"Obamacare"

[doubtingmerle]

There are better ways to reduce health care costs that do not include an assault on personal liberty and an overreach of the federal government's power.

How is Obamacare an assault on personal liberties? Because there is a tax? Do you consider all taxes to be an assault on personal liberties?

How is Obamacare an overreach of the federal government's power? The Supreme Court apparently doesn't think it is an overreach of government power. Are you saying they are wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Like I said, a fruitless conversation. Not only do you seek to assasinate the character of those who oppose your viewpoint, but then you are dishonest about it as well.

Good luck with your incoherent ramblings.

Excuse me but I have not tried to assassinate characters here. I have been asking people questions about what they think.

Why do you judge people's motives? All you have is my words. But you do not judge my words. Instead you judge my motives, but you don't even know my motives! And so you make up what my motive must be! You make up that I seek to assassinate character. I know that accusation to be completely false. I am not seeking to assassinate characters. So please don't accuse me of having that motive. That is not my motive.

If I have said one thing that looks like an assassination of character, please echo the offending statement here. If I have ever done that, I will certainly apologize, and seek to make things right.

And now you say I am dishonest about not seeking to assassinate characters? Please, please, if I have done the things you claim, then post the offending statement here so I can apologize. Why do you insist that I have done something wrong, and refuse to give an example of where I have done something wrong? My words are a matter of public record. Simply copy back the offensive words and say this is an assassination of character.

 

[TScott]

A little late to the conversation, but one of the things that really gets me about Obamacare is the attitudes and lifestyles of SOME of the people who support it. It just seems like they are more than willing to take away the rights of others for their own benefit.

I'm confused as to why you posted at all on a thread who's subject you know nothing about. What you call Obamacare doesn't give poor people free healthcare, our society has been doing that for over forty years. Since before you were even born. The Affordable Care Act is an attempt to insure everyone has access to healthcare in a more efficient way.

As I said we as a society decided long ago not to turn poor people away from medical treatment. Polls have consistently shown over 70% of Americans agree that healthcare should only be given to those who can afford to pay for it. If you are one of the other 30%, I guess all I could say is shame on you.

 

[MarkSB]

I'm confused as to why you posted at all on a thread who's subject you know nothing about. What you call Obamacare doesn't give poor people free healthcare, our society has been doing that for over forty years. Since before you were even born. The Affordable Care Act is an attempt to insure everyone has access to healthcare in a more efficient way.

Um, where did I say it gave poor people free healthcare? I'm confused as to why you respond to posts without reading them first.

As I said we as a society decided long ago not to turn poor people away from medical treatment. Polls have consistently shown over 70% of Americans agree that healthcare should only be given to those who can afford to pay for it. If you are one of the other 30%, I guess all I could say is shame on you.

Wha?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Good luck with your incoherent ramblings.

Thanks, then I will ramble on.

It is a shame that 40,000 people die each year in America because they have no health insurance. We should do something about it, such as fully implementing "Obamacare", providing medicare to all, or implementing some other program that will solve the problem.

Before you leave, please feel free to tell us if you agree or disagree with the above paragraph.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But without going into too much detail I've met a few women who seem to think that access to "free" birth control is a right. So instead of adjusting their budgets to account for the cost, they put the burden upon the public.

I am a single man and I see no reason why I should pay for someone else's birth control simply because they manage their money poorly and refuse to adjust their spending habits.

OK, your issue is whether birth control should be included in insurance coverage. That is a state issue that is covered on a state-by-state basis. You don't like the fact that some states include birth control in their requirements for insurance coverage? Then take that up with your state government.

"Obamacare" is set up to see that all can get insurance coverage. The important thing is that all are covered for their basic healthcare needs. (Do you or do you not agree that all Americans should be covered for their basic healthcare needs, whether they can afford it or not?) An argument about what exactly constitutes "basic healthcare needs" should not prevent you from agreeing that all Americans should be covered.

Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom.

What you do in your personal life is personal, just don't expect me to pay for it.

Excuse me, but if the government chooses to do something in violation of your religious beliefs, how is that an assault on your religious freedom?

Many Mennonites are opposed to military spending of any kind. It is a violation of their religious beliefs to spend money on bombers. If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded military spending be stopped because it violates a Mennonite's religious beliefs? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying stop all military spending now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Mennonite? Are you somehow more special than Mennonites?

And Amish are opposed to use of electricity. OK, is it a violation of their religious freedom to have electricity in government offices? If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded electric lighting be stopped because it violates the Amish religious beliefs? Are you saying stop all electric lighting in government offices now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Amish? Are you somehow more special than the Amish?

What you do with your own money is up to you. What the government does with its money is up to the people as a whole who should be deciding. But we cannot possibly run the government in a way that avoids every single thing that violates the religious beliefs of a couple of Americans.

If you want to have a constructive discussion, fine, but keep it constructive.

Fine, lets have a constructive discussion on which religions should be allowed to dictate government policy. The Amish? The Mennonites? The Pentecostals? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Catholics? The Muslims? The Hindus? Please tell me which religious groups should have the authority to force the government to do what they want regardless of what everybody else wants.

I contend that no religious group should have that authority. All should have a say, and rational people should listen to all groups, but no group should be given absolute veto power over the will of the people.

Your constructive response to this issue is welcome.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The reason I propose this is that that way you know who really needs help. Same applies with food stamps and other programs when everybody knows everybody they know who has fallen on hard times and who just flat out did not manage their money right. Loin Hearted that is what I meant that it does not cover everyone.

I know why you propose it, but like I said - that's a horrible way to treat people. "Sorry, you were an idiot, so I'm going to let you die." To apply that logic to EMT's, they'd come upon a car accident and if the driver had obviously been driving too fast, they'd leave him and go get lunch.

Secondly, how do you police this? Where do you draw the line? Is it gross irresponsibility? Cluelessness? Gullibility? Procrastination? Clerical mistakes?

-Dan.

 

[TScott]

Um, where did I say it gave poor people free healthcare? I'm confused as to why you respond to posts without reading them first.

You said that you didn't believe healthcare is a right. I'm saying that your opinion is not shared by the vast majority of Americans.

It's like everything else in our society that we pay for as a group. Nobody asks you if you drive a car, yet we still make you pay for roads. You could sign a release stating that you will never ask for police protection or fire department assistance if your house catches fire, but we're still going to make you pay for those items through your taxes. Healthcare is the same way. It's better if everyone is covered...you can sign a waiver, but we don't trust you, we believe if you get cancer you will still demand treatment regardless of any waiver, so we want you to have coverage. As in any group coverage it works best with the largest group possible...that way healthy people pay for the sick people.

 

[MarkSB]

OK, your issue is whether birth control should be included in insurance coverage. That is a state issue that is covered on a state-by-state basis. You don't like the fact that some states include birth control in their requirements for insurance coverage? Then take that up with your state government.

No, it's part of the ACA:

Obama’s Contraception Mandate Takes Effect Today | TPMDC

"Obamacare" is set up to see that all can get insurance coverage. The important thing is that all are covered for their basic healthcare needs. (Do you or do you not agree that all Americans should be covered for their basic healthcare needs, whether they can afford it or not?) An argument about what exactly constitutes "basic healthcare needs" should not prevent you from agreeing that all Americans should be covered.

We already have Medicare and Medicaid. The biggest plight that exists in my mind is for those who have pre-existing conditions. Getting affordable coverage for them would probably be difficult to accomplish without a personal mandate.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court made a mistake in not striking down the law as unconstitutional. The intent of the constitution was to decentralize power and limit the powers of the federal government. The court just gave the Obama administration and all the control happy liberals the leg up they needed to implement further government control over the people.

And before you go on saying that I am paranoid and should not be concerned about such things - just look at what's happening in California and New York. They banned happy meal toys in San Fransisco and Bloomberg is trying to tell retailers in New York that they cannot sell 16 oz. sodas for Pete's sake. The government has no business trying to micromanage people's lives in such ways.

There are ways to lower the costs of healthcare without government control. An alternative plan would start with reforming the tax code. Currently health insurance premiums are a tax exempt item. This favors those who are in higher income tax brackets. Giving a tax credit instead of a deduction would even the playing field and provide more incentive for those in lower income brackets to purchase insurance. It would also make health insurance more portable (independent of place of employment) which would also reduce the burden on employers who pay a portion of their employee's premiums.

Then, as others have mentioned, you would allow health insurance to be sold on a national market. In theory this would help eliminate insurance monopolies and create a more competitive market, hopefully bringing premiums down or slowing their rate of increase. Combine this with tort reform to help keep medical costs down.

The bottom line is no system is perfect, and the ACA will likely end up being much more expensive that what the Obama administration claims. Free market solutions were not even persued, instead the Obama administration went straight after government control. The sad thing is, it gains him political points with all the people who think they are getting "free stuff," and don't understand that nothing is free. An to top it all off, the Obama administration has provided no way by which to enforce the individual mandate. You don't think this is a huge issue? If premiums begin to rise and people begin to drop coverage, the entire thing would spiral out of control.

Excuse me, but if the government chooses to do something in violation of your religious beliefs, how is that an assault on your religious freedom?

Many Mennonites are opposed to military spending of any kind. It is a violation of their religious beliefs to spend money on bombers. If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded military spending be stopped because it violates a Mennonite's religious beliefs? Is that what you are saying? Are you saying stop all military spending now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Mennonite? Are you somehow more special than Mennonites?

And Amish are opposed to use of electricity. OK, is it a violation of their religious freedom to have electricity in government offices? If government funded birth control must be stopped because it violates your beliefs, must government funded electric lighting be stopped because it violates the Amish religious beliefs? Are you saying stop all electric lighting in government offices now? If not, why must the government honor your religious beliefs but not the beliefs of the Amish? Are you somehow more special than the Amish?

What you do with your own money is up to you. What the government does with its money is up to the people as a whole who should be deciding. But we cannot possibly run the government in a way that avoids every single thing that violates the religious beliefs of a couple of Americans.



Fine, lets have a constructive discussion on which religions should be allowed to dictate government policy. The Amish? The Mennonites? The Pentecostals? The Seventh Day Adventists? The Catholics? The Muslims? The Hindus? Please tell me which religious groups should have the authority to force the government to do what they want regardless of what everybody else wants.

I contend that no religious group should have that authority. All should have a say, and rational people should listen to all groups, but no group should be given absolute veto power over the will of the people.

Your constructive response to this issue is welcome.

The points on the religious freedoms of different groups are valid, and something I have considered. To answer your question - in a democracy, unfortunately, it is only the number of votes which can sway the actions of the government.

Personally, I think its just a bad bill all around. The CEO of Aetna (my current health insurance provider) expressed similar feelings:

“This bill was not written well, and as a result, we have a number of things that will drive up premiums more significantly than the average cost of health care,” he said. “The minimum benefit plans that we design, 50 percent of the American public has a plan designed today that's lower than that.... So until we get other underlying costs out of the system, the effect will be higher premiums in 2014 and 2015.”

Aetna CEO: Obamacare Ruling May Cause Premiums to Rise

The sad thing is, when you present this to the proponents of Obamacare you either get ignored because people think they are going to get "free stuff", or people try to make it sound like you're not concerned with people dying, as has been prevalent in this thread.

You're not doing much good for the uninsured if you run the economy into the ground and drive the deficit up to unsustainable levels. You just end up with more problems than you started with.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You seem to keep assuming:
-people against Obamacare do not care if others die
-people against Obamacare are apathetic toward those who are suffering
-people against Obamacare do not care about those around them

I am sorry if I left that impression. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you care for the suffering of the poor. OK, since we share a mutual concern for the health needs of the poor, what should we do about it?

For instance: Suppose a hard-working family man with a low income is feeling quite sick. He doesn't know what is wrong, and cannot afford medical care, so he struggles on. It turns out he has diabetes and before long he will end up in the emergency room needing an amputation. If he had had early medical intervention, the problem could have been detected and easily treated. But instead he faces an amputation and possible loss of his life. This kind of situation happens all too often in America.

You said you want this discussion to be a constructive discussion. Fine, let's each share our constructive comments on how to fix this. My suggestion? Let's all get behind the full implementation of "Obamacare" so that people like this are covered. Meanwhile, lets have a healthy national debate on how we can improve Obamacare.

OK, your turn. What are your constructive comments on what we should do about this?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are ways to lower the costs of healthcare without government control.

OK, I sees our posts crossed in the mail. At the same time I was asking for your suggestions, you were busy writing them. Thanks, I will take a look at this.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I know why you propose it, but like I said - that's a horrible way to treat people. "Sorry, you were an idiot, so I'm going to let you die." To apply that logic to EMT's, they'd come upon a car accident and if the driver had obviously been driving too fast, they'd leave him and go get lunch.

Secondly, how do you police this? Where do you draw the line? Is it gross irresponsibility? Cluelessness? Gullibility? Procrastination? Clerical mistakes?

-Dan.

When someone chooses to not put into the system and yet want the benefits when they need them so that probably fits in the irresponsibility deal. If you do not want it when you do not need it then you do not deserve to benefit when you need it. They could give them pain medications and make them comfortable I am not saying let them die in pain, however for example flood insurance (home owners' insurance does NOT cover floods. What happens if you do not have it whether that be by choice or even because you can not afford it but you have a flood EVERYTHING you own is destroyed your house your pictures, important documents clothes ECT. Could someone just say well I didn't have it before, but now that a flood has hit and I have lost everything I have ever owned I want to buy some and have it cover my losses. Does it work that way? no, you are on the hook for EVERY dime if you did not have flood insurance (even if the reason you did not have it was that you couldn't afford it. By the same logic then, if you did not want it feel you needed it when you were healthy and chose not to pay in why should we correct that issue just because you are sick and decide I do not have the money so NOW I want the government. No, if you didn't want to buy into the system when you didn't need it you do not deserve to benefit when you do.

 

[iluvatar5150]

When someone chooses to not put into the system and yet want the benefits when they need them so that probably fits in the irresponsibility deal. If you do not want it when you do not need it then you do not deserve to benefit when you need it. They could give them pain medications and make them comfortable I am not saying let them die in pain, however for example flood insurance (home owners' insurance does NOT cover floods. What happens if you do not have it whether that be by choice or even because you can not afford it but you have a flood EVERYTHING you own is destroyed your house your pictures, important documents clothes ECT. Could someone just say well I didn't have it before, but now that a flood has hit and I have lost everything I have ever owned I want to buy some and have it cover my losses. Does it work that way? no, you are on the hook for EVERY dime if you did not have flood insurance (even if the reason you did not have it was that you couldn't afford it. By the same logic then, if you did not want it feel you needed it when you were healthy and chose not to pay in why should we correct that issue just because you are sick and decide I do not have the money so NOW I want the government. No, if you didn't want to buy into the system when you didn't need it you do not deserve to benefit when you do.

First of all, we're not talking about flood insurance; we're talking about health insurance. People's lives, not their property. Leaving someone to replace all of their belongings is a lot different then leaving them to die.

Second, what good does putting them "on the hook" for their medical treatment if they can't afford to pay it? Ultimately, that means that the rest of us pay for it anyways.

So, we're back to letting the public cover the bill or letting people die. Which means that your ideas haven't actually solved anything.

-Dan.

 

[dogs4thewin]

First of all, we're not talking about flood insurance; we're talking about health insurance. People's lives, not their property. Leaving someone to replace all of their belongings is a lot different then leaving them to die.

Second, what good does putting them "on the hook" for their medical treatment if they can't afford to pay it? Ultimately, that means that the rest of us pay for it anyways.

So, we're back to letting the public cover the bill or letting people die. Which means that your ideas haven't actually solved anything.

-Dan.

I KNOW we are talking about people's lives. The point is if someone does not want coverage for their health the government should not make them get it, but if they get sick and THEN want the services then they should be denied.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I KNOW we are talking about people's lives. The point is if someone does not want coverage for their health the government should not make them get it, but if they get sick and THEN want the services then they should be denied.

1. If you don't want coverage, you don't have to get it. You will have to face the penalty, however (which was deemed constitutional).

2. Letting someone die when a cure is available to save them is unethical. I don't care if they uninsured, willingly or not, they should still get the care they need. Frankly, I find your stance to be extremely callous. Your philosophy clearly does not value human life very highly.

 

[dogs4thewin]

1. If you don't want coverage, you don't have to get it. You will have to face the penalty, however (which was deemed constitutional).

2. Letting someone die when a cure is available to save them is unethical. I don't care if they uninsured, willingly or not, they should still get the care they need. Frankly, I find your stance to be extremely callous. Your philosophy clearly does not value human life very highly.

I DO value human life. If I did not do you seriously think I would have offered to drop out of school to pay father's cancer bills? If I did not do you think I would have DONATED not accepting anything but a thanks back to my former RA who is going to Africa in January? (for mission work) If I did not would I have fought so hard to keep someone who had overdosed trying to kill herself awake until the medics got to her when I was wanting to eat and all I had to do was leave the computer and eat. If I did not value human life would be as against abortion as I am? If I did not value human life would I (personally) out of my OWN FREE will pay (or help to pay the medical bills of others (not related to me? I think not

 

[iluvatar5150]

I KNOW we are talking about people's lives. The point is if someone does not want coverage for their health the government should not make them get it, but if they get sick and THEN want the services then they should be denied.

You don't see a problem with letting someone die when you can do something to help them?

What the hell is wrong with you?

-Dan.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You don't see a problem with letting someone die when you can do something to help them?

What the hell is wrong with you?

-Dan.

I see the problem, but if someone didn't want it when they were healthy; then why should we let them get benefits just because they get sick. I have NOTHING against people on THEIR OWN FREE WILL helping such people but government taxes if you didn't want it when you were healthy you shouldn't just take it because it will benefit you once you are sick. By the way, I am with Mark I would sign that paper as well, forgoing my "right" to care on the public dime.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I DO value human life. If I did not do you seriously think I would have offered to drop out of school to pay father's cancer bills? If I did not do you think I would have DONATED not accepting anything but a thanks back to my former RA who is going to Africa in January? (for mission work) If I did not would I have fought so hard to keep someone who had overdosed trying to kill herself awake until the medics got to her when I was wanting to eat and all I had to do was leave the computer and eat. If I did not value human life would be as against abortion as I am? If I did not value human life would I (personally) out of my OWN FREE will pay (or help to pay the medical bills of others (not related to me? I think not

You said that it's okay that people be left to die if they are uninsured and seek medical help. I'm not going to let that comment slip by. These comments of yours in the above quote do nothing to negate the fact that you said uninsured people should be denied services.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You said that it's okay that people be left to die if they are uninsured and seek medical help. I'm not going to let that comment slip by. These comments of yours in the above quote do nothing to negate the fact that you said uninsured people should be denied services.

I did NOT say that as it is now, but if someone has CHOSEN to not pay into the government system but then they want it when they get sick is that right either? Again, if they want treatment they can have it, but they should not accept government care if they felt they did not need it and only want the benefits when they do.