Post up your "NEW" and "AFFORDABLE" health care rate

UNPOPULAR MANDATE: Why do politicians reverse their positions?

 

They will throw money at it until it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navy_Marine_Corps_Intranet. Is over a billion a year to run and it's still broken.

 

You're clearly also using some strange version of the word socialized that excludes other valid definitions.

The cost of healthcare for those who are a net loss for the insurance companies are being shared by those who are not(socialization) by force of law.

That socialism. If you are being pedantic, that is socialized health insurance for the purposes of healthcare.

 

So how is that different in practical terms than the private health care system we have today, where the uninsured who require life-saving care are cared for anyway as a matter of humane policy, and that care is paid for (in whole or in part) by:

a) taxpayers through county and city hospitals, and through medicaid and medicare
b) the insured through higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles

 

Yes. Because you're:

(a) Forcing people to purchase insurance or pay a fine for not having it, and;

(b) Offsetting the cost of this additional burden by arbitrarily raising the rates of one person to pay for another.

There's no way to define it any differently. This is as socialized as it gets, and it's being forced upon the population by law.

 

And let's not forget that people who pay the fine instead of getting insurance will still get the "free" medical care at your local hospital ER.

 

And yet you left that paradise

 

The government would have been fine if the inventor of the internet had not been hired away by Apple

 

Algore works for Apple?

 

He's on the board if I'm not mistaken.

 

And one day I may leave this one.
What that has to do with health care?

 

Because his rare example sure as hell will NOT be the majority of people's cases, time will tell.

If that's all you got out of his post, you might need to read it again.

That is NOT even remotely the same. How would YOU feel if you did not own a car but were required to maintain car insurance?

I've known a LOT of people in my life who simply do not get sick, I mean not even the occasional headache, why should those people be REQUIRED to buy what will be expensive insurance?

Isn't life already full of BS costs, why are you and people like you so.....OKAY.... with being bent over the racks by politicians?

To simply dismiss this whole ACA crap by inappropriately comparing it to car insurance is ridiculous.

 

Just from the two quotes you provided, I can point out two glaring errors.

In 2008, the Bush Administration proposed, pushed, and signed the Economic Stimulus Act, a deficit-financed tax cut designed to boost the flagging economy. Today, few Republicans admit that a deficit-financed stimulus can work.

A tax cut stimulus which allows taxpayers to keep more of their money to spend and a Keynesian-style stimulus which takes taxpayer money and spends it on government projects (supposedly) to create commerce which is supposed to trickle down have nothing in common other than the descriptive word "stimulus", so the comparison is worse than ridiculous.

This was true of Democrats in the nineteen-nineties, when Bill Clinton passed free trade, deficit reduction, and welfare reform, despite the furious objections of liberals. But in this case the mandate’s supporters simply became its opponents.

Deficit reduction and welfare reform were stuffed down Clinton's throat by a Republican controlled legislature, Democrats wanted nothing to do with it.
Even the result of the so-called Clinton surplus (which only existed through creative bookkeeping) could only be credited to those Republican policies that Clinton was forced to accept.
Those quotes represent historical revision of the highest order.

In conclusion, Obama has been frequently lauded for such things as changing his position 180 degrees on a number of issues, such as gay marriage. The left should have no problem with a politician's evolving position. That's progressive, no?

 

One of our local news sites just put up the results of a poll they did last week. 24% said they would pay the fine instead of buy insurance. If that's true nation wide there's gonna be alot of people saying FU Obama.

 

I bet the percentage will be much higher in the younger age groups they are relying on to make this thing work.
Why would you spend more for insurance you probably won't use, when you can just sign up for it if circumstances ever come to pass where you actually need it?
Studies have shown that polls concerning social issues (like supporting Obamacare because it's the "right thing to do") are skewed by people who give the socially responsible answer rather than their real answer.
People who have no intention of buying the insurance will say they will buy it because they would feel embarrassed to admit they have no intention of doing so, especially if they voted for Obama.
Again, just human nature.

 

Hence my shift from tech funds to health related ones.....have seen a decent increase since the switch too!

It'll only be a matter of time before I use that profit to pay for my brand new shit ACA pushed plan.

I'm thinking his point may be that the healthcare industry has just replaced the black gold industry as far as government involvement is concerned.

Did the majority of level thinking adults in this country KNOW the government is NOT capable of being thrifty spenders? YES

Does the government have countless examples of wasting tax payer monies? YES

Will ACA waste far more money every single year of its existence as has every other government function in this nations history? YES

So while you sit there being a stickler for details in what some people may be saying, even though it may not be 100% on point, NOW, most of us get the point, which is no one wastes other peoples money like the good old government does....

Well, that and as someone else mentioned, they'll just save their money until they're hit with a serious sickness or injury then maybe purchase the plan.






BTW- for someone who's been following this more closely, how does ACA handle welfare recipients?
Are they mandated to purchase a plan, if not, how will it effect the welfare state, will more people plummet to welfare assistance since they won't be able to afford a plan?

 

My premiums increased by 25%, my deductible by 200%, and my yearly out-of-pocket maximum by 100%. <sarcasm>Yay for ACA!</sarcasm>

:down:

 

Keep on keepin on with missing the point (it's not about policy, it's about party). The lesser points in the quotes were 1) whether it's stimulus via tax breaks or stimulus via spending, it's still deficit stimulus, which is fine with the GOP until a Dem's in the White house; 2) Clinton did not have a 180 on free trade, deficit reduction, and welfare reform, unlike many in the GOP who were for Romneycare until it became Obamacare.

"The Unskewers Return! Cruz, Others Dispute GOP's Lousy Poll Numbers"
They've got the Dems right where they want them. Dems are going to cave at 10, 9, 8 ... (2014, 2016, ...)

 

All depends what industry you're in, cost of sales and labor. I earned a very comfortable living and retirement on a GP substantially lower than 40%.

 

Well, at least now we know how you got your name. :up: