Doc Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Yes, for reposnsible people looking to manage risk and do the right thing, it fits the bill. Now for those who still want to free load, at least we get a piece of their hide in the penetly tax so when some of them get sicks, and actuarialy speaking they will, we have money to fund it... that's ok with me to be honest... In my family, it was not a choice to carry health coverage, it was a non-negotiable... and to me carrying coverage to pay for my unforseen cat medical expenses is part of being a good, responsible citizen.... I am sad to hear others don't feel that way. And Obamacare was supposed to make people magically become good, responsible citizens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 And Obamacare was supposed to make people magically become good, responsible citizens? No, but it give reposnsible people with health condition entrance into the individual insurance market... and in the future forces losers in as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 No, but it give reposnsible people with health condition entrance into the individual insurance market... and in the future forces losers in as well. All it will do is cause rates on the exchanges to skyrocket and become unaffordable. As the "losers" continue to not buy into them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) in tennessee, there is no requirement for auto liability insurance. it's pretty common for responsible drivers to get screwed when involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. the requirement in almost every other state is there to protect the responsible citizens, not to magically transform the irresponsible ones. much the same in this case... and the aca cuts the number of uninsured in 1/2. would have been many more if it were politically feasible to accomplish. so, in effect, you're complaining that the bill is not comprehensive enough while supporting the very pols that limited it's scope. just stupid. Edited September 19, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 All it will do is cause rates on the exchanges to skyrocket and become unaffordable. As the "losers" continue to not buy into them. Says you. We have not seen it yet, and as for rate increases leadup to the exchanges, of course they have gone up, insurance compaines are loading up before they are more regulated. in tennessee, there is no requirement for auto liability insurance. it's pretty common for responsible drivers to get screwed when involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. the requirement in almost every other state is there to protect the responsible citizens, not to magically transform the irresponsible ones. much the same in this case... and the aca cuts the number of uninsured in 1/2. would have been many more if it were politically feasible to accomplish. so, in effect, you're complaining that the bill is not comprehensive enough while supporting the very pols that limited it's scope. just stupid. Precisely. I am getting tired of discussing it, Obama passed it so it is bad... there is no flipping that conclusion for some no matter he benefits.... as with most things, as after the apocolypse prediction has failed to come to pass, people will go on with their lives and wonder what all the doom and gloom talk was about. I am sure Medicare and SS had the same "world ending, destruction of America" talk as well... people seem to like those, even though they need reform. in tennessee, there is no requirement for auto liability insurance. it's pretty common for responsible drivers to get screwed when involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. the requirement in almost every other state is there to protect the responsible citizens, not to magically transform the irresponsible ones. much the same in this case... and the aca cuts the number of uninsured in 1/2. would have been many more if it were politically feasible to accomplish. so, in effect, you're complaining that the bill is not comprehensive enough while supporting the very pols that limited it's scope. just stupid. my buddy is desperately trying to get his Kids out from Tennessee, and get them to Colorado..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Obama passed it so it is bad... there are some of us who believe that the feds aren't able to run anything efficiently, no matter who is president. I wouldn't want the feds in control of health care even if they resurrected Reagan or Lincoln to oversee it. I may be no fan of Obama, but that has nothing to do with my stance against the ACA. don't assume that this is all just anti-Obama posturing, because it isn't. he's just the one that put it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Yes, for reposnsible people looking to manage risk and do the right thing, it fits the bill. Now for those who still want to free load, at least we get a piece of their hide in the penetly tax so when some of them get sicks, and actuarialy speaking they will, we have money to fund it... that's ok with me to be honest... In my family, it was not a choice to carry health coverage, it was a non-negotiable... and to me carrying coverage to pay for my unforseen cat medical expenses is part of being a good, responsible citizen.... I am sad to hear others don't feel that way. You mean the one which the government has little to no ability to actually collect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) This chic needs to be quiet! If Republicans want to play in traffic, let's let them! OMG, What I would give if there was a nationwide Conservative hunger strike!! Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2fLbPgcRn No, it is going to provide health care for millions of people, though. Where is the link from CBO saying it will have zero impact? Zero impact is my commentary. 30 million remaining uninsured is a pretty non-controversial number, though. I'll look for a link. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf Edited September 19, 2013 by jjamie12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 there are some of us who believe that the feds aren't able to run anything efficiently, no matter who is president. Few things are funnier than listening to today's liberals argue that people only hate AFA because of Obama before they quickly turn around to explain that everything wrong in the world is exclusively blamed on a a guy who hasn't been president for over five years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Yes, for reposnsible people looking to manage risk and do the right thing, it fits the bill. Now for those who still want to free load, at least we get a piece of their hide in the penetly tax so when some of them get sicks, and actuarialy speaking they will, we have money to fund it... that's ok with me to be honest... In my family, it was not a choice to carry health coverage, it was a non-negotiable... and to me carrying coverage to pay for my unforseen cat medical expenses is part of being a good, responsible citizen.... I am sad to hear others don't feel that way. Unfortunately, your explanation of how the law actually works is not in any way the same as or even close to the same as how the bill was sold. How far do you think the President and Congress would have gotten with -- "Hey, we're going to spend $800 billion (and counting) and, well, yeah, we still expect 30 million people to be uninsured. But, still." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 hmmm, i was thinking you meant "buy when there's blood in the street"...kind of, i guess. No I'm not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Says you. We have not seen it yet, and as for rate increases leadup to the exchanges, of course they have gone up, insurance compaines are loading up before they are more regulated. Precisely. I am getting tired of discussing it, Obama passed it so it is bad... there is no flipping that conclusion for some no matter he benefits.... as with most things, as after the apocolypse prediction has failed to come to pass, people will go on with their lives and wonder what all the doom and gloom talk was about. I am sure Medicare and SS had the same "world ending, destruction of America" talk as well... people seem to like those, even though they need reform. No, says anyone who understands human nature. You love Obamacare because it will ostensibly save you money. But that savings has to come from somewhere, namely healthy people (the "losers"). So the people who are healthy say to themselves "I don't use much health care so why should I subsidize care for those who use a lot of it and probably don't do all they can to maximize their healthiness? Especially when the penalty is a joke, they can't collect it, and I can sign up for insurance when I want? I want to save money too!" So those people won't sign up on the exchanges and instead mostly sick people will. Now the first year of exchange rates might look good, but that is because insurance co's are guesstimating and Obama/the states are pressuring them to keep the first-year rates low to make it seem like Obamacare is working. When they see the actual numbers, they'll be demanding the maximum increase in rates annually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) No I'm not stupid. and baron rothschild was? No, says anyone who understands human nature. You love Obamacare because it will ostensibly save you money. But that savings has to come from somewhere, namely healthy people (the "losers"). So the people who are healthy say to themselves "I don't use much health care so why should I subsidize care for those who use a lot of it and probably don't do all they can to maximize their healthiness? Especially when the penalty is a joke, they can't collect it, and I can sign up for insurance when I want? I want to save money too!" So those people won't sign up on the exchanges and instead mostly sick people will. Now the first year of exchange rates might look good, but that is because insurance co's are guesstimating and Obama/the states are pressuring them to keep the first-year rates low to make it seem like Obamacare is working. When they see the actual numbers, they'll be demanding the maximum increase in rates annually. the healthy people or their employers already are subsidizing the sick. and they're subsidizing the inadequate emergency care of the uninsured. the aca is just forcing an honest accounting for covering the cost of caring for 300 million americans vs 270 million. can the costs be reduced? well, sure if folks would stop screaming about "death panels" and rationing every time someone mentions rational limits on care. Edited September 19, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 19, 2013 Author Share Posted September 19, 2013 there are some of us who believe that the feds aren't able to run anything efficiently, no matter who is president. Well, you are hopelessly biased jackass, so what? Go live in another country if you hate the government that much. I'll bet more than half the people that share that opinion are on Medicare and Social Security. Why don't the GOP de-fund those programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Well, you are hopelessly biased jackass, so what? Go live in another country if you hate the government that much. I'll bet more than half the people that share that opinion are on Medicare and Social Security. Why don't the GOP de-fund those programs? This country was founded on the idea of limited government, less is more. If its the nanny state you seek, its you who should look elsewhere, jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 No, says anyone who understands human nature. You love Obamacare because it will ostensibly save you money. But that savings has to come from somewhere, namely healthy people (the "losers"). So the people who are healthy say to themselves "I don't use much health care so why should I subsidize care for those who use a lot of it and probably don't do all they can to maximize their healthiness? Especially when the penalty is a joke, they can't collect it, and I can sign up for insurance when I want? I want to save money too!" So those people won't sign up on the exchanges and instead mostly sick people will. Now the first year of exchange rates might look good, but that is because insurance co's are guesstimating and Obama/the states are pressuring them to keep the first-year rates low to make it seem like Obamacare is working. When they see the actual numbers, they'll be demanding the maximum increase in rates annually. So by that same logic, does privatizing Medicare work? So the sickest of the sick hit the private market, whose going to offest that savings to Medicare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 So by that same logic, does privatizing Medicare work? So the sickest of the sick hit the private market, whose going to offest that savings to Medicare? You went straight gatorman with that reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 You went straight gatorman with that reply. That's cruel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 You went straight gatorman with that reply. Answer the question. The proposed change to Medicare was to privatize it, so much like the ACA seniors get a tax credit to shop for private health insurance. How does the system offset the people who now consume 80% of healthcare resources in the country? Magic? How is it any different than the ACA then? Hey, I am on board, if the ACA works and reduces costs as planned (we have not seen the results yet), what possibel reason would Democrats have for no considering the Ryan Plan? It would be the peak of hypocrisy, just like gushing over Ryans plan and demonaizing the ACA shows conservative hyposcrisy. You know I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Answer the question. The proposed change to Medicare was to privatize it, so much like the ACA seniors get a tax credit to shop for private health insurance. How does the system offset the people who now consume 80% of healthcare resources in the country? Magic? How is it any different than the ACA then? Hey, I am on board, if the ACA works and reduces costs as planned (we have not seen the results yet), what possibel reason would Democrats have for no considering the Ryan Plan? It would be the peak of hypocrisy, just like gushing over Ryans plan and demonaizing the ACA shows conservative hyposcrisy. You know I am right. Why would I reply to your strawman argument that fails to refute anything Doc said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts