The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Supreme Court upholds health care law

9K views 151 replies 28 participants last post by  kitten_Val 
#1 · (Edited)
Supreme Court upholds health care law - NBC Politics

So here are my questions though...

What about those with Medicare? Should they also buy insurance?

What about people with preconditions? At the moment if you have some precondition most insurances don't want to take you OR you have to pay LOTS of money ($700/month or so). So if I make, say, $1500 - 2000/month and have precondition, how in world can I afford to buy an insurance? And then you'll be charged with "tax" if you don't buy one? Sounds rather inconsistent...
 
#4 ·
Looks like the fire's going under the Tea Party now! I'm off to rally bc I don't like rationed health care.
Read Mitch McConnell's well written press release:
Press Releases - News - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell

Don't be afraid of this precedent. If precedents ruled our lives, the court system wouldn't allow arguments.
REMEMBER, this is a law, NOT a Constitutional Amendment, and we replealed Prohibition with the 21st. It CAN and WILL be done.
 
#5 ·
I tried to find any actual numbers on how much you have to pay for insurance with this law, and I couldn't find anything (only how much you'll be charged if you don't buy one). Has anyone seen it?
 
#8 ·
I'm struggling to figure this out also.
My insurance is around $700 a month. Hub has a "Pre existing" condition so we struggle EVERYDAY to continue. Our rate has risen EXPONENTIALLY over the last two years because he had a flair up.

So as I understand it:
1. If he goes 6 months without healthcare insurance he will qualify for "free" coverage. Not sure where or how, but we DON'T WANT TO DO THIS!
2. So now it's a TAX. What they promised it wasn't.
3. Now say a person around 65 HAS to go get coverage, raising rates for everyone because they can't be denied even if they are very ill
4. It's cheaper for say, a young person with no problems to pay this tax instead of paying say $2,400 a year.
5. Then because they can't be denied they can go get a policy when they find out they need one.
6. This again raises the costs for EVERYONE with private insurance.
7. Everyone is supposedly getting a rebate from their insurance company this year. They knew it was coming and increased their prices to cover this "rebate".

Val, I don't know the answer to your question. Right now we could get a VERY cheap insurance policy. We were ECSTATIC when we found it... Then we read the fine print. No cancer, large organ failure, and a couple other biggies included! What? That's really the only reason one needs it!

So I don't know what to do. Subbing to see if someone else understands this better than I.
 
#9 ·
.

Insurance Costs | HealthCare.gov

Obamacare Taxes: Deep Impact

Employers of 50 or more will be forced to provide Health Insurance or face a Tax Penalty

People who do not Purchase Healthcare Insurance will be subject to a 1% wealth Tax Penalty.

Medicade will be cut over 500 Billion Dollars by this Plan

Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act :twisted:

Can anyone tell me how this make Healthcare affordable to anyone but the Rich?

Can anyone tell me WHY Insurance Companies will lower their Premiums as now we are Forced to but from them?

Can anyone tell me why Hospitals will quit gouging for their Services now that this is has passed the Supreme Court?

80% of what I see is a way to generate more Taxes for the Spend Thrifty Government

The Good News is, when John Roberts remarked on Obamocare is considered a Tax and the final SCOTUS ruling, this will lead to a filabuster proof Congress and make it a lot easier to repeal as it is considered a TAX.... sneaky that Roberts Guy is :lol:



.
 
#12 ·
I was shocked when he did it, now it's becoming more clear. Very wise.
Now, everyone in Washington needs to be replaced. Some of this is good, some is bad, it's up to us and the market to decide, not the Gov.

Last night I went to a dinner party and met an AMAZING woman from GB. She Immigrated here 20 years ago. She was the first woman to parachute off the Eiffel tower, she hand makes world renowned parachute harnesses, teaches motorcycle classes, you name it. She moved here to get away from Europe and welfare states. She also said she could never have done all this in GB.
She said that then and now, the US is the last hope on the PLANET where a person with a strong work ethic and a dream can come to succeed. In the past several years she has been pounding her head in frustration because we are following in the footsteps of Europe, all miserable failures.

I hope this all works out for the best.
Thanks for those links.
 
#22 ·
Last night I went to a dinner party and met an AMAZING woman from GB. She Immigrated here 20 years ago. She was the first woman to parachute off the Eiffel tower, she hand makes world renowned parachute harnesses, teaches motorcycle classes, you name it. She moved here to get away from Europe and welfare states. She also said she could never have done all this in GB.
She said that then and now, the US is the last hope on the PLANET where a person with a strong work ethic and a dream can come to succeed. In the past several years she has been pounding her head in frustration because we are following in the footsteps of Europe, all miserable failures.

I hope this all works out for the best.
Thanks for those links.
Purely in the interest of balance I'm just popping into this discussion to say that the vast majority of people in the UK are strong supporters of our National Health Care System. We all pay National Insurance Tax which contributes to the cost of the NHS. And everyone is covered by the NHS. Thank goodness!

Sure, there are debates here about the level of taxes we pay, and the cost of the NHS, and 'whether smokers should be treated for lung disease', and what elective surgery should or should not be covered by the NHS.... but you'd be looking for a needle in a haystack if you tried to find a wannabe Member of Parliament who wasn't a supporter of the basic tenet of universal health care through the NHS. He or she just wouldn't get elected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cherie
#13 ·
Long Live John Roberts.

I for one am elated that the Mandate was upheld.
Getting millions insured will reduce the burden on all of us.
Having insurance is important and requiring people to buy it is as Chief Justice Roberts wrote a form of another tax.
The Affordable Healthcare Act will assure the health not only of individuals in this country but our countries economic health as well.
Shalom
 
#14 ·
I for one am elated that the Mandate was upheld.
Getting millions insured will reduce the burden on all of us.
Having insurance is important and requiring people to buy it is as Chief Justice Roberts wrote a form of another tax.
The Affordable Healthcare Act will assure the health not only of individuals in this country but our countries economic health as well.
Shalom
As usual, I admire your intent, but you need to face reality. Obamacare has a long and bumpy road ahead of it before it - if ever - becomes anything significant. There are things imbedded within the program that will be decided by the Supreme Court down the line. And despite what you might think to the contrary, there is no way we can pay for it. Heck, even the Democratic leadership is beginning to admit that - don't you listen to your own folks?

Your elation surprises me a bit for a couple of reasons that affect you and your patients directly.

First is the fact that the government will be able to seize people's medical records. That is a violation of both the letter and principle of HIPAA, and will no doubt end up as a Supreme Court case. In the case of your own patients, that means their drug and mental issues would go directly into their dossier. Between hacking, leaks, and such, their issues would be far from private. I have a real big problem with that myself, and I would think you would too, as that virtually destroys patient confidentiality.

The second issue is the fact that the court decided it was not constitutional for the federal government to force states to expand their Medicaid programs. I believe the current count stands somewhere around 30 states that are not going to do so, and I suspect more will follow. Sadly, this will limit how much Obamacare will help those the program is intended to help to begin with - those without the means to secure insurance on their own. I'm honesstly not sure where that will leave us. As silly as it may sound, we may end up with segregated states - it is possible that poor people may migrate to those states with the better handouts. We could end up with 30 states with predominantly kiddle and upper class people, and 20 states with predominantly poor people. This could also portend a massive migration that would have a lot of demographic rammifications.

In different times, I wouldn't view these and other issues withthe flawed legislation as major stumbling blocks. Historically it is not uncommon to pass legislation and then go through a period of modifications until it is actually viable. But in this day and time, as polarized as we are, I can't see that happening. As I said, Obamacare is in for a long, bumy ride before anything comes of it - if ever.

Some of the provisions of Obamacare are both good and needed - I don't know of any reasonable person that would argue that. But the package as a whole is flawed, inefficient, far less inclusive than intended, and of course carries a price tag neither the public, business, or government can meet.

Of course that's inevitable when you have a bunch of wacko liberals passing legislation behind closed doors, and then make the famous Pelosi remark that Congress needs to pass it so they can see what it says. Obamacare will never come to full fruition without consensus, and as long as their are morons like Pelosi - on both sides of the isle - consensus will never happen. Whether it is this fall or 2 or 4 or 8 or however many years from now, Obamacare will be repealed - unless it is modified, of course to become viable. I'm just not sure what event or series of events it will take to get both sides of the isle working to gether to modify it. Right now it seems as if the term compromise is no longer in the beltway dictionary...
 
#15 ·
I going to make this one comment. This subject I can not get my head around... Its complexes and did I say complexes?

I miss my NHS back at home! not perfect but I had less issues with front line treatment and seen a doc than I do in Maine.

Right now tho my wife spending $400 a month on my care though her state. I told her to drop me because now we are fighting to keep the house as well feeding and paying gas and trying to get ready for next winter. Also I hardly see the doctor and I am now worried that as we can not get any support of any kind this going to to cost me more one way or another...
 
#17 ·
Faceman both of us agree that our present and past system of providing healthcare needed reform
Yes there will be more challenges and the system and provisions will need to be adjusted as the AHA becomes effective.
We as a nation had to do something.
I volunteer here at an AIDS service organization.
There are 1,000 active clients that utilize the services of the agency.
Most are using Medicare or Medicaid to pay for their Medical needs.
We have always encouraged our clients to work.
However if they do they could lose their access to medical care.
the affordable Healthcare Act will prevent insurance companies from denying them insurance due to pre existing conditions.
We can now encourage people to work and provide for themselves.
Regain their independence and dignity.
You and I both understand that any legislatioin will not satisfy everyone.
On another note,
What are yuour feelings about the Chief Justice's surprise stance on the issue.
I and others thought it would be up to Kennedy.
Perhaps we have another Sandra Day O Conner. Shalom
 
#33 ·
Faceman...On another note,
What are yuour feelings about the Chief Justice's surprise stance on the issue.
I and others thought it would be up to Kennedy.
Perhaps we have another Sandra Day O Conner. Shalom
I don't like politics on the Supreme Court. I am not naive and realize that a conservative person will have different leanings than a liberal person, and therefore interpret constitutionality a bit differently, but I would like to see much less political involvement.

I believe the decision was the correct one, and give kudos to Roberts for voting for what was right rather than giving in to his political leanings.

However, even though I believe the decision was correct, the case was merely to decide the constitutionality of the law - not the merits of the law.

I still oppose Obamacare and think it should be repealed if it cannot be modified to be viable. As I think I said earlier, you are living in a fantasy world if you think it is viable as it stands. Your interpretation of the costs is out of date and incorrect. Even the Democrats are admitting the cost is going to be far higher than the initial hype, which was lies of course, and many Democrats have become as concerned with the real cost as the Republicans have been all along. Nothing is free, which you and most liberals don't seem to be able to fully grasp. There is a limit on how much you can tax the 50% of the population that pays tax. We are not able to meet our obligations now with 50% of the people carrying 100% of the load. All of Obama's proposals reflect his intent to reduce that even farther, having only 40% of the people carry 100% of the load. That is insanity, quite frankly. Small business formation and expansion, and their accompanying job creation, is already greatly stifled by excessive taxes and regulations. Liberals do not seem to understand that 10 people or entities paying a 25% tax generates more revenues than 4 people or entities paying a 50% tax. I don't know if liberals have poor math skills or can't afford a $10 calculator or what their problem is. In any case, the first order of business should be to get our economy in order - then look for ways to improve our healthcare system and/or our quality of life. You guys are putting the cart before the horse. You are concerned about your patients, which I understand, but if the economy were robust, they could get good jobs with good benefits, which would resolve much of their problem. Sure, pre-existing conditions should not be an issue, and sure, there should be no catastophic limits, but those kinds of issues can be attaacked without jeopardizing our national economic condition and prolonging the recession, which quite frankly, economic formulas aside, is actually a depression where the rubber meets the road.

We need a starting point to resolve our healthcare issues. And Obamacare COULD be a starting point (as ANY plan could, regardless of its origin). But that is in theory. But when it comes to practical applications, as I said in an earlier post, we are too polarized in this point of history to modify that plan to the extent it needs to be modified to make it viable. That is why it will be repealed at some point. I wish the situation were different - I wish we could take that proposal, modify it, implement it, and move on down the road. But I think it is unrealistic and idealistic to seriously consider that possible at this time...
 
#18 ·
one of the provisions of the law is to make preexisting conditions not elibible as reasons for exclusion.
I am not sure how I personally will fare with this new law. From what I have heard , out health care system was at the point of collapse anyway. Well, maybe not collapse. But the need to pay for the many poor people who got their medical care at emergency rooms, funded by donations from the hospital, then fobbed off on paying customers was about to bring down the system anyway. And Medicare, too. It really was at a WE MUST DO SOMETHING place.

I don't know enough about this new law to have an opinon on it. It does make me wary though.
 
#19 ·
I give it a year before it gets axed by the new administration.
I also foresee the people that voted for it getting tossed in November.
I foresee the"crack the whip" effect...the people are ******, and w will come out come November.
The crack heads that put this abomination into place will find themselves in the unemployment lines, it will be repealed in its entirety, and there will be a reckoning trading place.
We have more people receiving entitlements than eve before in history.
W have government agencies PROMOTING welfare and similar programs.
We have the fewest people employed in the history of our great nation.
The notion that we can spend ourselves into prosperity is tantamount to trying to tell me that its possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
It is an unsustainable model of society, it is fiscally impossible, and I am quite sure there will be a fight about it in one way or another.
Will it help some people? Yes.
However, to help 30 million, 420 million just got hosed in a bad way.
Oh, wait, my bad. Almost forgot.
25% of us receive some sort of subsidy, the true unemployment rate is well above 15% when taking into consideration people who quit looking for work, and we have more debt than we can fathom.
So, respectfully to everyone, I appreciate your perspectives on this hot topic, but of we hope to have any semblance of survivability as a nation, this trash has to go.
Sorry if my thoughts hurt your feelings, or you stand to gain with it, but the facts are the facts, and it id an unsustainable path.
Europe already did this type of thing.
It failed miserably.
Massachsetts tried it.
They almost went bankrupt shortly after inception because it was unsustainable
 
#20 ·
AZ I do not share your contempt for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
This is a lnadmark decision that will affect us all . More people will now have access to preventive healthcare than ever before.
This alone will reduce the amount of money the federal government provides to state and local medical facilities.
Thereby saving money for all Americans.
This decision will probably not cost Obama or the Democrats any votes.
Those opposed to the measure were not likely to vote for Obama anyway.
The majority of americans do see the benefits of the AHA.
The unpopular part was the mandate that required Americans that are uninsured to purchase insurance.
Shalom
 
#23 ·
Americans have never supported Obamacare, that is a fact. Anywhere from 55% to 65% have opposed it from day one, as you see the majority wants it repealed even with its few good points.

"A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 36 percent of voters nationwide think the president's health care plan is a good idea. That means a solid majority of the electorate--64 percent--think the plan is either a bad idea (45 percent) or are unsure about it (19 percent). Moreover, nearly half of those polled (49 percent) would like to see the law repealed; 42 percent oppose repeal."

Health - Ron Faucheux - Poll: Only 36 Percent of Americans Support the Affordable Care Act - The Atlantic

Even the Obama-nation of a Law does have a few good points, no one disputes that, no one disputes we need some kind of reform.....

I can post links all day long, but it does no good for some, I have already previously posted links of the unseen costs no one wants to talk about.

90% of the people who do not have health insurance do not want it at any price, those 90% can get quality Insurance for under 150.00 a month if they chose too.

The premise that it will save everyone money is the biggest hoax since the Martians landed.

Have you not read how this plan will cut some services of Medicade, how it will hurt small business.

There are better ways to help people who can't afford Healthcare than Obamacare, but some defend it for no other reason than a Democrat thought if it.

95% of the Democrats never read the Bill before they voted on it.... Let's get real.

Now that people have actually read it, they know how bad it is.

Those opposed to the measure were not likely to vote for Obama anyway
Great, according to that statement Obama will loose by a landslide ...lol...



.
 
#21 ·
Don't know about other states but where I'm living we're already under state government mandatory auto insurance and annual auto inspections so the idea of mandatory insurance coverage is not an entirely new one.

Yep, Massachusetts was Romney care wasn't it?

Don't know what it will take to fix the healthcare system. A lot less greed but seems you can't mandate that.
maybe a nationwide movement to vote all the current congressmen out and start new cause it really won't matter who the president is if congress behaves like a bunch of spoiled kids. Why dont we replace them with some of the currently unemployed people and we could even cut back on the benefits and freeze raises and the unemployed would probably still think it's a good deal.
 
#30 ·
I do agree with making Healthcare Affordable, I also agree with cutting the gap of costs for Insurance between those with pre-existing conditions and those without.

As far as preventative care mandates, as a Consumer I should have the Right to pay for what I want and what I don't want.

A simple Affordable Care Act of less than 100 pages could have been passed with some simple things like...

- Shopping for Healthcare Insurance across State Lines, this creates competition keeping Costs Lower.
- Eliminating frivolous Lawsuits.
- A provision to do a way with discrimination of Pricing on Policies
- Make provisions for Allowing Consumers to buy the Portion of Insurance they want.

Of course Common Sense will tell you Insurance Companies will Charge EVERYONE more to make up for the difference in the High Risk Groups, I am willing to pay a little more on my plan to help those people.

The 2,409 page Obamacare is not about Affordable Healthcare it is about Tax Revenue for the Government, it is about Political Power over the un-educated, the Democrats will Campaign as they have already on One Thing "if you repeal Obamacare the old will die and children with Autism will sufferer" Obama's own words....

Forget Party Lines and look at some Facts and Common Sense, do you really think the Republicans want people to die and suffer?, no they want a Plan that will not Bankrupt America and actually Reduce Healthcare Costs so everyone can afford Insurance.

I have read over half of the 2,400 page Obamacare, it is quite shocking what is hidden in it, it will do more harm to America than it will help...... I urge everyone to actually do some reading and don't be like Pelosi and most of the other Democrats and say Oh, lets pass it we will read it later...lol...

We need an Affordable Care Act that is what it says, affordable for Everyone and will actually reduce Healthcare Costs!, not the lie that we have now.



.
 
#26 ·
Years ago when Tommy Douglas had watched children die because of extreme poverty (Depression) he publicly voices his concerns for a nation health care program whereby everyone had the right to medical care. He was branded with all matter of ugly terms and investigated. It is to him we owe a great debt of gratitude. Our province when thro a time where a family had to pay a monthly premium based on income but it was about $100. That was eliminated years ago. Obama's plan is that you pay a rate based on income. When Medicare was introduced here, my uncle doctor said that now he would get paid for every patient.
 
#29 ·
One of the more interesting things I have read about yesterdays scotus decision was comments by justice Roberts.
He essentially defined the mandate as a tax, making it applicable under reconciliation, and making it a little easier to repeal, as it only requires 51% majority instead of 60%.
While I do think everyone deserves healthcare in some fashion, I also think that if you want it, you best figure out how to make it happen for yourself.
I'm so very tired of people living off my tax dollars and not lifting a finger for their own betterment.
Folks that are physically able to work, yet perform no useful function at or expense is what I take issue with. Not those who are totally unable to work, or their caregivers.
 
#31 ·
AZ thats my point.
With the ability to get insured despite pre conditions the people that have chronic illnesses can return to work.
AIDS medication cost thousands of dollars a month for 1 prescription.
You must take a combination of three.
Some people have medication that totals 9,000 $ a month.
They utilize Medicare or Medicaid.
Now they can become employed and access insurance.
In the long run this will save the US billions and insurance companies can no longer pick and choose their customers. Shalom
 
#35 ·
With the ability to get insured despite pre conditions the people that have chronic illnesses can return to work.
dba, but lots of people with precondition work. I don't think people stay off work just to use Medicaid or Medicare simply because they have a precondition. Frankly I doubt this particular reason will save billions.
 
#39 · (Edited)
I am thrilled the law was upheld and I think the voters will uphold it in November when they vote.

I was uninsurable because of my Arthritis and Degenerative Joint Disease in my spine. Before I was dropped all together, my rates were over $1500.00 / month with a $5000.00 deductible - for just me. I was tickled to turn 65 and get on Medicare with a supplement. I, once again have insurance.

I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die (like the Tea Party members that cheered at the idea at one of the Republican debates) than see any kind of universal health care should face a loss of their good insurance.

Every person I have talked to about the bill and the problem that opposed the health care act ALL HAD INSURANCE. You get a pretty prejudiced opinion from those people.

We personally know people that have died of very treatable diseases or would not see a Doctor when they should because they had no insurance or way to pay. If you own anything and have a low paying job, you can lose everything to one health problem or accident. Health insurance for lower income people is not even an option. Preventive health care is not an option. Low income people often have to chose between food and a Doctor and the emergency room becomes their Doctor. ER waits are frequently 24 hours or more in big cities. Preventive health care is non-existant to these people.

More than 80% of bankruptcies filed site medical bills as the major problem contributing to the action. Medical bills are responsible for a huge number of foreclosures.

As cited before, many people refuse to work just so they have Medicaid for their children or for serious health problems. This is not just a few. There are many right here in the small town I live near.

When you cite polls -- they are mostly done by phone and are entirely done on land-lines. This tilts the numbers toward older and more conservative voters. They ignore young voters that only have cell phones or Computer phones like Vonnage. On the street, you see a LOT more acceptance of of Obama and Universal Health Care than you see reflected in land-line polls. I just hope they get out and vote.

When people find out how many good things are going to happen to THEM because of this bill and combine that with very popular parts of it (like children being able to stay on parents' policies until they are 26) and 'caps' removed for catastrophic illnesses, i think there will be fewer and fewer that want to get rid of it -- especially since no Republican has offered any other plan to help any of the the people that have no access or no money for health care or insurance but still work or want to work.
 
#42 ·
I am thrilled the law was upheld and I think the voters will uphold it in November when they vote.

I was uninsurable because of my Arthritis and Degenerative Joint Disease in my spine. Before I was dropped all together, my rates were over $1500.00 / month with a $5000.00 deductible - for just me. I was tickled to turn 65 and get on Medicare with a supplement. I, once again have insurance.

I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die (like the Tea Party members that cheered at the idea at one of the Republican debates) than see any kind of universal health care should face a loss of their good insurance.

Every person I have talked to about the bill and the problem that opposed the health care act ALL HAD INSURANCE. You get a pretty prejudiced opinion from those people.

We personally know people that have died of very treatable diseases or would not see a Doctor when they should because they had no insurance or way to pay. If you own anything and have a low paying job, you can lose everything to one health problem or accident. Health insurance for lower income people is not even an option. Preventive health care is not an option. Low income people often have to chose between food and a Doctor and the emergency room becomes their Doctor. ER waits are frequently 24 hours or more in big cities. Preventive health care is non-existant to these people.

More than 80% of bankruptcies filed site medical bills as the major problem contributing to the action. Medical bills are responsible for a huge number of foreclosures.

As cited before, many people refuse to work just so they have Medicaid for their children or for serious health problems. This is not just a few. There are many right here in the small town I live near.

When you cite polls -- they are mostly done by phone and are entirely done on land-lines. This tilts the numbers toward older and more conservative voters. They ignore young voters that only have cell phones or Computer phones like Vonnage. On the street, you see a LOT more acceptance of of Obama and Universal Health Care than you see reflected in land-line polls. I just hope they get out and vote.

When people find out how many good things are going to happen to THEM because of this bill and combine that with very popular parts of it (like children being able to stay on parents' policies until they are 26) and 'caps' removed for catastrophic illnesses, i think there will be fewer and fewer that want to get rid of it -- especially since no Republican has offered any other plan to help any of the the people that have no access or no money for health care or insurance but still work or want to work.
I'm trying to work out the math here, if one has to pay $1500 for health insurance prior to age 65 and prior to this health care reform measure, how would they be any better off if they have to pay $1500 after the measuse was passed but prior to age 65??? NOWHERE does this bill say, in plain english, how much anyone will "have to" pay.

I can see why people that currently have private insurance are upset. Its the "unknown" factor - as in it is entirely "unknown" how thier current rates will be affected by this measure, and it will remain unknown for some time. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, so they will raise their rates if this law causes them to lose more money than the years w/o it. The only entity that operates w/o a care for profit or amount spend is the government, which gets its money from loans from China and the Fed, the taxpayer, the taxpayer's children, their children's children, etc.,.
 
#40 ·
Well, once again its all about "obama", and not the health care problems which existed long before this obamination of a health care "reform" law. It seems that people that are "for it" feel it is the best document ever prepared because Obama likes it, nevermind the contents. This can be evidenced by the fact they figure the product of Romney's health care dabblings were all bad, horrible, and evil - or, oddly, "no better than" Obama's. When healthcare law is decided by "team fans", you can bet it isn't going to end well.

There is no question we needed health care reform. It was not worth our freedom, imo, and I don't just mean in the way of being forced to pay for insurance.

I have not read it all...God bless anyone that can and does. When and if one reads even parts of it ..notice the "cutting and pasting" of verbage from current CFR's. That right there tells me this thing was slapped together in an "all nighter", and the great rush to slam it through congress by bypassing the ordinary "democratic republic" process tells me there were ulterior motives. WHAT was the rush?

Here is a fact: one can cross the border and buy an amazing number of "perscription drugs" (perscription in the US) off the shelf in Mexico....most of them manufactured in the US, and all of them for pennies on the dollar. Why ever is that???? Law suits. With respect to health care and its associated costs, this country's citizens would have benefited far, far more from tort reform than this particular "reform" action. No mention of that from "team obama", a BAR member, I believe.
 
#41 ·
Cherie, I very much agree with lots of what you are saying. As someone with family members with precondition who worked for the employer that didn't provide the insurance I'm very well aware of what you are saying. But my question again IF you have a precondition how much will you be paying for the private insurance under this law? So far I have NOT seen the numbers. I have a bad feeling that the rates still will be outrageous. If I'm wrong - that's great.
 
#72 ·
Kitten, I work in the insurance industry and my understanding is that they are restacking, if you will, the rating 'bands'. This means that the very ill or old, who used to pay very high premiums, will pay less. The very young and very healthy, who used to pay about $60/month in our policies, will pay something like $300 each - a five fold increase. The reason is that their dollars are subsidizing the very ill/expensive citizens' healthcare premiums. Now, all that would be fine -- except for the mandate/tax and the other administrative costs imposed by the law. Specifically, there is not a proportionate incentive to go buy insurance, either as an employer or an individual. The tax is waaaayyy less than the premium would be. People will say, I'll just pay the penalty/tax - forget buying insurance! Hospitals in my area say that their plan is to put clipboards with insurance applications into the ambulances. That way, people are 'insured' when they arrive in the ER after that car accident or heart attack. They don't have to buy until they need the insurance; due to 'guaranteed issue' the insurance companies have to take them, and then the sick person will cancel the insurance as soon as they get well. So, we pay $50K for 2 months of hospital and health care but will only get maybe $1000 in premiums, before the sick person cancels the policy. The penalty/tax goes to the government - it DOES NOT HELP THE HOSPITALS OR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES cover the cost of the healthcare for those who flaunt the law. So, just like any other illegal activity, those who want to flaunt the law will, and those who are obedient will comply. The penalties are so low that people will do the financial math, buy when they need it, and pay the tax if they don't.
 
#43 · (Edited)
I happened to be in a hospital yesterday. Hubby was having a procedure done. None of the people (employees) were happy about this and said the level of care will go down.

We pay $900 a month for insurance for hubby, me and our 21 year old college student daughter. We have been without insurance before and needed medical care so we have been on both ends of this issue.

I don't want the government in my personal business and I don't want to be forced to purchase insurance that is subpar to what we currently have. I don't want the government to say " oh.....my....you're at that cut off age for this that or the other thing". I want my dr. to decide what I need and me make that decision.

I don't want to wait months for a procedure. I want it when I need it.

I was also sitting in an ER all morning Wednesday morning with my cousin who is 71. His kids don't live around here. My other cousin just happens to be the director of that ER so I hear quite a bit about how much the hospital writes off because of indigent care and it is a huge huge amount.

It has got to the point where so many don't/won't work. They are plenty comfortable taking their government check, Medicare, etc. instead of working. Why work when it is "free". Well, it isn't free. I am paying for it.

The amount of people who pay NO income tax is astonishing...and the law that gives them more back through credits, etc. than they pay in will shock people who are unaware of the law. My sister-in-law got back $5,000 in income tax while she only paid in $900. So, who made up that other $4,100? Tax payers did.

They are getting to the point that there are more non payers than payers and the payers are being taxed to death. I do believe, as we come up on July 4, that is the reason this country was founded in the first place...unreasonable taxes being laid on people.

It would be great to have affordable healthcare, food, housing, etc. for everyone. American is a great country where dreams can come true for those who work. There are so many now who believe work is for someone else.

I think this law will cause so many people to be laid off - therefore they will be on the governments role. So many small businesses will not be able to afford this and will not expand, hire and prosper.

If the government was a success at running something this might work but since the government is generally isn't a great manager of our money, what makes them think they can manage our healthcare?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top