Obamacare is cheap!

[Crude]

I thought the premis of Obama care was that everyone was going to get health care and that the employer was going to pay for it so that costs were evenly distributed?

Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711 as of November 1, 2010

I stick to my guns,costs for health inshurance are going to go up faster then without Obamacare.

 

[bbrosen]

No, everyone will be forced to purchase healthcare insurance, or pay a penalty every year at tax time, deducted directly from your bank account. Employers can opt out and just pay the fine each year, which my employer will be doing, it is cheaper than paying for the insurance.


The deductibles will actually be higher with Obamacare , as will the premiums too, for us anyway, so more money would be out of pocket....we had low deductibles, low premium. we actually had good coverage.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Obamacare doesnt seem like a good deal to me
That said, given the choice, I would have voted for it, but not happilly

The American health care system has been discussed before - its ****ed soz

 

[Bob Maxey]

No, everyone will be forced to purchase healthcare insurance, or pay a penalty every year at tax time, deducted directly from your bank account. Employers can opt out and just pay the fine each year, which my employer will be doing, it is cheaper than paying for the insurance.


The deductibles will actually be higher with Obamacare , as will the premiums too, for us anyway, so more money would be out of pocket....we had low deductibles, low premium. we actually had good coverage.

Here is the interesting thing about Obama Care. Regardless of how much people want to argue how good OC is for us, eventually it all comes out in the wash. You can hide the truth in double speak and outright lies (I mean the Liberal Press) but eventually, we will all pay for it and it will not be pretty.

People will suffer and they will be asking how this terrible thing could happen.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Obamacare doesnt seem like a good deal to me
That said, given the choice, I would have voted for it, but not happilly

The American health care system has been discussed before - its ****ed soz

Here is the important thing: have you read the bill as passed? Sad if you were to vote and you did not read the entire bill. It is more than 2,000 pages and most of those people that voted yes did not read the bill. That fact alone is scary because they did not read it, they were voting blind.

Bob

 

[ovrrdrive]

Most people that voted yes on the bill heard Obama say "free health care" and said ok. It's amazing that this thing even got passed and yes, it's going to break all of us eventually. People like me that have had health care are going to be the ones that are screwed.

What people don't realize is that in countries where medical care is socialized the doctors don't all drive expensive cars and live in mansions. Put them back down to reasonable incomes and it could work, but then we wouldn't have any doctors to go see.

 

[hakr100]

While we are putting doctors down to "reasonable incomes," we should do the same for corporate execs, whose earnings have gone through the roof the last few decades while they export jobs, cut benefits, and lay off U.S. workers.

 

[hakr100]

Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?


According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.
According to an unnamed congressional staffer quoted by Thrush, Harris stood up at the meeting "and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care."
During the campaign, Harris told voters, "the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors."

 

[DeaconBoogie]

Man, you guys...

First, calling this "Anything-care" (Obama or Palin or otherwise) is silly. This isn't healthcare reform, it's health INSURANCE reform. The implication that this was some big government takeover is ludicrous to the point of... well, it's just a pretty ****ing ignorant statement.

"Obamacare" is actually a Republican idea (proposed by Bob Dole in 1996 during his presidential run against Clinton, and implemented by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts). It's extremely pro-business. It leaves the entire insurance cartel completely intact. In fact, you could really call it a bail-out for health insurance companies.

Now, this would not be a really bad idea if the free market worked in a way that the tea party believes: Insurance companies would have more customers, they would negotiate better deals on behalf of their customers, etc. And the savings would get passed on! Unfortunately, for the deluded Ayn Rand sect, the free market really doesn't work like this.

If anyone seriously thinks that United Healthcare, Anthem, and their ilk would ever pass a cost save on to their customers instead of just keeping it as profit then they are living in a world where life is fair and shit doesn't stink.

So, since the tea party got everyone so freaked out about government regulation, we wound up with no regulation of an industry that runs nothing short of a protection racket against the American public.

The key to making "Obamacare" work on the national level would have been to include a public option. And we all know how the idea of a non-profit insurance company competing against private enterprise went over with the tea party. You'd have thought Stalin himself had landed. Imbeciles.

 

[hakr100]

"The key to making "Obamacare" work on the national level would have been to include a public option. And we all know how the idea of a non-profit insurance company competing against private enterprise went over with the tea party. You'd have thought Stalin himself had landed. Imbeciles."

Absolutely. On all counts.

I love the news stories about tea party supporters pushing hard to hold onto their government (taxpayer paid) benefits.

 

[byteware]

Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?


According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.
According to an unnamed congressional staffer quoted by Thrush, Harris stood up at the meeting "and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care."
During the campaign, Harris told voters, "the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions that ensure decisions are made by patients and their doctors."

Congress is still covered by the Federal Employee Health Plan. They are not covered by the public exchanges that the Health Reform will set up.

It seems you have a problem with people having their employer cover them with Health Insurance?

Or is having your employer cover you with Health Insurance somehow admitting that the Health Reform that passed was a GOOD thing?

I see nothing here, other than you trying to make something where there isn't anything.

 

[byteware]

"The key to making "Obamacare" work on the national level would have been to include a public option. And we all know how the idea of a non-profit insurance company competing against private enterprise went over with the tea party. You'd have thought Stalin himself had landed. Imbeciles."

Yes, we should have a government run insurer. I mean, look at how well the Post Office is making out these days.

 

[hakr100]

Congress is still covered by the Federal Employee Health Plan. They are not covered by the public exchanges that the Health Reform will set up.

It seems you have a problem with people having their employer cover them with Health Insurance?

Or is having your employer cover you with Health Insurance somehow admitting that the Health Reform that passed was a GOOD thing?

I see nothing here, other than you trying to make something where there isn't anything.

You missed the irony of the "cut government spending" Republicans/tea party types demanding he be allowed to suck on the taxpayers' teat sooner rather than later.

 

[copestag]

you missed the irony of sarcasm..... he wasnt whining about having no insurance........ he was pointing out another example of govt insurance plan failure

 

[hakr100]

you missed the irony of sarcasm..... he wasnt whining about having no insurance........ he was pointing out another example of govt insurance plan failure

What we have now is a failure of the private sector health insurance concept, not the government health insurance plan failure.

 

[byteware]

You missed the irony of the "cut government spending" Republicans/tea party types demanding he be allowed to suck on the taxpayers' teat sooner rather than later.

irony of "cut government spending" wanting/having health insurance from their employer?

No.

Is it also ironic that he expects a paycheck after his first month of work?

 

[byteware]

What we have now is a failure of the private sector health insurance concept, not the government health insurance plan failure.

So far, we have a failure to reign in frivolous lawsuits, and properly regulate the insurance market... after we handle that, then we can see whether the private sector succeeds or fails.

It's like government regulating that cars must have square wheels, and then announcing that the private sector car model doesn't work...

Once the wheels are fixed, it still may not work, but you won't know for sure until you fix the wheels.

 

[Crude]

Hey you know what else the government is better at then the private sector....?

Losses are getting steeper for U.S. Postal Service - Nov. 12, 2010

It's called Obamacare cause he passed it.

 

[ElasticNinja]

face up to it peoples, your system is ****ed
I still find it funny how Cubas life expectency is almist as good as yours
Whats that - there infant mortality rate is LOWER?

There is a hate of government from most of the US right-leaners around here
Still sore after the Civil War?

There are things government does worse than the private sector:
haircuts, farming, techonology, running shops etc

There are things government does as good as-ish the private sector:
transport, electricity generation etc

There are things government does better than the private sector, and these are often necessary for a nations survival:
military, education, healthcare, statistics, regulation, banking, ecomic management

 

[byteware]

face up to it peoples, your system is ****ed
I still find it funny how Cubas life expectency is almist as good as yours
Whats that - there infant mortality rate is LOWER?

They also have a higher hospital per square mile number too... which has a lot to do with infant mortality.

There is a hate of government from most of the US right-leaners around here
Still sore after the Civil War?

I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point and missing your mark, or if you simply don't understand WHY the Civil War was fought.

The Civil War was fought in an attempt to restore the balance between the powers of state government and the powers of the federal government.

Since the Civil War was fought, those powers have been horribly skewed in a manner absolutely contrary to the constitution.

There are things government does worse than the private sector:
haircuts, farming, techonology, running shops etc

and... everything else.

There are things government does as good as-ish the private sector:
transport, electricity generation etc

Really? Because Some of the best cutting edge technology is in the private sector (i.e. Solar power plants in Arizona). You want great transportation and great electricity generation, go private sector. You want mediocre... government is the way for you.

There are things government does better than the private sector, and these are often necessary for a nations survival:
military, education, healthcare, statistics, regulation, banking, ecomic management

military... bad example as they are equipped by the private sector.

education... take the same under-performing kids and put them in a private school and their grades immediately improve. Put any kid, for that matter, in a private school and their grades automatically improve.

healthcare... we have government run health care, it's called the VA, and trust me.. it's not what you want YOUR health care to be like. There's a reason that I don't use the VA hospital, and instead pay more out of pocket for my health care.

statistics... huh? They may compile data that only THEY have access to, but statistics... are statistics.

regulation... forced subprime lending brought us into this recession.

banking... governments cannot change on the whim of the economy. It takes TOO much to get a change in policy through the government. That's WHY the Fed was created.

economic management... well, again, it was during this ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT that we entered the most recent recession. Also, the Government doesn't manage the economy, the Fed does. The Federal Government long ago realized that they were unable to respond in a timely manner to the economic situation, and created an institution that COULD respond. I think it needs to be responsible to the American public, but economic management is something that the government is just horrible at.

 

[DeaconBoogie]

Yes, we should have a government run insurer. I mean, look at how well the Post Office is making out these days.

The Postal Service has had trouble scaling their business for a variety of reasons, but this is primarily due to the proliferation of email and the recent rise of fuel prices. For the tea party types, it is also one of a very few government entities explicitly authorized by the Constitution (article 1, section 8, clause 7).

Before we chastise the USPS as an example of government spending out of control, I urge you to consider the profit and loss data for the Department of Defense. Whereas the USPS has posted an $8.5B loss for FY10, I'd imagine (nay, hope) that tea party heads are spinning over the $700B costs associated with maintaining our capacity to conduct military operations in an era lacking any sovereign, malevolent adversary, real or perceived.

So, tea party folks, consider the ballooning military budget as yet another bailout and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a form of institutionalized socialism wherein your tax dollars are being quite literally spent to prop up an outmoded industry that, unlike GM, will never, ever produce a dime of profit.

 

[byteware]

The Postal Service has had trouble scaling their business for a variety of reasons, but this is primarily due to the proliferation of email and the recent rise of fuel prices. For the tea party types, it is also one of a very few government entities explicitly authorized by the Constitution (article 1, section 8, clause 7).

Yes, it is authorized by the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that the government can successfully run the organization.

Before we chastise the USPS as an example of government spending out of control, I urge you to consider the profit and loss data for the Department of Defense. Whereas the USPS has posted an $8.5B loss for FY10, I'd imagine (nay, hope) that tea party heads are spinning over the $700B costs associated with maintaining our capacity to conduct military operations in an era lacking any sovereign, malevolent adversary, real or perceived.

I completely agree. It's time we stopped being the shield of the "free" world and let the rest of the world carry their own weight.

Diminish our forces to only a "defense" and limited humanitarian capability. If the UK gets attacked... Oh well. If Canada gets attacked... Oh well. Let them defend THEMSELVES. Let's reduce OUR spending, and let THEM spend a bit for a change.


That being said my problem with the USPS isn't that it exists or is operating at a loss. My problem with the USPS is that this is an example of government competing with the private sector. It competes poorly. The only reason that the Post Office is still around is that it is ILLEGAL for FedEx or UPS to knowingly carry a letter.

If it weren't illegal for FedEx and UPS to really compete with the Post Office, the Post Office would be out of business.

And as far as government run health care... I submit the VA for your examination. I have the option of getting my medical care at the VA. I do not, because it is awful care. If you think the government will do a good job, then look at the job that they are ALREADY doing.

So, tea party folks, consider the ballooning military budget as yet another bailout and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a form of institutionalized socialism wherein your tax dollars are being quite literally spent to prop up an outmoded industry that, unlike GM, will never, ever produce a dime of profit.

This isn't true in the slightest. Much of the technology that we have today is due solely to either our military research or our NASA endeavors.

May I remind you that the internet you are currently using... was the result of Defense Department Research. I would wager the "internet" has been vastly profitable for the United States.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Byteware:
God to see you still hate governments
heh well each to their own (just dont vote here )
And who will invade Canada?
the US when ye run out of resources? *cough* IRAQ *cough*

 

[DeaconBoogie]

They also have a higher hospital per square mile number too... which has a lot to do with infant mortality.

Sigh. I told myself I wasn't going to feed the trolls...

Well, here goes...

I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point and missing your mark, or if you simply don't understand WHY the Civil War was fought.

The Civil War was fought in an attempt to restore the balance between the powers of state government and the powers of the federal government.

Since the Civil War was fought, those powers have been horribly skewed in a manner absolutely contrary to the constitution.

Well, I think they were skewed due to the reality of the situation. If we look at it like a business runs, we are a capitalist economy afterall, it only makes sense that some things are controlled centrally.

Can you imagine if every McDonald's had to negotiate their own supplier arrangements? Why ever bother calling it McDonald's at that point...

But seriously, would you really want to live in a country where Iowa ran 240V and Minnesota ran 120V? What if some hayseed officials in Kansas wanted to teach about Jesus in science classes in K-12 schools? Oh wait, that happened...

If anything, there's still too much left up to the states.

Really? Because Some of the best cutting edge technology is in the private sector (i.e. Solar power plants in Arizona). You want great transportation and great electricity generation, go private sector. You want mediocre... government is the way for you.

Ask PG&E customers how well their private utilities are working for them. When their shit isn't blowing up whole neighborhoods, that is.

Really, that's a poor example. It's widely known that public utility companies have the highest satisfaction rates and lowest costs in the country.

military... bad example as they are equipped by the private sector.

Fleeced by the private sector, of course. I'll take MILSPEC Bic ballpoint pens for $50, Alex.

education... take the same under-performing kids and put them in a private school and their grades immediately improve. Put any kid, for that matter, in a private school and their grades automatically improve.

So let's get rid of DoE and make all schools private! Sounds great!

Wait, I think Philly tried this a few years back... They turned over several school districts to a private company to administer. I think the costs doubled. They did not renew the contract. But then, that was still technically a public school meaning anyone could go, even the poor.

Okay, so let's make them private. That will give us greater choice and quality selection!

But how do we make sure that everyone participates so that we can make sure everyone gets an education... We could make it a mandate, but then that would be like Obamacare and a huge government takeover. No, can't have that. So I guess we don't.

No mandate! So that means that if you can't afford school for your children, then don't have kids. Or abort them. Or maybe just not educate them, because we'll need more serfs for the labor camps to manufacture our tea bags.

healthcare... we have government run health care, it's called the VA, and trust me.. it's not what you want YOUR health care to be like. There's a reason that I don't use the VA hospital, and instead pay more out of pocket for my health care.

I totally agree that the VA system needs work. It's a shame we ask these kids to go and fight then dump them with the underfunded VA.

But remember, there's no profit in fixing them up properly. Nobody's district stands to make a buck from a silly old VA hospital.

regulation... forced subprime lending brought us into this recession.

Lack of regulation due to fierce lobbying by the banking industry and the utter acquiescence to their demands by more timid congressional elements (or those who stood to benefit from deregulation) is certainly a serious issue.

But, it must have been for the better because a lot of people in the banking industry made a ton of money!

Still, let's blame the government because it's the vogue thing to do.

banking... governments cannot change on the whim of the economy. It takes TOO much to get a change in policy through the government. That's WHY the Fed was created.

economic management... well, again, it was during this ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT that we entered the most recent recession. Also, the Government doesn't manage the economy, the Fed does. The Federal Government long ago realized that they were unable to respond in a timely manner to the economic situation, and created an institution that COULD respond. I think it needs to be responsible to the American public, but economic management is something that the government is just horrible at.

Well, in theory it's nice... But when the deck is stacked with former Goldman Sachs brass it makes one wonder whose interests are being served.

One of these plutocrats should come up with the idea of an alternative "private" currency with paper bills and such, backed by international securities, that can be used for goods and services just like government tender! Let's privatize the **** out of this shit!

 

[DeaconBoogie]

This isn't true in the slightest. Much of the technology that we have today is due solely to either our military research or our NASA endeavors.

May I remind you that the internet you are currently using... was the result of Defense Department Research. I would wager the "internet" has been vastly profitable for the United States.

I apologize in advance for my other reply... You issued a decent, well written reply above and my other post was sort of snarky, despite being completely sincere in my frustration with your viewpoints.

Nevertheless, I'd agree -- but in your other post, you said the military has a significant involvement with the private sector, as in them being equipped. That's pretty close to accrediting the private sector with design and distribution, which they most certainly did not do with the Internet.

My wet dream would be for NASA and DOD budgets to be swapped. Imagine what amazing things we'd discover if pure science and research were given priority to military pursuits... One can only dream.