Can Someone Please Explain Why Obamacare is Bad?

[eye95]

Yo. Genius. I do obey the law.

That does not mean that I cannot advocate against it.

Duh.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Yo. Genius. I do obey the law.

That does not mean that I cannot advocate against it.

Duh.

:lol:

Quoted for irony and posterity.

(emphasis added by PPM)

 

[WalkingWolf]

:lol:

Quoted for irony and posterity.

(emphasis added by PPM)

+1 belongs on the wall in the Irony Hall of Fame...

 

[eye95]

Sheesh. I am amazed that this has to be explained.

Advocating against a law means working to change folks minds so that the law will be changed.

It is possible to follow a law while advocating against it. One does not have to break it to advocate against it.

The concept is so simple that it is hard to believe that folks would not have the intellectual ability to grasp this. So what is the other possibility? Understanding it but feigning not?

Whatever. I have made my point. Giving into these games won't help further, so I will move on from the silliness that these two posters are trying to start.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I hate to burst your bubble, but many if not most pro liberty court cases have come from the hands of criminals. Though most of them were not standing up for freedom, the rulings did. And the only way to have liberty is fight for it, or you can just forget liberty and be a government shill, and suck up to the master.

If it was up to YOU, Rosa Parks would have wasted away in prison...

 

[Freedom1Man]

My wife and I are both on Medicare Part B and have excellent secondary coverage-for a total annual premium in excess of of $6,000. Wife's prescription drug co-pay runs about $3,000 per year on top of that.

This is an example of someone benefiting from the ignorance of fellow citizens and the tyranny of the government.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Ok. I get it. You feel that socialism is bad. But aren't things like public roads, public education, fire department and police and EMS services that are covered by taxes also socialist? I don't see you complaining about those things... (well maybe the police, but that is another issue entirely...)

I do consistently.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Additionally, once you do obtain coverage, the premiums can really get expensive. Prohibitively so.

The world does not owe you opportunity.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I had the misfortune of being sideswiped last year. My medical bills, since I was uninsured, reached into the thousands. Who has the money to pay for that out of pocket?

All of the people that save money to be able to pay for unexpected expenses. Yeah, they do indeed exist. Though, it's entirely irrelevant.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Parts of Obamacare is good, such as the part you are referring. Insurance companies should not be able to disqualify you based on pre-existing conditions. The whole premise of that is absurd. They want us to pay for insurance based on the fact the odds are they will never have to pay out huge sums of money on our behalf, or that the money they make as a whole will offset the amount paid out.

I like that part of Obamacare....I do.

The problem I have is this:

Lets say I'm labeled as a part-time employee but work 40 hours a week. I don't mind not being labeled as full-time as the only tradeoff is I don't get the benefits full-time employees get, such as insurance. Under Obamacare, my employer is now forced to give me full time benefits because I work over 30 hours a week. Obama decided this was a genius way to help people get insurance. Problem is, these companies are not comprised of idiots. Atleast not complete idiots. Instead of giving me insurance since I work over 30 hours a week, they will hire someone else and give both of us 20 hours a week. Now they don't have to provide insurance!

See, but I'm still held liable under Obamacare to get insurance. Now I'm making half as much as I was and can't afford insurance. But, since Obamacare is looking out for me, I'll be "taxed" $695 at the end of the year, per-person.

THAT'S my issue with Obamacare. His genius way to get more people insurance is in fact going to hurt many more people than it will help. My company has started already, even McDonalds has started hiring twice as many part-time employee's so they can cut hours per-person. All of this to get out of offering insurance to more people, who now because of working less hours will most likely not be able to pay their bills, much less pay for insurance.

They should be able to deny you because they think you're so ugly they never want to see your face again. It's not nice, it's not professional, it's not even right, but that's freedom.

 

[joanie]

I'm prettymuch in the same boat as you op, I don't know all the ins and outs. eye95 Made a valid point about the role of government, and I will add to that, or touch on the dangers of becomming too dependant on government. Lets start with guns. Say you go to the hospitals and start filling out the forms, "are there any guns in the household?" If there are, guess what, the doctor or some hospital staff starts looking for ways to declare you unfit to own them. Or, if anyone living in the household is determined to be unstable, guess what, they want you to get the guns out of the house. Lie on the forms, and they find out, federal crime. In this day and age, they can detect guns through the walls of your house.

But theres other dangers, they decide what treatment you recieve, ever heard of the death panels? Many think the quality of this health care will be lesser, many believe insurance companys wrote it to make themselves wealthy, that would have to mean they found loopholes to get out of paying. I don't know, I'm just weary of anything that has Obama written on it. You know they are gonna tax this thing to death, in both hidden taxes and other forms of charging you for things, like driving on the roads. Ever heard of the Nafta super highway? Closing down existing roads and building a highway structure through Mexico, Canada, the US, and maybe into south America. Your gonna pay tools to drive it, and be subjected to checkpoints and searches. They will figure a way to work around having to respect your 4th amendment rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

My wife and I are both on Medicare Part B and have excellent secondary coverage-for a total annual premium in excess of of $6,000. Wife's prescription drug co-pay runs about $3,000 per year on top of that.

That's over 9 grand a year that we don't have to spend on discretionary interests. Most of the "uninsured" frankly choose not spend that huge of a chunk of their income on health insurance premiums. They would rather that I pay another $3,000.00 in inflated premiums in order to provide them with low premium health care coverage.

I am surrounded by family members who say they cannot afford health insurance, but they have 2 new cars, HD TV's, attend Cowboy , and Rangers game regularly....so I'm supposed to anti-up for them ?

Watching the NATGEO special " North America" last night I was reminded of " nature's total indifference" to the hand that is dealt to ALL of the inhabitants of this planet.

At least the members of the animal kingdom take extraordinary steps to defend themselves against the crap that comes down upon them.

That also brings to mind the fact that most people don't take pro-active steps to protect themselves from criminal predators. They naively opt to depend upon a 911 call to rescue them from " nature's indifference ". I'm thinking about the young woman shot by the COP the other day while being held hostage by a predator. Had she prepared herself adequately to defend against such known threats that are prevalent in our society the outcome would have been different.

You know why it costs $3000? Because a third party is paying for it.

 

[eye95]

Yep. The whole problem with medical care today is that the patient is no longer the customer.

The solution is so stupidly simple, most cannot see it: Catastrophic coverage, pay for your own routine care, build up savings accounts to cover large deductibles and for budgeting increased routine care as you age. Patients will become the customer again. They will shop around. They will avoid unnecessary care. Prices will drop. Medical care and catastrophic insurance will become more affordable (what obamacare erroneously names itself). More doctors will enter the profession. They will make more money. Bad doctors will lose business and disappear. Good doctors will flourish.

In short, all the benefits of a real market will be realized. Ya know, like it was before the government started dicking with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[ADobbs1989]

Yep. The whole problem with medical care today is that the patient is no longer the customer.

The solution is so stupidly simple, most cannot see it: Catastrophic coverage, pay for your own routine care, build up savings accounts to cover large deductibles and for budgeting increased routine care as you age. Patients will become the customer again. They will shop around. They will avoid unnecessary care. Prices will drop. Medical care and catastrophic insurance will become more affordable (what obamacare erroneously names itself). More doctors will enter the profession. They will make more money. Bad doctors will lose business and disappear. Good doctors will flourish.

In short, all the benefits of a real market will be realized. Ya know, like it was before the government started dicking with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The economy has to be fixed before most of your ideas are even possible for most Americans.

 

[eye95]

What I am proposing is an economic fix. It is part of THE economic fix for the nation: the restoration of free markets. There will be some pain. Some folks will fall through the cracks. Such is always the case when socialism is backed off. It will also be the case if socialism is ended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Citizen]

What I am proposing is an economic fix. It is part of THE economic fix for the nation: the restoration of free markets. There will be some pain. Some folks will fall through the cracks. Such is always the case when socialism is backed off. It will also be the case if socialism is ended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+1

ADobbs can't seem to grasp that it was government "fixing" that screwed things up in the first place.

The amazing thing is how the economy somehow limps along despite the government interference. Get the government interference (crony capitalism) out of the way and things will start picking up steam again after the financial correction.

 

[slowfiveoh]

The choice was not mine, and although I am covered by the VA, it is only for 5 years (3 years left), and I can only receive treatment at a VA facility, which is about an hour from my house. No good in case of an emergency, such as a car accident. When EMS came and pulled me out of my car and put me into an ambulance, they took me to the nearest facility. NOT covered by VA, but would be covered by insurance, IF I COULD GET IT.

You are tragically uninformed.

IF you were discharged for a service-connected injury, you would have gone through MEB, OR, pursued connection post-separation with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The whole "I only have 5 years" thing is a courtesy time-frame offered ALL separating veterans. Here

If you have any sort of sustainable case at ALL, you would be wise to pursue service connectivity. Simply ensure all your ducks are in a row (Medical records from service, unit records, or any other evidence you can hand the VA to substantiate your claim), and apply for disability compensation. If you receive compensation at a rate of 60% or greater, you have full medical benefits with the VA.

From my perspective, something either;

A.) Stinks horribly about your claims

or

B.) You simply are unaware of your VA benefits.

 

[Thundar]

There is nothing wrong with Obamacare...


...if you believe that the role of government is to take care of you, that you are not responsible for yourself, that you have a "right to health care," that the government knows better than you what is best for you, that the government has the right to take from me and others to make sure that you get what you want.

However, if you believe in Liberty, self-reliance, and minimal government, everything is wrong with Obamacare.

It is more than that. For Obamacare to work the government forces the citizen via taxes and the barrel of the gun to purchase healthcare that they do not want, and sometimes even object to on moral grounds. This is evil and tyrannical. If I was a Christian Scientist I would be looking at emigrating to Antarctica.

It is bad enough when we see the government as a "charity" system. The government is not about charity because government "charity" is done via the involuntary confiscation of wages from some to give to others. This is income redistribution. That is evil, immoral and tyrannical.

No Obamacare is more evil than that because it regulates not only the minimum but also the maximum insurance that people should have via the cadillac tax for really good policies. But do not worry, because there are exemptions for union members for this tax.

Obamacare also destroys a cornerstone of federalism, the state regulation of insurance. Why is that important? Because the Federal Government only has innumerated powers and the ability to regulate insurance is not an innumerated power. But alas what is more important, the US COnstitution or the ability of everybody to have the government pay for their Viagra?

 

[ADobbs1989]

What I am proposing is an economic fix. It is part of THE economic fix for the nation: the restoration of free markets. There will be some pain. Some folks will fall through the cracks. Such is always the case when socialism is backed off. It will also be the case if socialism is ended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Um, no. Your whole proposal starts off with people paying for their own doctor visits and having money saved up to pay for large deductibles. Which isn't even a feasible plan for most people, ESPECIALLY younger people who came out of high school in this ****. You can't save money if you can't find a job, and you can't find a job when there are none. And a part time job at mcdonalds doesn't count as a job that can be used to save money. Even when I'm out of college I'm not guaranteed to find a job, and many people don't. And if you SERIOUSLY think that by removing any and all government regulations on how businesses operate, and that somehow will make the economy better your delusional. Even with the regulations companies try to find ways to pay people less or work them harder so they can make more money. Or discriminate, or pay women less, etc. etc. etc. That would do nothing more than create a ruling class even worse than what we have now. Where the middle and low class people become slaves and the big business owners and rich control everything about your life. The only way to escape would be to live a life of seclusion off the grid in the woods. That sure sounds better.

 

[eye95]

Citizen pretty well took care of anything you have to say, but I will add this (which will surely infuriate you, but I don't care):

The people who will have trouble transitioning will primarily be the people who have been relying on the government (read: Citizen's and my taxes) and haven't done anything to make sure that they can care for themselves. Again, I don't care. That they have been robbing me and will fall on hard times if forced to stop robbing me is of little matter to me.

I have planned for lifetime health-care for me and my wife. My kids are insured on their own now (including my son having precisely the plan I mentioned earlier). If someone else failed to plan properly, I don't see that as my problem at all--at least not from an enforced charity POV. Any charity I provide should be voluntary and on MY terms, not the terms of some bureaucrat or the terms of the leeches.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>