The Case For Obamacare

[C-NICE]

I know I am probably a minority in this view, but there are some arguments for Obamacare if you are HOH. We incur a fair bit of medical expenses(Audiologist, Ents, HAs & possible CIs later on). Insurance has been of spotty assistance to me at best with all this and also being a Type 1 Diabetic I have had just about enough of medical expences but this is just my personal view.

 

[DeafBadger]

I know I am probably a minority in this view, but there are some arguments for Obamacare if you are HOH. We incur a fair bit of medical expenses(Audiologist, Ents, HAs & possible CIs later on). Insurance has been of spotty assistance to me at best with all this and also being a Type 1 Diabetic I have had just about enough of medical expences but this is just my personal view.

Rest assured, you are not a minority in that view.

At this point, I am personally a bit undecided on the merits of the Affordable Care Act, but I'm not nearly as freaked out as some conservatives seem to be. Overall, I think the Act *could* be a good thing. I'm just in the process of learning more about it.

But there are plenty of people who support the Act. You are not a minority in that view.

 

[airportcop]

I understand the need for healthcare reform to an extent, but to force Americans to purchase government insurance or be fined in taxes is just plain wrong. That part and some other parts should have been found unconstitutional as well. How are we going to pay for this as individuals and as a nation? Forcing certain provisions on churches and religious institutions that they do not support is wrong as well. How can the government properly run healthcare when it can't run itself?

 

[Foxrac]

I understand the need for healthcare reform to an extent, but to force Americans to purchase government insurance or be fined in taxes is just plain wrong. That part and some other parts should have been found unconstitutional as well. How are we going to pay for this as individuals and as a nation? Forcing certain provisions on churches and religious institutions that they do not support is wrong as well. How can the government properly run healthcare when it can't run itself?

1) You are not FORCED to buy government insurance. You have choice to buy insurance from your workplace or insurance from state exchange. The insurance from exchanges are private with government subsidies. If you have insurance from your workplace so you will not subject to 1% tax/penalty.

2) US Supreme Court has ruled ACA as constitutional and they recognized individual mandate as tax.

 

[airportcop]

1) You are not FORCED to buy government insurance. You have choice to buy insurance from your workplace or insurance from state exchange. The insurance from exchanges are private with government subsidies. If you have insurance from your workplace so you will not subject to 1% tax/penalty.

2) US Supreme Court has ruled ACA as constitutional and they recognized individual mandate as tax.

Why should the government force anyone to buy insurance if they don't want it?! What if they are very comfortably wealthy and choose to pay their bills off in cash or when they are received? Why should they be penalized? What if these people have been healthy all their lives and saved for serious illness just in case but choose not to waste money on insurance premiums? Why should they be penalized?

What is next? You can't eat that Big Mac and french fries with the large Coke or Chocolate shake!? You can't drive that car that only gets 12 MPG even though you can afford the gas and it is a classic that you have as a hobby?! Some people will simply still not be able to pay for the insurance or the fine in taxes! What about them???!!! America the free? Not so free anymore!?

 

[Foxrac]

Why should the government force anyone to buy insurance if they don't want it?! What if they are very comfortably wealthy and choose to pay their bills off in cash or when they are received? Why should they be penalized? What if these people have been healthy all their lives and saved for serious illness just in case but choose not to waste money on insurance premiums? Why should they be penalized?

What is next? You can't eat that Big Mac and french fries with the large Coke or Chocolate shake!? You can't drive that car that only gets 12 MPG even though you can afford the gas and it is a classic that you have as a hobby?! Some people will simply still not be able to pay for the insurance or the fine in taxes! What about them???!!! America the free? Not so free anymore!?

Individual mandate is necessary to put massive people in insurance's pool to cut the health care cost and the insurance could go bankrupt if they only cover sick people. It is very expensive for insurance to cover sick people only and the hospitals lost a lot of money to treat uninsured patients that force us to pay a piece for uninsured patients. The insurance premiums are used to treat general patients and the medical care will not slap with any hardship when deal with uninsured patients who couldn't afford to pay medical bill that push medical care to increase the cost.

For wealthily people, they could afford to pay 1% tax/penalty to not have an insurance and having an insurance will save money than spill all money on medical care.

For 2nd paragraph, I'm not going debate because it is irreverent to topic.

 

[airportcop]

Individual mandate is necessary to put massive people in insurance's pool to cut the health care cost and the insurance could go bankrupt if they only cover sick people. It is very expensive for insurance to cover sick people only and the hospitals lost a lot of money to treat uninsured patients that force us to pay a piece for uninsured patients. The insurance premiums are used to treat general patients and the medical care will not slap with any hardship when deal with uninsured patients who couldn't afford to pay medical bill that push medical care to increase the cost.

For wealthily people, they could afford to pay 1% tax/penalty to not have an insurance and having an insurance will save money than spill all money on medical care.

For 2nd paragraph, I'm not going debate because it is irreverent to topic.

So you think it is okay to penalize perfectly healthy people who choose not have have or buy insurance? How is that fair?

 

[DeafBadger]

Just want to point out that the 'individual mandate' has been used for decades in legally mandating that all drivers purchase auto insurance. (For which there are good reasons.) It is not really an unusual concept to require citizens to purchase insurance. It is the first time to require citizens to purchase health insurance, though.

For 2nd paragraph, I'm not going debate because it is irreverent to topic.

I think you meant to say 'irrelevant'?

 

[DeafBadger]

So you think it is okay to penalize perfectly healthy people who choose not have have or buy insurance? How is that fair?

Perfectly good drivers who have never been in an auto accident are still required to buy auto insurance. Does that mean they should not be required to buy auto insurance?

Because I am currently taking Intro to Statistics, this debate is interesting. It seems that by increasing the population covered by insurance, it would probably have the overall effect of lowering premiums/costs for every one. If the population of insured was smaller, it would be more difficult to spread the cost and risk.

Spreading the cost and risk makes costs cheaper and risks lower for everyone, which is, of course, the way insurance of any kind is designed to function.

 

[airportcop]

Just want to point out that the 'individual mandate' has been used for decades in legally mandating that all drivers purchase auto insurance. (For which there are good reasons.) It is not really an unusual concept to require citizens to purchase insurance. It is the first time to require citizens to purchase health insurance, though.



I think you meant to say 'irrelevant'?

Yes, but in most states you can also have something called proof of financial responsibility in place of insurance. That is how it is in Missouri.

 

[DeafBadger]

Yes, but in most states you can also have something called proof of financial responsibility in place of insurance. That is how it is in Missouri.

One would have to be a multi-millionaire before one could begin to consider self-insuring their own automobile liability. I have heard of this option regarding auto insurance, but I have never heard of anyone actually exercising this option.

Even if I were a multi-millionaire, I wouldn't self-insure. Why? It makes more sense for my personal finances to spread the risk and cost to a whole pool of insurance purchasers. A nasty accident could potentially cause me to be liable for over a million dollars if someone was killed or maimed. Why would I want to fork over a million dollars of my own money, when I could have purchased auto insurance and spread the risk to a larger pool?

Even if I had the option of self-insuring, I wouldn't take it.

Do you think that Warren Buffett (a billionaire) self-insures, or do you think he purchases auto insurance (he drives himself around)? This is a man who is a master at protecting his wealth. I think he would buy insurance because he would protect a couple million dollars of his wealth as much as he would protect a couple billion dollars of his wealth.

 

[Foxrac]

So you think it is okay to penalize perfectly healthy people who choose not have have or buy insurance? How is that fair?

Go re-read my post.

The insurance need mixed of healthy people and sick people in their pool to cut the medical cost.

Yup, if healthly people don't want health insurance so they will be penalized, of course.

 

[Foxrac]

Just want to point out that the 'individual mandate' has been used for decades in legally mandating that all drivers purchase auto insurance. (For which there are good reasons.) It is not really an unusual concept to require citizens to purchase insurance. It is the first time to require citizens to purchase health insurance, though.



I think you meant to say 'irrelevant'?

Yup, I means to say irrelevant.

Thank you for correct my spelling and tsk tsk to Mac auto-correction.

 

[TXgolfer]

Just want to point out that the 'individual mandate' has been used for decades in legally mandating that all drivers purchase auto insurance. (For which there are good reasons.) It is not really an unusual concept to require citizens to purchase insurance. It is the first time to require citizens to purchase health insurance, though.



I think you meant to say 'irrelevant'?

Driving is a privilege. No comparison

 

[TXgolfer]

Perfectly good drivers who have never been in an auto accident are still required to buy auto insurance. Does that mean they should not be required to buy auto insurance?

Because I am currently taking Intro to Statistics, this debate is interesting. It seems that by increasing the population covered by insurance, it would probably have the overall effect of lowering premiums/costs for every one. If the population of insured was smaller, it would be more difficult to spread the cost and risk.

Spreading the cost and risk makes costs cheaper and risks lower for everyone, which is, of course, the way insurance of any kind is designed to function.

That is why they call it "Intro". Lol j/k. Factor in the number of people who will go in drug seeking and for every ache and pain not to mention the shortage of Dr's and costs will skyrocket. The costs are already going up. My "wife"s just went up $650/year. This will be a bigger mess that Social Security and Medicare combined. IMO. Unless we kill it of course.

 

[Reba]

Perfectly good drivers who have never been in an auto accident are still required to buy auto insurance. Does that mean they should not be required to buy auto insurance?...

The difference is, the auto insurance that's required is for liability. Health insurance isn't a liability insurance.

 

[deafdrummer]

Spreading the cost and risk makes costs cheaper and risks lower for everyone, which is, of course, the way insurance of any kind is designed to function.

Problem is, this is called "socializing the risk and expenses to everyone else." The car insurance thing is just one layer of socialization of America. How many layers of taxation can we have before we have a Greek situation? Look at Greece's 45% taxation rate as well as a proposed increase to send that over 50% (I think it was 52% being proposed). How would you like half your income going to the Feds?

Let me clue you in on something. In 2012, a family member, who works for the government, has taken trips to California, Costa Rica, several states and touristy things, has done zip lining, gone to all kinds of social functions, and now, she's heading to visit family several states over. At your dime. At my dime, too, since I work and pay taxes. Even though she's family, I don't think that's right, since she does not do anything PRODUCTIVE. I travel out of state ONCE a year and have to pay for it over 6 months.

It would be interesting to see if there is an America 10 years from now, at the rate we're going. The last President of the United States, whether it be next year or 20 years from now, would probably have to sign a similar document that Gorbachev signed in late 1991, which turned the final page on the USSR and closed the Chapter on that stage of history. Through history, ALL empires have fallen. It didn't matter how bright the fires burned during the Imperialist periods of these civilizations.

Only we are doing it much faster than the British empire did it through paper money (as we have digital money today), and even faster than the Romans did it because they didn't have the printing press that had been invented nearly two thousands years later. It took hundreds of years for Rome to collapse. Archaeology bears this out with analysis of Roman coins minted at different times through its history.

And today, very few people have any idea what is happening, never mind why.

Look at Europe as an example of utter incompetence and thievery that exists at the highest level of government on down. Look at Moldova, a communist country that is in dire straights today.

Another problem is that this economy (as it is a CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY - COMMUNISM) misallocates natural resources, capital, and human talent into areas where it is not needed. China is getting to be a good example of it, with money having disappeared into 1) the real estate market and several UNOCCUPIED cities built there, 2) spools of industrial metal sheets sitting in warehouses, even near streets in places, and 3) employment that will definitely fall because you cannot build nor produce for the sake of building and producing. There has to be an economic need for supply and demand. I've NEVER forgotten this lesson I learned in my high school political science class in the 80s.

Nobody said anything about this - WHERE IS THE MONEY TO FUND THIS PROGRAM going to come from? The US Gov't is already operating in a deficit unheard of in American history!! It gets printed up. Or how about, digitized into the computer? That's even faster! Just hit a few numbers plus 12 ZEROS and you have your $1.5T deficit.

 

[DeafBadger]

Driving is a privilege. No comparison

Do you mean to suggest that health care is not a privilege, then? If it isn't a privilege, would that suggest that health care is of greater importance than driving?

That is why they call it "Intro". Lol j/k. Factor in the number of people who will go in drug seeking and for every ache and pain not to mention the shortage of Dr's and costs will skyrocket. The costs are already going up. My "wife"s just went up $650/year. This will be a bigger mess that Social Security and Medicare combined. IMO. Unless we kill it of course.

But don't health insurers do everything they can to quibble with medical offices over costs and charges, and deny claims they feel are extravagant, such as drug-seeking? (My sister used to work for a health insurance company -- it sounds like they contest nearly every claim unless an employer pays extra for the extra-special package, like Microsoft does. (Microsoft's employees have virtually every claim paid for, no questions asked.)) My work insurance definitely has mechanisms in place to detect and prevent this sort of activity. I imagine it wouldn't be different under the ACA, since these too are private health insurers who aim to limit their costs and reduce waste. The bulk of this insurance will be handled by private insurers, if I understand correctly.

I'm really curious what the experience in Massachusetts has been of the similar program put in place by Governor Romney. It's been in operation for a number of years now, I'd like to see how their costs have fared in the long run. Surely that would give a good idea of what the rest of the country can expect.

 

[Foxrac]

The difference is, the auto insurance that's required is for liability. Health insurance isn't a liability insurance.

Not having health insurance and inability to pay medical bill held us to liable for increase the medical cost.

 

[DeafBadger]

The difference is, the auto insurance that's required is for liability. Health insurance isn't a liability insurance.

Why do you feel this changes the nature of the insurance and the justification for a legal mandate to purchase coverage? Txgolfer said that driving is a privilege, as distinct from healthcare, which implies to me that perhaps healthcare is not a privilege. If healthcare then is not a privilege, does that mean it is a necessity? If healthcare is a necessity, does that mean health coverage/insurance is of bigger importance than auto insurance?

It seems to me that whether it is a liability or not is besides the point. Both are costs. Driving is perhaps an avoidable cost depending on your living situation, but health care is not an avoidable cost. If one lives long enough, their health costs will materialize and probably increase dramatically as a result of aging and related health problems.

(Sincere questions here.)