of this? Mandatory auto liability insurance, mandatory social security, required fuel taxes that fund projects you don't want, mandatory emissions repairs, ...

 

Following the ACA logic, ... Of course these are crazy examples. But in terms of federal government authority, how are these different than forcing health care coverage on us? Because the ACA was passed by both houses of congress (and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court) and your examples have not.

 

The irony of all of this is that after all the political issues finally settled, it came down to a software problem.

[slngsht]

The irony of all of this is that after all the political issues finally settled, it came down to a software problem.

The federal government is supposed to have limited power. Constitution grants those powers, and specifically states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - 10th amendment.

 

Results of elections do not trump the constitution. not that it bothers this administration.

Where does the federal government get its power to tell the individual they have to purchase something?

 

It all comes down to this: Do you believe the Constitution is still a relevant document that needs to be followed - and if not adequate, amended? Or do you believe it should be set aside and ignored?

[lucky dawg]

The Supreme Court disagreed with your analysis and ruled the ACA is constitutional.

[slngsht]

The Supreme Court disagreed with your analysis and ruled the ACA is constitutional.

Supreme court only ruled on the issue before it. In doing so, the court judged the individual mandate is a tax. This issue will end up there again, due to article 1, section 7: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

Of course, this is not how the ACA made it through congress.

[Jon W.]

I think the ACA was written with me in mind.

 

Background Info:

 

I'm nearly 62 and mentally ready to retire. Only thing holding me back is as long as I work at least 17.5 hrs per week, my company will subsidize my (and wife's) medical insurance $13,000 per year. My COBRA cost for the same would be $18,000 per year. May be able to find cheaper on open market.

 

So, being the cheap "PA Dutchman" that I am, I continue working part time. At 65 I'll be on Medicare and a year later my wife will follow.

 

ACA to The Rescue:

 

As long as our income is between $15k and $62k per year, Nancy Pelosi wants to subsidize us. So, as long as we maintain our income (per ACA income standards) we're golden. We'll live off savings, collect small pensions, but no SS benefits, and stay within the subsidy limits.

 

I have been trying to register on Healthcare.gov and run a what-if scenario for 2014 income. I've entered my info at least 10 times now and still haven't had my identity accepted. Successfully uploaded a copy of my passport 10 times and still haven't been accepted. Used the chat function and explained the problem. Tamiesha asked me if the passport is a document issued by a government agency. Last time I looked, Dept of State still was.

 

Been asked to call to register. I can wait a few more months for the website.

 

You can shop on the website or directly with ins companies for plans, you just won't know the subsidy .

 

All plans have deductibles. The plan that is cheaper than your TV cable fees has an annual deductible of $12,700.

 

So, when I finally pack in the job, I'll select a high deduct plan, and be a cash customer at the doctor's office, lab, etc. The plan will be for catastrophic coverage only.

 

Thanks, Nancy, for thinking of me.

[slngsht]

The Supreme Court disagreed with your analysis and ruled the ACA is constitutional.

 

This is a good summary of the issue (start at page 3 for the significant part):

 

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8332.pdf

[slngsht]

I think the ACA was written with me in mind.

 

Background Info:

 

I'm nearly 62 and mentally ready to retire. Only thing holding me back is as long as I work at least 17.5 hrs per week, my company will subsidize my (and wife's) medical insurance $13,000 per year. My COBRA cost for the same would be $18,000 per year. May be able to find cheaper on open market.

 

So, being the cheap "PA Dutchman" that I am, I continue working part time. At 65 I'll be on Medicare and a year later my wife will follow.

 

ACA to The Rescue:

 

As long as our income is between $15k and $62k per year, Nancy Pelosi wants to subsidize us. So, as long as we maintain our income (per ACA income standards) we're golden. We'll live off savings, collect small pensions, but no SS benefits, and stay within the subsidy limits.

 

I have been trying to register on Healthcare.gov and run a what-if scenario for 2014 income. I've entered my info at least 10 times now and still haven't had my identity accepted. Successfully uploaded a copy of my passport 10 times and still haven't been accepted. Used the chat function and explained the problem. Tamiesha asked me if the passport is a document issued by a government agency. Last time I looked, Dept of State still was.

 

Been asked to call to register. I can wait a few more months for the website.

 

You can shop on the website or directly with ins companies for plans, you just won't know the subsidy .

 

All plans have deductibles. The plan that is cheaper than your TV cable fees has an annual deductible of $12,700.

 

So, when I finally pack in the job, I'll select a high deduct plan, and be a cash customer at the doctor's office, lab, etc. The plan will be for catastrophic coverage only.

 

Thanks, Nancy, for thinking of me.

 

LOL at your registration woes.

 

"So, when I finally pack in the job, I'll select a high deduct plan, and be a cash customer at the doctor's office, lab, etc. The plan will be for catastrophic coverage only."

 

The combo you're describing here is essentially what many people are considering as concierge medicine, and I think it's a great idea. All that was needed to make this happen was for state level legislation regarding pre-existing conditions, and no other requirements. Insurance companies would solve this on their own by offering no frills high deductible insurance. This would work fine without the social engineering aspects of the ACA.

[bigdog]

Big Dog, did you just buy a lot of periods on sale somewhere? It seems. as though. you use them. a lot.

 

Just messin with ya.

 

Tom

 

I'm. No. Mark. Twain. That's. For. Sure. :smilielol5:

 

It was also 1AM and I didn't proof read before posting. I admit that it's a bad habit I have in checking the forums I belong to just before going to bed. I'm 6 hours ahead of New York. So the US forums are at their most active when it's a little late here.

[bigdog]

For those who don't understand the Affordable Care Act:

1. It is not a government run health program (unlike Medicare & VA);

 

Sure it is. If the government isn't running health care by proxy via the ACA and only wanted to mandate that everyone get coverage. Why did it take 20,000 pages with 11,000,000 words just to say that you must have health care insurance? The government has also decided to mandate what is in the policies that the insurance companies sell. Doesn't matter what the end user thinks or may want for coverage. The fed has said "this IS what you WILL get" No exceptions. And how does NOT running something then somehow end up costing the tax payers trillions of dollars?

 

2. It's primary objective is the requirement that everyone have health insurance, which is provided by insurance companies (similar to states requiring that you have liability insurance on your car);

 

Wrong. The federal nor ANY of the 50 states governments requires that I purchase insurance until I buy a car. Further more, Each state has it's own insurance commission. Automotive liability insurance is not a federal government requirement. Why? (that pesky tenth amendment again) And what if I'm Bill Gates and can afford to pay cash. Why should he be required to purchase a health insurance policy or face a penalty for not buying something he doesn't need.

 

3. There are no government death squads (maybe in the CIA or NSA but not the ACA);

 

Admittedly a bad choice of words on my part. I simply mean that if you relate the idea of the government getting involved in making promises then breaking them sometime later. (As in my situation) What makes you think they won't break promises when it comes to the ACA. Look at all the unintended consequences so far. I.E. Folks having the policies they liked canceled by their insurance company simply because said policy did not have the MANDATED coverage as set forth by the GOVERNMENT making said policy invalid. To then be resold to the same customer with the added mandated coverages at a much higher rate.

 

4. We (taxpayers) are already providing expensive subsidies to uninsureds every time they show up at an ER, call 911 for a minor injury, or skip preventative care and we pay for the worse result;

 

True. Which will most likely happen with me. My government health care was terminated unless I sell my home and move within an hour of a military base. (hence the death squad comment) So at 56 years old I have to shop for insurance. That's going to be rather expensive. Especially as my gov insurance cost me $800 per year.

 

5. Many of the people I have met that are complaining the loudest are on Medicare and love their government provided insurance. This just makes no sense unless Fox or talk radio is their primary source of news (see #1).

 

I hope this helps.

 

I just think that the government has grown so big that they cant see past themselves. They are so detached from reality. Even if they MIGHT have good intentions they just can't manage to enact those intentions with out mucking it up in some way. That's why the 10th amendment is so vital. If government mandated health care were such a great thing why are you or anyone else not living in the health care mecca of MA? Health care certainly could have been argued & enacted at the state level. Which is well within the bounds of the constitution.

 

I am thankful that we (for the time being) live in a country where we can still discuss such things freely. Sadly this freedom is changing for the worse every day.

Edited November 24, 2013 by bigdog
grammar

[nick47]

I just think that the government has grown so big that they cant see past themselves. They are so detached from reality. Even if they MIGHT have good intentions they just can't manage to enact those intentions with out mucking it up in some way.

There are well-meaning people in government. There are very intelligent people in government. There are even very capable people in government. But there's also way too much money, and no concerns about return on investment, and that brings out the worst. I've seen it too many times.

[bigdog]

Nick47. What's that old saying. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

I also get irritated with congress due to the fact that for the most part the almighty powers on capital hill always seem to exclude themselves from their own laws. So what's that tell us about said laws. If those laws are so awesome and good for us why wouldn't the politicians want to be subject to them. That goes for both sides of the fence.

[lucky dawg]

... All that was needed to make this happen was for state level legislation regarding pre-existing conditions, and no other requirements. Insurance companies would solve this on their own by offering no frills high deductible insurance. This would work fine without the social engineering aspects of the ACA.

 

And how has that idea worked out over the last several decades?

 

My preference has just two steps to it:

1) Make affordable health coverage available to everyone;

2) Anyone that declines coverage signs a waiver acknowledging personal responsibility for all medical costs they incur and may not receive treatment (including catastrophic or ER) until payment arrangements are made. Bleeding out at the hospital driveway is a realistic possibility.

 

Subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage would still be less than the what service providers (doctors, hospitals, ambulances, etc) currently write off and then pass on to those who do pay.