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

[Jakester23]

I read somewhere that 16 million young adults will receive health care with Obamacare. Who's paying for that?

[Mr. Desmond]

That is partial true with Obama. The problem is that he's never wants anything to look bad on him. He rather spin everything away from him, nothing is ever his fault. Instead of trying to be the middle man between the two houses of Congress, he goes on TV and berates them for not working together. I mean come on, they have a 10% approval rating, how is rallying the public going to work? That suddenly those 10% is going to make them work harder, and work together.

What he should be doing is being a impartial mediator between the two, trying to get something done. In times like this when things need to get done, you need to put away your agenda and be impartial. Obama isn't capable of doing that. Anything that doesn't fall towards his side or makes him look good, he discredits, and then goes in front of the nation and says the other side isn't working with him. So not only does he not mitigate well, he then berates his opposition on TV. Like that is going to help improve his standing. Who would want to work with a president that does that. Would you? I wouldn't, because you know your going to get ripped by him. Rather just not deal with those type of people at all.

Well, in fairness, the right not only berates Obama, they enjoy big, fat lies about him and have created entire industries and/or 501(c) something groups that are political but abuse the nonprofit status to give him hell. So I'll give Obama some leeway...

:-)

[saevel25]

Well, in fairness, the right not only berates Obama, they enjoy big, fat lies about him and have created entire industries and/or 501(c) something groups that are political but abuse the nonprofit status to give him hell. So I'll give Obama some leeway...

:-)

Yea, but shouldn't a leader take the high ground ;)

If Obama expects them not to act like spoiled children, maybe he should try it.

Who's going to pay for the 16 million extra people.

1) the tax on new medical technology and research

2) all those making more than 48,000 a year and families of 96,000 a year because they do not get subsidies from the government on the health insurance

3) taxing the businesses and people who want to stay uninsured.

[Jakester23]

So basically everyone that works and most likely currently has insurance will be paying for everyone else?

[saevel25]

So basically everyone that works and most likely currently has insurance will be paying for everyone else?

well technically yes, because rates will raise up to counter the influx of more sick people on the system, it will be tempered by more people, because they pay as well. But basically half the middle class and higher will be paying for this health care system.

anybody who makes more than 48K and about 96K (family) will get no help from the government in paying for their health care.

In Ohio a family of 4 that makes 96K a year will have to pay about 7500 a year in premiums. That is not including any deductibles, or co-pays.

[Golfingdad]

3) taxing the businesses and people who want to stay uninsured.

Why would anybody WANT to stay uninsured?  Follow up:  Why should they be allowed to stay uninsured?

In California (and probably other places too) it is against the law to drive without car insurance.  Why?  Because you screw up somebody else's day when you hit them and then force them to pay to fix their own car and top it off by, in some cases, making them also pay more for their insurance.  Well, f**k those people.

If somebody who doesn't have health insurance gets severely hurt (perhaps while causing a car accident in a car that is uninsured) and goes to the hospital for treatment, who is going to pay for that now?  The taxpayers, as well as all of us who do pay for hospital stays or have insurance in the form of higher bills and premiums, right?  Well, f**k those people too.

[Mr. Desmond]

Yea, but shouldn't a leader take the high ground ;)

If Obama expects them not to act like spoiled children, maybe he should try it.

Who's going to pay for the 16 million extra people.

1) the tax on new medical technology and research

2) all those making more than 48,000 a year and families of 96,000 a year because they do not get subsidies from the government on the health insurance

3) taxing the businesses and people who want to stay uninsured.

Well, Congress is also supposed to have leaders, and they need to control their membership, right?

Look, the Pubs met right after the 2008 and 2012 elections, and planned to derail his Presidency, and have done so with big money and lies. They don't need lies -- the truth hurts. So Obama feels he can't win with them. That's why he played hardball this time.

In July 2011, he gave them a heckuva deal - about $8 of spending cuts for every $2 of tax increases - a helluva deal for the country - I supported that - the tea baggers, I thought, had won a round -- and that was not enough!!!! They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Let's face it - Obama can't win with this group until Boehner stands up to them. When he does that, Obama can cut a deal with Boehner.

It's the Pubs who are out of control -- isn't that obvious after the last two weeks?

And this useless fight has cost the economy $25B or so, plus banks don't want to use Treasuries as collateral for fear of another fight -- these fiscally responsible Pubs - these conservative whacko extremists - have hurt small business, the US economy, and increased our deficit, and destroyed confidence in the US system.

Nice work over 2 years.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Like I gave praise to Clinton before. I am not a republican. I am an independent. I did not like what Bush did in office, and I did not like him invading Iraq. I did not like him authorizing the first bail out. I do not prescribe to, "To big to fail". Though the failure was totally Clinton's fault on that one, but that's another discussion on historical fact.

I never said the GOP is thrifty. Your just assuming that since I disagree with Obama, I must be a supporter of the republicans. I am not.

Yes I want the federal government smaller. I want the states to be able to do more, since they have a greater sense of the needs of their citizens. Look at Massachusetts. A republican governor passed a health care bill because that's what the citizens wanted. What if a state like Texas doesn't want it? What if the citizens there are so against it, why should they be forced on the Federal government's programs? That is my point, what is good for on state isn't good for another. If something comes up, like civil liberties back in the 60-70's. Were you have southern states denying people the right to vote. Then yes that is were the federal government can step in, to ensure the liberties and rights of its citizens, not enforce welfare programs upon states that don't want it.

OK, then we are more a like than different.

The problem I have in leaving it to the states is that I am still paying for the people in Texas that don't have health insurance and still go to the emergency room.  It is not like the money for Texans not on health insurance only comes from Texas tax dollars.  The money comes from my tax dollars and the premiums I pay to my insurer.  If we could segregate it, then I would be ecstatic.  It is same with all other Federal programs and payouts.  So I would rather have the Feds make them pay for themselves, than leave it up the the states that do not have it.

We pay for all these people: the welfare cheats, the corporate handouts, the farm subsidies to millionaire farmers, the tax cheats, the kings of tax loopholes, more and more.  And neither party does anything about it.  They only fight over it and point fingers at the other side.

[saevel25]

Quote:

Why would anybody WANT to stay uninsured?  Follow up:  Why should they be allowed to stay uninsured?

In California (and probably other places too) it is against the law to drive without car insurance.  Why?  Because you screw up somebody else's day when you hit them and then force them to pay to fix their own car and top it off by, in some cases, making them also pay more for their insurance.  Well, f**k those people.

If somebody who doesn't have health insurance gets severely hurt (perhaps while causing a car accident in a car that is uninsured) and goes to the hospital for treatment, who is going to pay for that now?  The taxpayers, as well as all of us who do pay for hospital stays or have insurance in the form of higher bills and premiums, right?  Well, f**k those people too.

Yea, but do you screw up someone else day when you get sick? Its different, the car insurance is to protect other people against your actions. In health insurance, its not, its just protecting you. Its nothing like car insurance. Also, for those people who are young and fit, they can play the odds and not take insurance. For them, they can probably pay out of pocket cheaper than paying premiums. What if their only doctor's visits are yearly check up.

Lets say that costs 100 dollars. Let say they only do that for 10 years, from 20 - 30 years old.

So they pay 100 dollars a year

now lets say they get insurance, they have to pay 100 dollars a month for premiums. Now they pay 1200 dollars a year, take off the 100 for the check up, lets assume 1 free yearly, that means they are wasting 1100 dollars a year. Meaning they are wasting 11,000 dollars over 10 years.

Now a smart person would take that difference, stick it in an account, when they reach 30, they open a HSA with the money, now they have 11,000 dollars they have as a buffer during the times when health starts to decline. Well that happens later, but I wanted to isolate the 10 most healthiest years.

See how it fits better, its a risk, if you get nailed by something, but it should be up to the person, not the government to decide that.

You can see why some people don't want insurance, it doesn't fit in the budget better than not. Honestly if I had the option, i would dump a ton of stuff I never use on my plan, and slim it down. Just get stuff for like if I was in an accident, like a broken bone or something. I haven't been to a doctor in over 5 years now. I am wasting money on something I never use. But I understand the need for emergency care.

[Mr. Desmond]

Quote:

Yea, but do you screw up someone else day when you get sick? Its different, the car insurance is to protect other people against your actions. In health insurance, its not, its just protecting you. Its nothing like car insurance. Also, for those people who are young and fit, they can play the odds and not take insurance. For them, they can probably pay out of pocket cheaper than paying premiums. What if their only doctor's visits are yearly check up.

Lets say that costs 100 dollars. Let say they only do that for 10 years, from 20 - 30 years old.

So they pay 100 dollars a year

now lets say they get insurance, they have to pay 100 dollars a month for premiums. Now they pay 1200 dollars a year, take off the 100 for the check up, lets assume 1 free yearly, that means they are wasting 1100 dollars a year. Meaning they are wasting 11,000 dollars over 10 years.

Now a smart person would take that difference, stick it in an account, when they reach 30, they open a HSA with the money, now they have 11,000 dollars they have as a buffer during the times when health starts to decline. Well that happens later, but I wanted to isolate the 10 most healthiest years.

See how it fits better, its a risk, if you get nailed by something, but it should be up to the person, not the government to decide that.

You can see why some people don't want insurance, it doesn't fit in the budget better than not. Honestly if I had the option, i would dump a ton of stuff I never use on my plan, and slim it down. Just get stuff for like if I was in an accident, like a broken bone or something. I haven't been to a doctor in over 5 years now. I am wasting money on something I never use. But I understand the need for emergency care.

I'm not going to get into this ... the law of the land ... is the law of the ... land. In order to get the cost of insurance down, they have to try to get everyone to opt in.

Insurance is costly, it's not fair to children not to have coverage, the poor and middle must be subsidized, etc.

The new law is obviously flawed - but it is the law. Let's fix the weaknesses of the law, fix the health care system, bring down costs and make people more responsible for their care.

[Golfingdad]

I'm not going to get into this ... the law of the land ... is the law of the ... land. In order to get the cost of insurance down, they have to try to get everyone to opt in.

Insurance is costly, it's not fair to children not to have coverage, the poor and middle must be subsidized, etc.

The new law is obviously flawed - but it is the law. Let's fix the weaknesses of the law, fix the health care system, bring down costs and make people more responsible for their care.

Dude, stop being so sensible!  Stop it right now, you jerk!

Oh, and I got my IJP stuff the other day ... two sweaters and a polo.  The polo is a little form fitting for my tastes, but otherwise, I love all three.  Paid less for all three than the regular price is for one, I think!  Thanks again for the tip!

[Jakester23]

Where are you from mr desmond where kids don't have coverage?

[Mr. Desmond]

Where are you from mr desmond where kids don't have coverage?

Oh, even Rick Perry doesn't turn down CHIP. But after you're 18... and you're in school.

And remember, if your parents don't qualify for CHIP because of income, it doesn't mean they can afford insurance ...

[Jakester23]

In Wisconsin we have badger care which allows coverage for children up to 25, single parents and families under a certain income. I'm not sure how much.

[iacas]

http://www.upworthy.com/congress-did-something-so-spectacularly-creepy-that-its-too-unbelievable-to-make-up

I saw that today.

[NuclearMike]

I'm from Texas and embarrassed to be "represented" by Ted Cruz, the Junior Senator from Texas.  His extremist views as a freshman Senator aren't endorsed by his colleague Republican Senator John Cornyn nor by most everyone I know, from staunch Republicans to the most liberal Democrats.  I don't vote a straight party ticket but I have to tell you, the Affordable Care Act is going to be a great benefit to me and to my wife.  Because of her illnesses we can't get insurance the standard way so we have to use a State of Texas Health Pool plan which costs over $2100/month with ridiculous deductibles, limited doctor visits, and the first $1000/year in medication paid by us before the plan kicks in.  Obamacare is going to save us substantial money and allow me to stay in the job I've been doing for 13 years, one which discontinued health benefits three years ago.  The ACA for us is as if I was just given a raise of $15,000-$18,000/year.  Not having affordable health coverage has nearly bankrupted us.

Interestingly enough, Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta CANADA where I'm sure that his parents reaped the benefits of their government-run healthcare when he was born.

[saevel25]

wow, idiots...

[JCRuzanski]

Single payer healthcare sooner rather than later. Once the drug industry is removed from the pockets of our 'public servants', then maybe we can fix the mess that is health-care.