or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies - Page 14

post #235 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond View Post
 

Did y'all ever think they reason there is mandated coverage is to keep the expense of extended coverage lower for the entire population?

 

For example, the little old lady whose insurance must cover maternity -- this is done to get more people with that coverage so the overall expense of coverage for those who do need it is lower. It's the same thing with forcing everyone into the system, so the overall expense of extended coverage is lower. The additional problem is that if you do not have a certain "floor" level of coverage then insurance companies will not offer coverage such as maternity.

 

I do think we need some type of national health care plan because state by state coverage is not workable if the objective is to allow everyone to have coverage -- the "$$$ have nots", those who insurance will not cover due to pre-existing conditions, and tthose who skip out on paying ER's to pay up ... with coverage.

 

The HCA needs fixing ... fix it.

 

I don't see guys with an alternative plan .... you complain about the present plan. I'd rather focus on solutions, and the pure private optional and "you don't qualify" system was not working for millions of people.

 

Lies?  I'm not impressed with the lie told by the people who say the pre ACA system was working. It was not.

You don't force people to pay for things they don't need.  It's not fair to the old lady to pay for insurance to cover maternity just to lower the cost for others who don't want to work or don't belong in the country.

 

You can't fix a system where half the population is looking for a handout while the other half is trying to keep their heads above water.  When you keep imposing additional costs on people just because they can afford it today you push them closer to the point where they go under water as well.  If the goal is to have everyone except the very rich under government assistance then we are well on our way with bills like ACA.

 

At some point there needs to be incentive for the people bilking the system to get off their lazy a$$es, get a job and pay their fair share or deal with some harsh repercussions.  Until that happens you're just robbing hard working people of their motivation to continue to work.


Edited by newtogolf - 10/30/13 at 9:59am
post #236 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

:offtopic:

 

But an excellent diversionary attempt.....   ;-)

I don't think it is off topic.  I think it applies here.  If you want small government and don't like the ACA, then let's go further. It seems folks like to "a la carte" chose what they object to depending on which party approved it.  I find that hypocritical (not saying that forum members are these people BTW).  

 

Examples:  They hate welfare and food stamps for the poor, but have no issue with farm subsides and loopholes that the wealthy have written into the tax code for themselves. They hate the ACA and education spending, but have no problems with Corporate tax loopholes and subsides.  They hate the FDA, EPA, ATF, FEMA and all other agencies, until people they know die from bad drugs or food, some one dumps waste in their town, a bomber blows up their neighborhood or a tornado hits.  And then there is our gigantic defense spending.

 

I'm just saying you can't have it both ways.  You can't hate the fact that you a paying for the uninsured going into hospitals and that we pay far more for our drugs than any other country, but oppose any solution to make them pay or reduce costs.

post #237 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

You don't force people to pay for things they don't need.  It's not fair to the old lady to pay for insurance to cover maternity just to lower the cost for others who don't want to work to don't belong in the country.

 

You can't fix a system where half the population is looking for a handout while the other half is trying to keep their heads above water.  When you keep imposing additional costs on people just because they can afford it today you push them closer to the point where they go under water as well.  If the goal is to have everyone except the very rich under government assistance then we are well on our way with bills like ACA.

 

At some point there needs to be incentive for the people bilking the system to get off their lazy a$$es, get a job and pay their fair share or deal with some harsh repercussions.  Until that happens you're just robbing hard working people of their motivation to continue to work.

This.

post #238 of 298

Ok both sides lied, who cares? They both LIED, it doesn't justify one side or the other.

 

On an side note, There are 4 court cases being heard about different aspects of the plan. So this thing might just blow up again.

 

Two of the four I think have value,

 

1) The base plan mandates that plans cover certain procedures that go against religious organizations. Basically things that cover birth control. They are saying it violates their first amendment rights.

 

2) The IRS is trying to give everyone a tax credit to help cover premiums. Basically the law was written in such a way that it only gives those tax credits to those states who are not setting up their own plans. Only the states that opt for the federal government to run their health care exchange can get the tax credits. Which hurts those who are low income and are mandated to get coverage, cause they wont get a subsidy. Basically they will mandate something they can not afford. If a judge decides to put a hold on the law until this is fixed, this could put the whole health care law on hold for years. Try to get that thing fixed in the House, not happening.

 

 

 

post #239 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

I don't think it is off topic.  I think it applies here.  If you want small government and don't like the ACA, then let's go further. It seems folks like to "a la carte" chose what they object to depending on which party approved it.  I find that hypocritical (not saying that forum members are these people BTW).

 

Examples:  They hate welfare and food stamps for the poor, but have no issue with farm subsides and loopholes that the wealthy have written into the tax code for themselves. They hate the ACA and education spending, but have no problems with Corporate tax loopholes and subsides.  They hate the FDA, EPA, ATF, FEMA and all other agencies, until people they know die from bad drugs or food, some one dumps waste in their town, a bomber blows up their neighborhood or a tornado hits.  And then there is our gigantic defense spending.

 

I'm just saying you can't have it both ways.  You can't hate the fact that you a paying for the uninsured going into hospitals and that we pay far more for our drugs than any other country, but oppose any solution to make them pay or reduce costs.

The problem with the Federal government is it's grown out of control.  The budget process goes against every business fundamental that exists.  I've worked in areas where the budgets are managed, there are only two options, increase an agency budget or leave it the same size.  Agencies and departments are encouraged to spend the full amount of their budget so they do not risk receiving less funding.  There is no incentive to reduce budget, reduce costs, reduce waste, fraud or abuse because in the federal government the size of your budget dictates your power.

 

So while the FDA, EPA, ATF, FEMA, etc provide some important and valuable services that we need, they have no spun out of control to gain even more control and budget.  Mr. Desmond wants a simpler tax code which I'd be all for.  Make everyone pay a flat tax regardless of income, same for corporations, remove all the loopholes, but we'll never see that because it would destroy all the under the table deals that exist today between corrupt politicians and big business. 

post #240 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

I don't think it is off topic.  I think it applies here.  If you want small government and don't like the ACA, then let's go further. It seems folks like to "a la carte" chose what they object to depending on which party approved it.  I find that hypocritical (not saying that forum members are these people BTW).

 

Examples:  They hate welfare and food stamps for the poor, but have no issue with farm subsides and loopholes that the wealthy have written into the tax code for themselves. They hate the ACA and education spending, but have no problems with Corporate tax loopholes and subsides.  They hate the FDA, EPA, ATF, FEMA and all other agencies, until people they know die from bad drugs or food, some one dumps waste in their town, a bomber blows up their neighborhood or a tornado hits.  And then there is our gigantic defense spending.

 

I'm just saying you can't have it both ways.  You can't hate the fact that you a paying for the uninsured going into hospitals and that we pay far more for our drugs than any other country, but oppose any solution to make them pay or reduce costs.

Not at all off topic when the gripes about the ACA are "government is too big."  Well said.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

You don't force people to pay for things they don't need.  It's not fair to the old lady to pay for insurance to cover maternity just to lower the cost for others who don't want to work or don't belong in the country.

At first glance, I would tend to agree with you.  It does sound unfair.  However, is this really that different than, say, young people paying social security for their elders?  Just in reverse.

 

Right now, and for the next several years, yeah ... it's unfair to everybody who is past menopause.  But a few years down the road, for all women who are able to live a comfortable life after having babies, thanks to their moms and grandmas helping keep those hospital costs down, it will be their turn to help their kids and grandkids.

 

That doesn't seem so bad to me.

 

And like I said before ... I don't see it (the mandate in general, not specifically maternity) as being that different than car insurance.  Nobody gripes (well, actually some probably do) about the fact that you're required to have car insurance (in CA, at least) in part to help keep costs down for everybody.

post #241 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

You don't force people to pay for things they don't need.  It's not fair to the old lady to pay for insurance to cover maternity just to lower the cost for others who don't want to work or don't belong in the country.

 

Do elderly people have to pay property taxes that are used to fund schools?  Do you pay taxes that are used to pay for other people's medicaid?  

 

Who "belongs" in this country?  Only people who immigrated from European countries?  And you do realize that some people don't have work because the economy is bad, not just because they don't want to work, right?


 

When people complain about 600,000 "losing" their coverage, when in reality, they're getting better coverage, I can't help but think rational discourse in this country is hopelessly lost.  Its fine if you think that those people should be able to keep their crappy coverage at presumably lower cost.  But at least be honest about what you're complaining about.  You're complaining about the mandate and people being forced to get better insurance.  You're not complaining about people losing their coverage.  

 

 

I also think its funny that people are so angry about the website not working.  We're extending health insurance to tens of millions of people for the first time in this country's history, and you're pissed bc they might have to wait a month to sign up?

 


 

I tend to lean libertarian, and I don't like the *idea* of the mandate.  But I also recognize that we need to do something about health care in this country, and that this version was politically feasible precisely because it runs on private insurance.  That and I'm not sure that I've read a single complaint about the ACA that is honest, reasonable, and specific.    

 

I think its wrong to look at health care issues as insurance issues.  Insurance is meant to minimize risk but when we talk about health care talk about making someone else pay the expenses associated with planned activities in many cases--like checkups, pregnancies, etc.  So yes, all this crap about the little old ladies having maternity coverage or Savel arguing that young people should be allowed to go uninsured, etc., might make sense in the insurance context, but that's not really what this is about.  This is really about providing health care to everyone.  


Edited by dsc123 - 10/30/13 at 11:24am
post #242 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Not at all off topic when the gripes about the ACA are "government is too big."  Well said.

 

At first glance, I would tend to agree with you.  It does sound unfair.  However, is this really that different than, say, young people paying social security for their elders?  Just in reverse.

 

Right now, and for the next several years, yeah ... it's unfair to everybody who is past menopause.  But a few years down the road, for all women who are able to live a comfortable life after having babies, thanks to their moms and grandmas helping keep those hospital costs down, it will be their turn to help their kids and grandkids.

 

That doesn't seem so bad to me.

 

And like I said before ... I don't see it (the mandate in general, not specifically maternity) as being that different than car insurance.  Nobody gripes (well, actually some probably do) about the fact that you're required to have car insurance (in CA, at least) in part to help keep costs down for everybody.

 

 

Still things I don't get, why should I have to pay for someone else retirement. People should take ownership of their own lives and prepare for retirement. If you have to work the rest of your life, then that is what happens. The major issue is that the Government promoted social security as this one and all retirement account. It isn't meant to be that, it's a supplemental retirement account. If people actually THOUGHT about their own actions, and become INFORMED about their own money, maybe we would have these issues because they would save. The problem is, a lot of people who could afford to save money, DIDN'T. So now we are stuck paying for people who have no right to be complaining about their own stupidity. I get helping those who lived in poverty there whole lives. I don't get when your middle class, when you can save 15% a year and live a comfortable life, and make sound choices only to end up with NO MONEY at the age of 60. To me, they deserve the actions they took. Bailing them out only sets an example to future generations that it is OK to act stupid.

 

Car insurance isn't about keeping cost down. Its about the fact your actions in a vehicle, that can travel at high speeds, can end a persons life or severely damage that person. Your actions with your own health, except for maybe causing financial effects upon your own family and self, are not going to effect another person as greatly as a car accident. People can understand it because of the gravity of the situation. People don't understand why they have to pay for the excessive health insurance of an obese person who smokes. Why should I have to pay the health of another person who doesn't take their own health seriously? That is my major gripe. I don't mind having Liability insurance, I get that. I don't get being mandated to buy insurance to cover the costs of people who just don't give a damn about their own health.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not some selfish person. I think society should help those in need. Our GDP is higher than the entire EU. I am also a person who believes in responsibility. If the government made the health insurance subsidies in such a way that it doesn't celebrate those who are Obese, smoke, or use alcohol / drugs. I wouldn't mind it as much. The truth is, when they say it keeps costs down, it is because the health are paying for those who truly need the help, and those who just don't even try to fix their own health when they can.

 

People with true needs like genetic problems, autism, cancer, ect.. They deserve the money, not those who eat 100 Twinkies a week and washes them down with 2 dozen cans of mountain dew.

post #243 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Still things I don't get, why should I have to pay for someone else retirement. People should take ownership of their own lives and prepare for retirement. If you have to work the rest of your life, then that is what happens. The major issue is that the Government promoted social security as this one and all retirement account. It isn't meant to be that, it's a supplemental retirement account. If people actually THOUGHT about their own actions, and become INFORMED about their own money, maybe we would have these issues because they would save. The problem is, a lot of people who could afford to save money, DIDN'T. So now we are stuck paying for people who have no right to be complaining about their own stupidity. I get helping those who lived in poverty there whole lives. I don't get when your middle class, when you can save 15% a year and live a comfortable life, and make sound choices only to end up with NO MONEY at the age of 60. To me, they deserve the actions they took. Bailing them out only sets an example to future generations that it is OK to act stupid.

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, SS benefits aren't determined by how much you saved, but rather how much you earned.  So we're not "Stuck paying for people who didn't save" ... we're paying the exact same amount as we would if everybody saved everything or if everybody saved nothing.  So, in reality, we are "helping those who lived in poverty THEIR (dammit!!! ;)) whole lives."

 

You can complain all you want about lazies who don't save, and I agree too (we have a vast majority of our money in a retirement account) but if they listened to you, nothing would change.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Car insurance isn't about keeping cost down. Its about the fact your actions in a vehicle, that can travel at high speeds, can end a persons life or severely damage that person. Your actions with your own health, except for maybe causing financial effects upon your own family and self, are not going to effect another person as greatly as a car accident. People can understand it because of the gravity of the situation. People don't understand why they have to pay for the excessive health insurance of an obese person who smokes. Why should I have to pay the health of another person who doesn't take their own health seriously? That is my major gripe. I don't mind having Liability insurance, I get that. I don't get being mandated to buy insurance to cover the costs of people who just don't give a damn about their own health.

But if you put somebody in the hospital, having car insurance isn't going to make them better now, is it?  All it's going to do is allow them to be able to pay their medical bills.  If you didn't have car insurance, then what?  They have to pay their own bills, right?  Secondly, if people weren't required to have car insurance, isn't it fair to say that it's a 100% guarantee that it would be more expensive for those that did choose to have it?

 

So how is not about keeping costs down?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

People with true needs like genetic problems, autism, cancer, ect.. They deserve the money, not those who eat 100 Twinkies a week and washes them down with 2 dozen cans of mountain dew.

But the theory is that (just like I'm saying with the car insurance) in making sure everybody, including the fat f**ks you describe, has health insurance, it will bring the costs down for all of us.

 

Remember, the guy you describe is going to have a heart attack and go to the hospital one day regardless of whether or not he has insurance.  We'd be paying for him one way or another ... so why not force him to have health insurance at a lower cost now, so we don't all have to pay more to treat him later??

post #244 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, SS benefits aren't determined by how much you saved, but rather how much you earned.  So we're not "Stuck paying for people who didn't save" ... we're paying the exact same amount as we would if everybody saved everything or if everybody saved nothing.  So, in reality, we are "helping those who lived in poverty THEIR (dammit!!! ;)) whole lives."

 

You can complain all you want about lazies who don't save, and I agree too (we have a vast majority of our money in a retirement account) but if they listened to you, nothing would change.

 

But if you put somebody in the hospital, having car insurance isn't going to make them better now, is it?  All it's going to do is allow them to be able to pay their medical bills.  If you didn't have car insurance, then what?  They have to pay their own bills, right?  Secondly, if people weren't required to have car insurance, isn't it fair to say that it's a 100% guarantee that it would be more expensive for those that did choose to have it?

 

So how is not about keeping costs down?

 

But the theory is that (just like I'm saying with the car insurance) in making sure everybody, including the fat f**ks you describe, has health insurance, it will bring the costs down for all of us.

 

Remember, the guy you describe is going to have a heart attack and go to the hospital one day regardless of whether or not he has insurance.  We'd be paying for him one way or another ... so why not force him to have health insurance at a lower cost now, so we don't all have to pay more to treat him later??

 

Not sure, I suspect is based on both what you put in, and on what your final paycheck is. I believe it is like a pension plan. For example, I only have about 500 dollars in Social Security because I work for local governments, and I am exempt from SS. Its because I have a state retirement account. So, I doubt I would get the same amount of money back when I retire. Compared to a person who has the same income as me, yet worked in the private sector.

post #245 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Not sure, I suspect is based on both what you put in, and on what your final paycheck is. I believe it is like a pension plan. For example, I only have about 500 dollars in Social Security because I work for local governments, and I am exempt from SS. Its because I have a state retirement account. So, I doubt I would get the same amount of money back when I retire. Compared to a person who has the same income as me, yet worked in the private sector.

OK, that may be true.  But what you implied (originally) was that you were paying more for people who didn't save their own money, and I don't think that's true at all.  "Personal Responsibility" doesn't come into play here, as far as the bottom line is concerned.

post #246 of 298

So the guy who is complaining that people need to save for their own retirement doesn't actually pay for other people's retirement and gets his own from the tax payers?  ;-)   Or by "state retirement account" do you mean an IRA, 401k sort of thing?

post #247 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

And like I said before ... I don't see it (the mandate in general, not specifically maternity) as being that different than car insurance.  Nobody gripes (well, actually some probably do) about the fact that you're required to have car insurance (in CA, at least) in part to help keep costs down for everybody.

 

The difference between the ACA mandate and car insurance is, you are only mandated to have it if you drive a car.  Shoud you live in an area where you have access to public transportation, you could avoid being forced to pay for car insurance by not owning a car.   Under the ACA, the only way to avoid the mandate is to be dead.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

 

Who "belongs" in this country?  Only people who immigrated from European countries? 

 

When people complain about 600,000 "losing" their coverage, when in reality, they're getting better coverage, I can't help but think rational discourse in this country is hopelessly lost.  Its fine if you think that those people should be able to keep their crappy coverage at presumably lower cost.  But at least be honest about what you're complaining about.  You're complaining about the mandate and people being forced to get better insurance.  You're not complaining about people losing their coverage. 

 To answer the "who belongs in this country" question, the answer is, anyone who is a US citizen or is in the country under legal documentation, regardless of their country of origin.

 

Prior to the ACA being passed, people said this would cause folks to lose their current insurance policies.   Obama came out and said that was not true and then (repeatedly) said, if you like your policy, you can keep it.  There were no qualifiers on his statements about the matter.  He never said if your current policy meets our minimum requirements, you can keep it.    So this is not a question of whether he lied or not, he did.   Ironically, he is now caught in the same trap his campaign used on Romney.   He is hung by his own words on audio/video. 

 

Regarding the concept that people who are going to be paying more are getting better coverage..   That may well be true but many people affected by this change were already paying all they could afford for the insurance they have (had).   Forcing them to pay more is stressing or busting their budgets.  When you couple that with the aforementioned lie, it causes the frustration level to rise.   People have a tendency to vote with their pocketbooks and Democrats may come to rue their decision to not go along with Republican attempts to delay the roll out.  

post #248 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

OK, that may be true.  But what you implied (originally) was that you were paying more for people who didn't save their own money, and I don't think that's true at all.  "Personal Responsibility" doesn't come into play here, as far as the bottom line is concerned.

 

True, but many of these programs are not advertised as such. There are a lot of people who go out there and don't save money for retirement thinking SS is going to be enough. That is totally false. I get what your saying, as in how the program works. What I am saying is, what is the non measurable effects of a program? How does it effect the overall mentality of the person.

 

A good article in Forbes is about Alan Greenspan's new book. He goes on in saying the one thing he never considered as a Fed was the psychological aspect of his actions. Basically how fear occurs when the Feds suddenly and drastically adjust something. How does that effect the people who are directly related. All he cared about was the math behind it, not the non measurable effects. These are many things no one considers. How does having something like SS effect the public. Does it create a false security blanket that will cause them to not save as normal? Will they deduct how much they would get in SS from their overall saving plans? In that point, outside the program, the non measurable aspects counter the direct intended impact the program have? SS was to supplement your retirement, not for you to sit back and spend the amount you are getting from SS elsewhere, or worse spend more and being in more trouble. 

post #249 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 I think its wrong to look at health care issues as insurance issues.  Insurance is meant to minimize risk but when we talk about health care talk about making someone else pay the expenses associated with planned activities in many cases--like checkups, pregnancies, etc.  So yes, all this crap about the little old ladies having maternity coverage or Savel arguing that young people should be allowed to go uninsured, etc., might make sense in the insurance context, but that's not really what this is about.  This is really about providing health care to everyone.  

 

 

Your argument is confused.  The ACA is not about providing health care.   Prior to the ACA, the government already mandated that hospitals provide a minimum amount of care, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.   So health care was already assured and provided.   The problem is, the government was picking up the tab for those who had no insurance and could not/would not pay for their care. 

 

The ACA is an attempt to control how much the government is paying for that health care by mandating everyone to get insurance, thus deferring much of the cost for that care to a private entity (the insurance companies).

post #250 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by teamroper60 View Post
 

 

 

Your argument is confused.  The ACA is not about providing health care.   Prior to the ACA, the government already mandated that hospitals provide a minimum amount of care, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay.   So health care was already assured and provided.   The problem is, the government was picking up the tab for those who had no insurance and could not/would not pay for their care. 

 

The ACA is an attempt to control how much the government is paying for that health care by mandating everyone to get insurance, thus deferring much of the cost for that care to a private entity (the insurance companies).

 

I'm not sure that that's right.  I don't think the purpose of the ACA was to save the gov't money.  It was to achieve universal health care, through private insurance.  

 

What I meant is that health insurance isn't like other insurance.  You buy car insurance because you might one day be in an accident, not to pay for new tires, oil changes, etc.  That's why I think that if we accept that everyone should receive medical treatment when needed, then it should be provided just like any other gov't service rather than mandating private insurance coverage.  Tax us and make hospitals free.  But that's not politically feasible.  

post #251 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

True, but many of these programs are not advertised as such. There are a lot of people who go out there and don't save money for retirement thinking SS is going to be enough. That is totally false. I get what your saying, as in how the program works. What I am saying is, what is the non measurable effects of a program? How does it effect the overall mentality of the person.

 

A good article in Forbes is about Alan Greenspan's new book. He goes on in saying the one thing he never considered as a Fed was the psychological aspect of his actions. Basically how fear occurs when the Feds suddenly and drastically adjust something. How does that effect the people who are directly related. All he cared about was the math behind it, not the non measurable effects. These are many things no one considers. How does having something like SS effect the public. Does it create a false security blanket that will cause them to not save as normal? Will they deduct how much they would get in SS from their overall saving plans? In that point, outside the program, the non measurable aspects counter the direct intended impact the program have? SS was to supplement your retirement, not for you to sit back and spend the amount you are getting from SS elsewhere, or worse spend more and being in more trouble. 

Greenspan also said that he underestimated greed with regards to the financial collapse caused by the banks and AIG, etc.  Everyone loved him (both parties) when things were going well.

post #252 of 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

So the guy who is complaining that people need to save for their own retirement doesn't actually pay for other people's retirement and gets his own from the tax payers?  a2_wink.gif    Or by "state retirement account" do you mean an IRA, 401k sort of thing?

Keep your government hands off of my Medicare!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies