View Full Version : Good news Obamacare gets even better!
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/14/3426408/cbo-obamacare-cheaper/
It just gets better and better. Obamacare (ACA) is working. It is a success. And yes, even for you Rob, it works. :)
So many successful stories out there, I'll give you just one. My daughter, student, part time worker, young woman with 2 autoimmune diseases (which are very easily controlled by inexpensive drugs and diet) i.e. pre-existing conditions, now has good coverage.
It was easy for her to navigate the website. She simply found the plans her doctor accepts, then picked one. And with the subsidies she can pay for it herself on her part time pay.
And her story isn't unusual. It is the story of the ACA. Friends, neighbors and community are being covered. And those who were already covered are often getting better coverage. And those who thought they were covered, but in fact were sold junk insurance, are now getting real coverage, cause, it's really no savings when you pay and pay for years, then get a heart attack or cancer only to discover it's not covered.
But still the right tries to hamper it. They try to destroy what we have gained. They seem to spend every waking minute and breath plotting ways to make it, and our President, fail. But they only reveal their true colors in their nasty attempts.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/04/12/gop-doesnt-care-die/
http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/
George Bush once famously said, "Either you are with us or you are against us."
Which side do you think the right falls on?
Which side do you think the right falls on?
Liberty.
From outside, i am continually baffled that even this pale shadow of a comprehensive medical coverage system for the less-well-off is so derided and opposed by significant forces down there. Slogans do not pay medical bills (and from what I have read, medical bills are way near the top reason for personal bankruptcies).
Keep up the good fight Peggy!
awakenedsoul
4-14-14, 5:20pm
I'm glad to hear your daughter can afford to pay for her health insurance now. When I was young, if my job didn't provide health insurance, I just didn't buy it. It wasn't responsible, but I had always been healthy, and I took my chances. Once I bought my house, I purchased a catastrophic policy. At the time it was $35.00 a month. I now have the silver plan, and it is slightly less than I paid for my catastrophic policy last year. I have a lot more coverage, though.
I think there were a lot of low income, uninsured people in the US. The article was interesting. Thanks.
Gardenarian
4-14-14, 5:38pm
My family of three spent over $22,000 on health insurance last year. This year, it will be under $10,000 - and we are not receiving any subsidies.
The Affordable Care Act is working for us!
I was beyond thrilled when I signed up last December. I am seeing a doctor and getting my prescriptions for about half of what it was the year before. I can breathe again.
Liberty.
Tom Tomorrow nails it again with Health Care Reformaggeddon:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_--YjWiyF8eE/S7YkuriYk4I/AAAAAAAAGd0/t8D-i1-iypw/s1600/story-1.jpg
Tom Tomorrow nails it again with Health Care Reformaggeddon:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_--YjWiyF8eE/S7YkuriYk4I/AAAAAAAAGd0/t8D-i1-iypw/s1600/story-1.jpg
LOL, that's funny.
Humor aside, I'm always surprised that so many people fail to understand the concept of liberty, preferring to stereotype those who do, as your Tom Tomorrow comic illustrates. If you take the emotional pull of healthcare out of the equation, what is the ACA other than governmental coercion?
The history of the United States is one of people escaping coercive rulers and achieving liberty. I think many of us have forgotten, or simply never known, what our predecessors found most important. Our perspective is skewed. But, we do get others to pay portions, if not all of our healthcare expenses.
awakenedsoul
4-14-14, 9:38pm
Before Obamacare, if I needed to see a doctor I just went to Urgent Care and paid cash. It was much cheaper, and I had my catastrophic policy for something major. I've only been to the doctor twice in the past 16 years. I've never filed a claim with Blue Shield. I liked having that choice. Now, you can only buy catastrophic policies in my state if you are under 30 yrs. of age. I've said before, I wish they gave rates to very healthy people who don't use the Western system, and don't file claims. But, it doesn't work that way.
Gardenarian
4-15-14, 11:12am
Alan, I don't quite see how this is an issue of liberty?
We all pay taxes to things we rather not support...is the Affordable Care Act in some way different?
For example, I don't support government subsidies for factory farming and CAFOs, or the subsidies that keep oil/gasoline cheap.
Alan, I don't quite see how this is an issue of liberty?
We all pay taxes to things we rather not support...is the Affordable Care Act in some way different?
Yes, it forces individuals to purchase a commercial product they may not want, and at levels they may not need. The additional burden of taxation based upon the absence of that purchase is assessed for the failure to engage in commerce, which sounds suspiciously like a punitive fine rather than a tax.
Using the ACA's individual mandate as precedent, I'd not be surprised to see future fines, disguised as taxes, for the failure to purchase a new car from GM or perhaps a life insurance policy designed to supplement SS Survivor benefits.
It is an issue of liberty because at its core, liberty is unobstructed action, or inaction, according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Individual will has been taken out of the equation. Without the benefit of free will or conscience, how can there be liberty?
Gardenarian
4-15-14, 11:50am
Yes, it forces individuals to purchase a commercial product they may not want, and at levels they may not need. The additional burden of taxation based upon the absence of that purchase is assessed for the failure to engage in commerce, which sounds suspiciously like a fine rather than a tax.
Thank you, that clarifies things for me, and does make sense.
I have been looking at it from the rather narrow point of view that "Hey, it's good for ME!" (and a lot of other people I know) but of course that doesn't make it a good thing on a larger scale.
Food for thought.
Which is not to say that I think government health care is bad; I do think a universal, national health care system would be more equitable.
Yes, it forces individuals to purchase a commercial product they may not want, and at levels they may not need. The additional burden of taxation based upon the absence of that purchase is assessed for the failure to engage in commerce, which sounds suspiciously like a punitive fine rather than a tax.
Using the ACA's individual mandate as precedent, I'd not be surprised to see future fines, disguised as taxes, for the failure to purchase a new car from GM or perhaps a life insurance policy designed to supplement SS Survivor benefits.
It is an issue of liberty because at its core, liberty is unobstructed action, or inaction, according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Individual will has been taken out of the equation. Without the benefit of free will or conscience, how can there be liberty?
This is an old argument, and not a very good one. And the more successful the ACA gets, the sillier it gets...but, hey, I certainly hope the GOP refuses to put the brakes on their meme and keep on running on this, cause, pretty soon it will only be you, ditto heads and some old, easily confused folks voting for them. But I don't even have to worry about the old folks cause the GOP is working real hard to disenfranchise their vote too.;)
This is no more about liberty than that nut job trespasser in Nevada is about liberty. Maybe I don't want to buy car insurance, but I would sure get in trouble if I didn't. Or buy food for my kids, but DFS would take them away and probably throw me in jail if I didn't. And if I refuse to vaccinate my dog and buy tags, I could get fined. There are a lot of things we do that maybe we don't believe in, taxes we pay to support things we don't want to, but we do it. It's called LIVING IN A COMMUNITY IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY. Not everything we do is for me me me. We do things, sometimes, that may not benefit ourselves directly, but again, it's that community thing. Because what benefits our community benefits us. And what benefits your community benefits me, ultimately, cause we all pay for those who are not insured, but who need medical care, sometimes quite expensive medical care. And we ALL will eventually need it. Or our kids and/or our parents, siblings, friends, everyone.
I know one argument is that not everyone drives so driving is a privilege and insurance is a part of that privilege. This is true. Just as true as living in the US is a privilege, which includes medical care, when you need it, even if you don't have a dime to your name and require $100,000 worth of care. Paying insurance is just a part of that privilege. You don't have to drive, and you don't have to live here. See, you do have a choice. You are at LIBERTY to find the country that speaks to your ideals of freedom. I think Somalia is nice this time of year.;) and probably the only country with all the libertarian ideals such as no government involvement, no SS, medicare, gun regulations, environmental regulations, actually any regulations that protect the people, programs for the poor, etc....It's mob rule (kind of like in Nevada right now) so be sure to arm yourself heavily, cause, the biggest gun wins. :0!
But again, I hope the right keeps on with this rhetoric cause it speaks volumes about their character and ideals, and *hint* it ain't liberty or freedom that people see. What folks are finally seeing is petty, narrow minded meanness and a void where the spirit of The UNITED in The United States should dwell.
This is an old argument, and not a very good one. Yes it is old, it's been around for centuries but it is actually quite good. After all, it is the basis of the longest lived Constitutional Republic in history.
I know one argument is that not everyone drives so driving is a privilege and insurance is a part of that privilege. Driving is not a privilege, driving on public roads is a privilege, one that requires proof of financial responsibility for damage you may cause while exercising that privilege. Notice that government does not require you to show financial responsibility for yourself, but for those you may harm. Comparing that to ACA's individual mandate is like comparing apples to whatever is not an apple.
But again, I hope the right keeps on with this rhetoric cause it speaks volumes about their character and ideals, and *hint* it ain't liberty or freedom that people see. What folks are finally seeing is petty, narrow minded meanness and a void where the spirit of The UNITED in The United States should dwell.
It's been my experience that people see what they want to see, even when it's at odds with reality. Well, then there's always the possiblity of hallucinations. ;)
ApatheticNoMore
4-15-14, 3:10pm
Well one of the few weapons we have against corporations is to boycott them. Now boycotting health insurance may be as futile as boycotting gasoline in most cases (ie doesn't work in *this* society). But I'd hate to have to buy something in a case where boycotting could matter (yes, I know, they'd probably just get bailed anyway). We have very few ways to actually express our voice as is.
"“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison
But anyways, thanks for the free health care this year Alan! That's about $15k/year saved out-of-pocket for my household, I just want you to know we're putting it to good use, and we appreciate all your hard work!
"“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” James Madison
That was so 18th Century. Re-distribution is the future baby!! "From each according to one's abilities, to each according to one's needs."
If it was really about "liberty" then these same Tea Party types should have rioted when the Patriot Act was passed. Or when it was renewed. Or when the revelations came out about the NSA spying on U.S. citizens.
That's Liberty with a capital L. Instead, nothing but the sound of silence .. That's why no one is buying the liberty argument in regards to health care.
I believed I complained loudly about all of those events, Lainey, but I like coffee more than Tea.
Agree that there was some mild protest, but that was the minority. In contrast, the GOP's non-stop hysteria about the ACA and "freedom" is way disproportionate to plenty of federal goings-on that they should genuinely be upset about. If only they would re-direct their ire.
Seems impossible to talk about "liberty" these days without someone redirecting onto the Tea Party, the GOP, or whatever thought-terminating cliché will distract from the conversation. Ah well.
If it was really about "liberty" then these same Tea Party types should have rioted when the Patriot Act was passed. Or when it was renewed. Or when the revelations came out about the NSA spying on U.S. citizens.
That's Liberty with a capital L. Instead, nothing but the sound of silence .. That's why no one is buying the liberty argument in regards to health care.
I think this perception may be another case of seeing what we want to see. There have been lots of "Tea Party types" (whatever that means) expressing concern over both. Actually, I'm not aware of anyone, "Tea Party Types" or not, in favor of the NSA's domestic surveillance activities, although you may be better informed than me since you're probably closer to the ideological demographic in power, you know, the one who's actually defended the NSA's actions.
As for the Patriot Act, you might recall that the initial version was quite popular with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It passed the House on a vote of 357 to 66, and the Senate (which had a Democratic majority) on a vote of 98 to 1. The finished result turned out to be so vast that many elements have been roundly criticized by just about everyone, while other elements have maintained bipartisan support, which makes it difficult to score overall support or opposition by someone's version of proper ideology.
Overall, on both issues I think it's safe to say that the allegation of "nothing but the sound of silence" from "Tea Party types" is incorrect.
Driving is not a privilege, driving on public roads is a privilege, one that requires proof of financial responsibility for damage you may cause while exercising that privilege. Notice that government does not require you to show financial responsibility for yourself, but for those you may harm. Comparing that to ACA's individual mandate is like comparing apples to whatever is not an apple.
Well, Alan, actually it's EXACTLY like this.
Living in the US is a privilege. Part of that wonderful package is the FACT that you will be treated, whether you are covered or not, whether you have a dime in your pocket or not, whatever your race, religion, sex...at whatever cost it takes to scrape your butt off the pavement and keep you alive. See, you can own your body, but if you use it (drive on the streets) you need to prove coverage to cover those who you might harm (doctors, hospitals, ambulance drivers, emergency workers, labs, clinics, rehab, etc..) when you cause a wreck (get in a wreck..or have a heart attack, cancer, broken bones, gunshot, whatever)
The analogy is actually pretty spot on. Health insurance isn't to pay you. It's to pay all the folks who spend time and money to fix you up and send you back out, to drive that body on US roads. Thanks for making the case for the ACA.:)
*FYI, the right has called wolf so many times with the default 'liberty' defense, they have ruined any chance of ANYONE taking them seriously in cases of real liberty infractions. Sorry guy. You seriously run the risk of making the cry of 'liberty' as much a joke as Sarah Palins 'Death panels' or the NRA's...well, just about anything the NRA says.:laff:
Well, Alan, actually it's EXACTLY like this.
I know we'll disagree on this but no, it isn't exactly alike. Let's review a few comparisons.
The auto insurance comparison is flawed because the Individual Mandate tax (I think they're actually calling it a Shared Responsibility Tax now) hits people who refuseto participate in compulsory commerce. For a more accurate comparison, we’d have to implement a special tax penalty against people who refuse to purchase and drive a car. And if we did such a thing, what do you suppose would happen to the cost of auto insurance?
Which brings us to another huge reason this comparison is absurd: auto insurance is"insurance". It fits the functional definition of an insurance program: the buyer pays a modest amount, on a steady basis, to purchase financial protection against unanticipated, catastrophic expense. This protection is very affordable for safe drivers, because the insurance companies are permitted to measure risk against reward, and charge lower premiums for those deemed less likely to make expensive claims. A driver who gets into many accidents, and submits a high volume of claims, can expect to pay much higher premiums, as can people who fall into groups known to have a high level of risk, such as young men.
A wide range of options is offered to the buyer of an auto insurance policy, who is invited to shop around between many different providers to get the best deal. The buyer can accept higher levels of financial risk – larger deductibles, lower maximum payouts, and less comprehensive coverage – in exchange for lower premiums. The value and nature of the covered automobile, which was freely chosen by the driver, is also a strong factor in determining the price of coverage.
Auto insurance does notpay for routine vehicle maintenance, gasoline, or optional enhancements to the car. It is possible to purchase separate maintenance programs that provide such services at a discounted rate, in exchange for pre-payment, but no one thinks it would be a good idea to fold those maintenance plans into insurance policies.
So, in order to make them EXACTLY alike, we'd need to make everyone purchases automobile insurance, whether they owned or operated an automobile or not, ensure that everyone had exactly the same level of mandated coverage, and force a pricing structure to ensure that your neighbor down the street with two DUI convictions and a driving record consisting of several accidents resulting in serious bodily harm or death to bystanders paid no more than you who have not so much as a single speeding ticket on your record. Then, to top it off, we'd need to look at your neighbors income to determine how much you should contribute to the cost of his coverage.
Other than that, I guess you could say that they are EXACTLY alike, but I wouldn't.
Peggy and Alan (Itchy and Scratchy :-)!) you guys are both right. While the Individual Mandate does require most people to have health insurance, there are certain exempt classes - one being low income. So technically, like choosing to not own or drive a car and HAVE to buy auto insurance, one can choose to be very low income and not be required to buy health insurance. And you wouldn't be required to pay any penalties (or even any income taxes). Of course this is for "taxable income" only since assets aren't counted. So technically someone with very large non-taxable or tax-deferred financial assets but who had a low income, wouldn't HAVE to buy insurance and wouldn't have to pay a penalty.
Who are the individuals Exempt from Paying the Health Insurance Tax Penalty for Not being insured
Any individual who falls within one of the scenarios listed below will not have to pay the Health Insurance Tax penalty, if they do not have a health insurance plan with the “essential benefits”
◾If you are an individual who cannot afford coverage. The term unaffordable relates to a person whose contribution toward minimum essential coverage would be greater than 8% of their annual household income. The monthly contributions are calculated at 1/12 the annual household income. This is used to determine if the individual exceed the 8%.
◾If you are an individual taxpayers with income below the tax filing threshold
◾Individuals who qualify for a hardship exemption. This exemption is available to individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid because their state chose not to participate in Medicaid expansion. Or individuals who have another hardship that prevents them from being able to afford coverage.
◾If you are an individuals who have experience a gap in minimum essential coverage of less than 3 consecutive months within one calendar year
◾Members of religious groups that object to coverage on religious principles
◾Members of non-profit religious organizations where members share medical costs. Often referred as Health care sharing ministries.
◾Prison inmates
◾Non U.S. citizens
◾Native American tribe members
Thank you, that clarifies things for me, and does make sense.
I have been looking at it from the rather narrow point of view that "Hey, it's good for ME!" (and a lot of other people I know) . I think that the ACA has been a VERY good thing for many people - especially those who had pre-existing conditions and couldn't find affordable health insurance or were completely denied coverage. I can also see that it would be a good thing for individuals who want to retire early (but I have moral issues with this myself - i.e. why should Alan have to work and pay taxes to pay for my free or low cost health insurance so that I can play beach volleyball all day long) or for people who can get subsidies . But like all good things there are also many people who have had big premium and deductible increases, as well as tax increases or loss of employer coverage. So while I think it's been a blessing and help for many, it's also been a negative thing for many others.
I know we'll disagree on this but no, it isn't exactly alike. Let's review a few comparisons.
The auto insurance comparison is flawed because the Individual Mandate tax (I think they're actually calling it a Shared Responsibility Tax now) hits people who refuseto participate in compulsory commerce. For a more accurate comparison, we’d have to implement a special tax penalty against people who refuse to purchase and drive a car. And if we did such a thing, what do you suppose would happen to the cost of auto insurance?
Which brings us to another huge reason this comparison is absurd: auto insurance is"insurance". It fits the functional definition of an insurance program: the buyer pays a modest amount, on a steady basis, to purchase financial protection against unanticipated, catastrophic expense. This protection is very affordable for safe drivers, because the insurance companies are permitted to measure risk against reward, and charge lower premiums for those deemed less likely to make expensive claims. A driver who gets into many accidents, and submits a high volume of claims, can expect to pay much higher premiums, as can people who fall into groups known to have a high level of risk, such as young men.
A wide range of options is offered to the buyer of an auto insurance policy, who is invited to shop around between many different providers to get the best deal. The buyer can accept higher levels of financial risk – larger deductibles, lower maximum payouts, and less comprehensive coverage – in exchange for lower premiums. The value and nature of the covered automobile, which was freely chosen by the driver, is also a strong factor in determining the price of coverage.
Auto insurance does notpay for routine vehicle maintenance, gasoline, or optional enhancements to the car. It is possible to purchase separate maintenance programs that provide such services at a discounted rate, in exchange for pre-payment, but no one thinks it would be a good idea to fold those maintenance plans into insurance policies.
So, in order to make them EXACTLY alike, we'd need to make everyone purchases automobile insurance, whether they owned or operated an automobile or not, ensure that everyone had exactly the same level of mandated coverage, and force a pricing structure to ensure that your neighbor down the street with two DUI convictions and a driving record consisting of several accidents resulting in serious bodily harm or death to bystanders paid no more than you who have not so much as a single speeding ticket on your record. Then, to top it off, we'd need to look at your neighbors income to determine how much you should contribute to the cost of his coverage.
Other than that, I guess you could say that they are EXACTLY alike, but I wouldn't.
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh..If you own and use a car, you HAVE to have insurance. It's the law. It is, in fact, required. It's the first thing a cop will ask for if he/she stops you for ANYTHING. If you don't have insurance, you can't drive a car. Period.
Do you own a body? Do you use it? CAn it break down on the street/at work/at home/in the shower? Yes, yes, and yes. I suppose we could insist that people without health insurance should just stay in bed with the covers pulled up to their chins, but even there they could suffer a heart attack. By simply breathing they are 'driving' their bodies.Do you know what the average heart attack costs? We are in the hundreds of thousands range here pretty quickly.
Are your car repairs going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars? No. Is your body repair going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars. Very easily, unfortunately.
Let me ask you this? For all the deadbeats who don't want to buy insurance, or for those who want to continue with their junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, who will pay? Who will pay that $200,000 for their heart attack? Who do you think should pick up that bill?
Who should pay for the poor kids ear infection? Or should he just stay home and suffer? I'm asking you because I really want to know who you think should pay?
Do you think we shouldn't have a car insurance requirement? Do you think mortgage companies shouldn't be allowed to require home insurance?
Or maybe we should have universal health care, cut out the insurance companies altogether, since your problem seems to be asking people to buy insurance.
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:08pm
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh..If you own and use a car, you HAVE to have insurance. It's the law. It is, in fact, required. It's the first thing a cop will ask for if he/she stops you for ANYTHING. If you don't have insurance, you can't drive a car. Period.
Do you own a body? Do you use it? CAn it break down on the street/at work/at home/in the shower? Yes, yes, and yes. I suppose we could insist that people without health insurance should just stay in bed with the covers pulled up to their chins, but even there they could suffer a heart attack. By simply breathing they are 'driving' their bodies.Do you know what the average heart attack costs? We are in the hundreds of thousands range here pretty quickly.
Are your car repairs going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars? No. Is your body repair going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars. Very easily, unfortunately.
Let me ask you this? For all the deadbeats who don't want to buy insurance, or for those who want to continue with their junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, who will pay? Who will pay that $200,000 for their heart attack? Who do you think should pick up that bill?
Who should pay for the poor kids ear infection? Or should he just stay home and suffer? I'm asking you because I really want to know who you think should pay?
Do you think we shouldn't have a car insurance requirement? Do you think mortgage companies shouldn't be allowed to require home insurance?
Or maybe we should have universal health care, cut out the insurance companies altogether, since your problem seems to be asking people to buy insurance.Peggy I agree with what you have posted 100%. I'd also prefer universal health care myself as insurance companies make my skin crawl - just don't trust them, never have, never will, I'm a firm believer some things such as health care should not be done at a profit - but that's a topic for another thread. I do believe that even with my issues I've had with DES, that ObamaCare overall is a good thing for those who have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long - the working poor. Something else that is nice now is that I am not so unlimited as to where I can eat if I ever eat out as I made a pact a few years back not to eat at places that don't offer healthcare to their employees(with a few exceptions, such as when I am travelling). I also don't feel guilty shopping at places that don't offer health care as I know the cashiers are more than likely PT and on Medicaid. So one benefit of ObamaCare for me is reduction of guilt in shopping some places. Rob
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh..If you own and use a car, you HAVE to have insurance. It's the law. It is, in fact, required..
It's not the law in my state, it is perfectly possible to own a car here, not register it, and not insure it. It's not the law in most states I suspect.
Now, if you intend to primarily drive or park on public roads, and don't fall into one of the many exempt use categories, you of course are required to register and have insurance.
Not all the US is suburbia/urban, not all vehicles are used on public roads.
There are whole communities in my county where vehicles are not registered or insured, and yet are driven on the roads in those communities.
So one benefit of ObamaCare for me is reduction of guilt in shopping some places. Rob
And yet you have no guilt when you shop in Mexico and take advantage of their wonderful prices and service, which are built atop the blood of tortured and oppressed people.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:26pm
And yet you have no guilt when you shop in Mexico and take advantage of their wonderful prices and service, which are built atop the blood of tortured and oppressed people.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexicoTo which I say, is 100% of what you buy made in the USA, and if so, how do you pull that off with so many American manufacturing jobs being offshored by American corporations to countries with lower wages and lower costs? I'm all ears, Bae. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:28pm
It's not the law in my state, it is perfectly possible to own a car here, not register it, and not insure it. It's not the law in most states I suspect.
Now, if you intend to primarily drive or park on public roads, and don't fall into one of the many exempt use categories, you of course are required to register and have insurance.
Not all the US is suburbia/urban, not all vehicles are used on public roads.
There are whole communities in my county where vehicles are not registered or insured, and yet are driven on the roads in those communities.Ummmm.....I don't live in Washington state so I'm not 100% here, I'll give you that. But get pulled over in Washington state and not have proof of insurance for the cop that pulls you over.....me thinks you won't like the consequences, Bae. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-14, 5:28pm
It seems to me if you are an American probably taking some advantage of the U.S. exchange rate (to the Mexican peso), as opposed to a Mexican who earns pesos, then that priviledge is built on top of the blood of a tortured and oppressed people to some degree. Because I think U.S. dollar exchange rates are to some degree built on U.S. empire and hegemony etc.. Do I blame anyone for exchanging dollars for pesos? No, that by itself doesn't directly *support* much of *anything*.
Ummmm.....I don't live in Washington state so I'm not 100% here, I'll give you that. But get pulled over in Washington state and not have proof of insurance for the cop that pulls you over.....me thinks you won't like the consequences, Bae. Rob
Methinks you didn't read the words in my post, Rob.
To which I say, is 100% of what you buy made in the USA, and if so, how do you pull that off with so many American manufacturing jobs being offshored by American corporations to countries with lower wages and lower costs? I'm all ears, Bae. Rob
I buy products made in my *county* as much as possible, as I don't even like participating in most USA producers' ethics, and unlike you, I don't travel to the countries doing the oppressing and directly do business with them *by choice*.
So there's perhaps a difference there.
Rob: "Yes, but... #39807".
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:43pm
I buy products made in my *county* as much as possible, as I don't even like participating in most USA producers' ethics, and unlike you, I don't travel to the countries doing the oppressing and directly do business with them *by choice*.
So there's perhaps a difference there.
Rob: "Yes, but... #39807".? #39807? Color me confused. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:44pm
Methinks you didn't read the words in my post, Rob.This county you live in, Bae, it is legally in Washington state, no? Would not Washington state laws apply there? Rob
I reread your post BTW and I'm no legal expert but I still would think, get pulled over on one of these roads you mention without insurance and you won't like the consequences.....even if you are right. Sounds like a major legal battle just waiting to happen if such an exemption as you claim does exist.
gimmethesimplelife
4-16-14, 5:47pm
I buy products made in my *county* as much as possible, as I don't even like participating in most USA producers' ethics, and unlike you, I don't travel to the countries doing the oppressing and directly do business with them *by choice*.
So there's perhaps a difference there.
Rob: "Yes, but... #39807".As far as health care goes, the country you believe in so much has not given me much choice BUT to go to Mexico until recently. Simple economics. I had no choice. I do hear what you are saying here Bae, and it's not without merit in my book BUT one needs to have the money or insurance to live that way/make those kinds of choices. Truly I had no choice - something else to lay at America's feet. Would you rather I went without needed health care than go to Mexico? Rob
This county you live in, Bae, it is legally in Washington state, no? Would not Washington state laws apply there? Rob
Indeed, it is in Washington State. And Washington State laws apply here. And the Revised Code of Washington provides for vehicles to be owned and operated without being either registered or insured.
Alan, Alan, Alan...sigh..If you own and use a car, you HAVE to have insurance. It's the law. It is, in fact, required. It's the first thing a cop will ask for if he/she stops you for ANYTHING. If you don't have insurance, you can't drive a car. Period.
Do you own a body? Do you use it? CAn it break down on the street/at work/at home/in the shower? Yes, yes, and yes. I suppose we could insist that people without health insurance should just stay in bed with the covers pulled up to their chins, but even there they could suffer a heart attack. By simply breathing they are 'driving' their bodies.Do you know what the average heart attack costs? We are in the hundreds of thousands range here pretty quickly.
Are your car repairs going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars? No. Is your body repair going to cost you 100's of thousands of dollars. Very easily, unfortunately.
Let me ask you this? For all the deadbeats who don't want to buy insurance, or for those who want to continue with their junk insurance that doesn't really cover anything, who will pay? Who will pay that $200,000 for their heart attack? Who do you think should pick up that bill?
Who should pay for the poor kids ear infection? Or should he just stay home and suffer? I'm asking you because I really want to know who you think should pay?
Do you think we shouldn't have a car insurance requirement? Do you think mortgage companies shouldn't be allowed to require home insurance?
Or maybe we should have universal health care, cut out the insurance companies altogether, since your problem seems to be asking people to buy insurance.
Peggy, Peggy, Peggy....sigh..I think we've gotten off into the weeds from the original path which dealt with liberty. In an effort to get it back on-track, let me again point out that I have the choice of whether or not I drive a car or use it on public roads. If I choose not to, there is no punitive tax associated with my choice. Under the ACA I do not have a choice to forego the purchase of a specific commercial product, nor do I have the choice to tailor that commercial product to suit my needs without bearing the brunt of a punitive tax, levied by the federal government. Under that scheme, I no longer have the freedom of choice, association or conscience for my own healthcare needs, nor would I have under any form of universal healthcare as the government has decided what I want, what I need, what I must have, and what I must pay for it. That is the opposite of liberty.
I was not the one who brought up the word Liberty into the conversation about ACA.
And no I do not defend the NSA's actions.
But are you really saying that the same people who claim Liberty as their excuse for being against the ACA were protesting just as vigorously and publicly when the Patriot Act passed? or when it was renewed? or when the NSA spy scandal broke?
Not to mention when Romneycare passed in Massachusetts. So, where's the proof?
Again, my point is that if Liberty was the true concern, these earlier events would have provoked the public outrage that they are now showing about the ACA. So that cannot be the real reason.
I was not the one who brought up the word Liberty into the conversation about ACA.
That's correct. I brought it up as a one word response to the question "Which side do you think the right falls on?". Since then, I've simply responded to those who either tell me that I'm wrong in my opinion or imply that I am a hypocrite based upon their interpretation of my beliefs.
But are you really saying that the same people who claim Liberty as their excuse for being against the ACA were protesting just as vigorously and publicly when the Patriot Act passed? or when it was renewed? or when the NSA spy scandal broke?
No, I can't speak for what other people think. I can repeat what I've previously posted that I'm not aware of anyone with views similar to mine who don't think either of those examples were an assault on their liberty. The only exception possibly being elements of the Patriot Act since it was such a far reaching piece of legislation. When it is broken down into it's individual parts, some enjoy bipartisan support, and others, not so much.
Again, my point is that if Liberty was the true concern, these earlier events would have provoked the public outrage that they are now showing about the ACA. So that cannot be the real reason.
I'm afraid I don't find that conclusion convincing. How do you measure public outrage? Is it only public outrage if you disagree, while any agreement with your concerns is simply ignored?
ApatheticNoMore
4-16-14, 8:52pm
But are you really saying that the same people who claim Liberty as their excuse for being against the ACA were protesting just as vigorously and publicly when the Patriot Act passed? or when it was renewed? or when the NSA spy scandal broke?
Not to mention when Romneycare passed in Massachusetts. So, where's the proof?
I'm not sure how one would know. How likely people one sees on social media are to be protesting something? (all the tea party members one presumably has on their social media? :) ) Whether it trends on twitter? (twitter trending seems straight out manipulated btw) Or something like media coverage? But does most of the media tend to cover protests or black them out? How many protests go uncovered everyday? What determines if the media covers a protest? Size of the protest? Or something else?
They only group I was aware of trying to protest the NSA was the "restore the 4th" movement, and I don't think it went anywhere (but again, since I wasn't there, would I know if it did? If several hundred people were out protesting it would the "revolution be televised"?)
If you are just talking Republican politicians and the like of course they aren't against the NSA. Actually the Dems in the house vote significantly better on civil libs overall (Senate and Prez are throughly corrupt - nothing more needs to be said about them).
Again, my point is that if Liberty was the true concern, these earlier events would have provoked the public outrage that they are now showing about the ACA. So that cannot be the real reason.
Yes I suspect you're right and liberty is often not the prime concern. I'm merely pointing out public outrage is being reflected to us through fun house mirrors at this point, and then we look through them trying to get an accurate picture of the (social-political) world and our place in it! I don't think we live in a culture with massive amounts of political protest or activity (or everyone you know would be going to a protest this weekend :) ), but exactly what *is* going on I suspect is utterly distorted. I do suspect that it's easier to build a protest on things people *perceive* as affecting them immediately and economically (rather than on civil libs, the environment etc. - even though that stuff is extremely important in the big picture), but I'm not entirely sure about that one either.
Peggy, Peggy, Peggy....sigh..I think we've gotten off into the weeds from the original path which dealt with liberty. In an effort to get it back on-track, let me again point out that I have the choice of whether or not I drive a car or use it on public roads. If I choose not to, there is no punitive tax associated with my choice. Under the ACA I do not have a choice to forego the purchase of a specific commercial product, nor do I have the choice to tailor that commercial product to suit my needs without bearing the brunt of a punitive tax, levied by the federal government. Under that scheme, I no longer have the freedom of choice, association or conscience for my own healthcare needs, nor would I have under any form of universal healthcare as the government has decided what I want, what I need, what I must have, and what I must pay for it. That is the opposite of liberty.
Oh baloney! I think you have that flag wrapped a little too tight around your head!:~)
Tell you what, the day we become Somalia, you can have complete freedom to not buy health insurance, and the hospitals will have complete freedom to let you die in the parking lot! And they will, cause, that's the way it is in an Ayn Rand utopia such as that!:0!
Whatever...it is the law of the land, like it or not, and it won't be repealed, cause the majority of American citizens fall on the side of compassion and decency. This country isn't, nor was it built on, every man for himself, despite the tea party taliban trying to convince people otherwise. Why the so called party of responsibility would be against what is essentially a set of regulations on the insurance industry is beyond me. I guess it's that whole black guy in the white house thing, cause, you know, they were for it before they were against it.
I'm glad our country did this. It's not perfect, god knows we really need universal health care, but it's a step in the right direction. And it IS helping people Lots of people, and not just poor, indigent people. I know that really pisses off the right but, there it is.
iris lilies
4-17-14, 10:59am
... And it IS helping people Lots of people, and not just poor, indigent people...
oh peggy, I am so with you there. One of these days I'll be joining the ranks of people who are helped by Obamacare and I'm not indigent. I'll be jumping on Alan's back for the ride. Thing is, I'm not sure what happens when Alan throws in the towel and stops working and paying taxes. But tra-la, tr-la, guess I don't really need to think about that, Nanny G will take care o' me!
Thanks Peg, I should have known I couldn't get anything past you. Your ability to see through the murk and find the true rationale of racism, greed & mean-spiritedness, which is the true cause of all differences of opinion, is truly phenomenal. I stand in humble awe of your insight.
Alan's federal tax burden is historically the lowest it's been in decades, so don't worry about him going broke, Iris Lily. And if we could just stop getting involved in endless, pointless foreign wars, just think how much we'd have to spend or save!
... if we could just stop getting involved in endless, pointless foreign wars, just think how much we'd have to spend or save!
This... definitely this. What we could do with that money to fix our own space. Imagine!
This... definitely this. What we could do with that money to fix our own space. Imagine!
+1
gimmethesimplelife
4-18-14, 2:12pm
Alan's federal tax burden is historically the lowest it's been in decades, so don't worry about him going broke, Iris Lily. And if we could just stop getting involved in endless, pointless foreign wars, just think how much we'd have to spend or save!Agreed 100% about the pointless foreign wars! Rob
It must be great, that's why your forced to buy it.
oh peggy, I am so with you there. One of these days I'll be joining the ranks of people who are helped by Obamacare and I'm not indigent. I'll be jumping on Alan's back for the ride. Thing is, I'm not sure what happens when Alan throws in the towel and stops working and paying taxes. But tra-la, tr-la, guess I don't really need to think about that, Nanny G will take care o' me!
Yep, we can always just keep adding to the debt. What could go wrong. Just keep putting things off till after the next election.
Its not going to affect me anymore, I already quit working years ago. I was one of those evil 1% who got tired of putting in all those hours to pay more in taxes than I was spending. I need to look into what other freebies I am entitled to. I am unemployed after all.
rodeosweetheart
4-21-14, 8:24am
Or it just keeps getting worse and worse.
I teach nursing students in SC, many of whom work at doctor's offices already. One of them said today that their obgyn office is turning away any new patient with "Medicare or Obamacare plans" (her words) because they cannot make any money on them. They are told sorry, go find another doctor.
So how good are these plans, if you can't get treatment?
It has always been an issue with Medicare and doctors have always been selective in insurance plans they accept. Nothing really new here when it is a one off comment. The issue of Medicare is critical in some states, like Alaska, with few doctors to begin with. Obgyn's are said to be in short supply all over due in part to malpractice insurance issues. Add other issues on top and some will cherry pick if they can.
The problem, though, isn't with the idea that people should have affordable access to healthcare regardless of their financial means. I haven't seen anyone stand up and say, "Poor people should die of cancer at a higher rate than rich people, on the basis of the relative lack of affordable access to treatment and other financial barriers to preventive and remedial care." Until people can stand up and state that that is their intention, without equivocating, then the efforts to apply perspectives that would tend to promulgate that very result are reasonably disparaged and repudiated, and the issue that remains is what can we do right now to work against that kind of end-result.
It has always been an issue with Medicare and doctors have always been selective in insurance plans they accept. Nothing really new here when it is a one off comment. The issue of Medicare is critical in some states, like Alaska, with few doctors to begin with. Obgyn's are said to be in short supply all over due in part to malpractice insurance issues. Add other issues on top and some will cherry pick if they can.
So, would it be safe to say that governmental intrusion into markets results in less choice, and in many instances lower availability of services?
So, would it be safe to say that governmental intrusion into markets results in less choice, and in many instances lower availability of services?
Before we could say that we would need to assess whether those with Obamacare had previously had other insurance that made higher payments for doctor's services.
iris lilies
4-21-14, 10:53am
Before we could say that we would need to assess whether those with Obamacare had previously had other insurance that made higher payments for doctor's services.
Is "higher payment" the only measure? I would guess that bae would be willing to make a higher payment than the plan Alan is funding if he could continue to see the physician of his choosing.
For Pete's sake--bae can see any physician he likes. Within reason, so can I--if I pay for the privilege.
The idea is to make affordable health care available to people who would otherwise be shut out of our third-world two-tier system, not to prohibit people of means paying for concierge service.
For Pete's sake--bae can see any physician he likes. Within reason, so can I--if I pay for the privilege.
The idea is to make affordable health care available to people who would otherwise be shut out of our third-world two-tier system, not to prohibit people of means paying for concierge service.
Sure, anyone can pay for treatment, they've always been able to. The point made up-thread was that many people are having a hard time receiving services due to the way Medicare reimburses, as well as the ridiculous malpractice insurance required of any practitioner (how long has it been since any meaningful discussion of tort reform?). I think we forget that the ACA's promise of "affordable health care" is mis-leading. What they're actually promising is "affordable health insurance" and neglecting the barriers it places in front of actual health care.
It appears to me that the government's forced intrusion into the medical marketplace has dis-incentivized practitioner's willingness to practice. Especially when it results in a break-even or loss to the service provider. Concierge service may become the new norm as a result.
ApatheticNoMore
4-21-14, 12:15pm
One of them said today that their obgyn office is turning away any new patient with "Medicare or Obamacare plans" (her words) because they cannot make any money on them. They are told sorry, go find another doctor.
Pretty extreme if they are actually turning away all Obamacare plans, even silver plans and up? Those aren't great plans (deductibles tend to be high etc.) but most doctors can hardly afford to turn them away and most here aren't I'm sure (look it's not like everyone has a great top fo the line soon to be Cadillac insurance plan via work, most don't - I do and it costs me - but most doctors don't want to turn away so much of the population). The issue with doctors not seeing *Medicaid* patients has long been an issue though - Medicaid really doesn't reimburse the doctors enough to want to see Medicaid patients, especially in this state, which is particularly bad.
Oh and I doubt the obgyns are actually losing business from the ACA, they must have seen a spike in business with the promise to cover birth control (think long lasting birth control with an initial up front cost).
The point made up-thread was that many people are having a hard time receiving services due to the way Medicare reimburses, as well as the ridiculous malpractice insurance required of any practitioner (how long has it been since any meaningful discussion of tort reform?).
Isn't this an issue doctors can bypass anyway? I mean the last doctor I went to I HAD to sign an agreement agreeing all disputes would go to arbitration (not court) to even get treatment. So isn't that in some sense legally (I have to assume they are operating legally) bypassing the whole tort issue anyway, making it kind of a non-issue (ok even arbitration isn't free but it isn't actually a tort!). Do I have any great desire to sue a doctor? No, but how does not having access to courts and having to sign an arbitration agreement make you feel? Um actually in some sense like I may as well be seeking care in Mexico!!! 3rd world America. Kind of like what kind of shady practitioners am I seeing .... sigh. Ok I saw them anyway (and crossed those fingers hard).
rodeosweetheart
4-21-14, 1:09pm
Pretty extreme if they are actually turning away all Obamacare plans, even silver plans and up? Those aren't great plans (deductibles tend to be high etc.) but most doctors can hardly afford to turn them away and most here aren't I'm sure ).
Yes, in SC, this particular practice is turning away anyone with an "Obamacare" plan, along with anyone with Medicare. I don't know if they used to take Medicare patients.
We have had trouble finding any doctors who will see us up here in Michigan after our move--most seem closed to new patients, some bizarrely so--they wanted a health history before would agree to see us, and one asked my husband, first thing out their mouth-- Do you have medical marijuana card?
I am think WTF is this place we have moved to? We have Blue Cross Blue Shield employer provided plan.
...I think we forget that the ACA's promise of "affordable health care" is mis-leading. What they're actually promising is "affordable health insurance" and neglecting the barriers it places in front of actual health care. ...
Good point. We should just institute single-payer, and remove the insurance middle man. We've experimented with insurance, and it hasn't served us well.
rodeosweetheart
4-21-14, 1:12pm
I agree, Jane!
Well, some doctors are turning away any patient that is not a retainer paid member of their group. Concienge medicine anyone?
Good point. We should just institute single-payer, and remove the insurance middle man. We've experimented with insurance, and it hasn't served us well.
I'm not sure how single-payer would solve the problem. It would only replace a private sector bureaucracy with a government bureaucracy, while broadening the disincentives to practitioners. I suppose it would have to require the vast majority of health care providers become government employees (wage slaves), another disincentive to future practitioners.
ApatheticNoMore
4-21-14, 1:50pm
Well, some doctors are turning away any patient that is not a retainer paid member of their group. Concienge medicine anyone?
So a few rich people will have conceirge medicine (and if you think you are one of them, well you are probably not, unless you really are rich - if the middle class wants to think they are rich they are badly deluded). And that will be of little concern whatsoever to most people, as they not being conceirge class, will still have to have whatever they are able to get if anything I guess (even if it's going to Mexico if it comes to that eventually I suppose, until then employer plans I guess).
Before we could say that we would need to assess whether those with Obamacare had previously had other insurance that made higher payments for doctor's services.Good point, and the inescapable fact is that some folks went from no options to some options. Given all the possible scenarios, that scenario is the one that all reasonable people would prefer to be removed from by such a change, if they began there.
If nothing else, getting rid of the insurance companies would reduce costs considerably. Or it should.
People try to avoid considering two aspects at the same time, but looking at this matter without holding both aspects in mind together at the same time is itself a corruption - the two aspects being cost efficiency AND universal access. The moral imperative recognizes that people shouldn't die, or suffer a second-class physical existence, because they're poor. The reality is that most of the benefit we gain from improving the efficiency aspect of this naturally will go towards remedying the moral failing of society with regard to the access aspect. That really frustrates those who just want to gain for themselves some marginal advantage in terms of cost of their own healthcare. So much change and they don't see how it benefits them personally, because they're actually not hurting as badly as others.
Single-payer itself won't overcome that. That would require UHC. Basic healthcare can be provided more efficiently when offered to all, like the US armed forces protects the nation efficiently, because it provides the same service predicated on everyone getting it. Economies of scale are real, but it requires acknowledging the value of building a system that doesn't need to police access, doesn't have to have a huge infrastructure to channel funding and payments, etc.
And remember that people who opt-out by securing their own service doesn't really degrade from that efficiency. By paying their own way for concierge services, they're actually relieving some pressure on the provision of basic service, and don't obviate the benefits of efficiency.
Yep, we can always just keep adding to the debt. What could go wrong. Just keep putting things off till after the next election.
Its not going to affect me anymore, I already quit working years ago. I was one of those evil 1% who got tired of putting in all those hours to pay more in taxes than I was spending. I need to look into what other freebies I am entitled to. I am unemployed after all.
I just love how the whole republican meme of the poor, hard working 1% (who are makers, after all, and not takers), the job creators who really really just need some more tax breaks/perks, that meme is so handily crushed by...the 1%. (completely clueless I might add)
Exhibit 1.
You know, I'm guessing if you dress in rags and maybe rub a little dirt on yourself, the church down the street would give you some nice clothes and a hot meal. Perhaps you can work that angle. You know, free stuff.
I just plan on doing what the Democrat's want. I'll keep my income around 60k and get on the goverment dole. Why worry about the grandkids, they can figure out how to pay for our debt. I'm just another unemployed 56 year old after all.
I just plan on doing what the Democrat's want. I'll keep my income around 60k and get on the goverment dole. Why worry about the grandkids, they can figure out how to pay for our debt. I'm just another unemployed 56 year old after all.
You know, a long time ago we were asked on this forum to not engage in stereotyping.
I think your statement may be meant to be funny, but it's pretty tiresome to continually hear that Democrats want everyone to be unemployed and live off of government benefits. Really? Because I don't know a single one who doesn't have the same behavioral values that every normal person - Democrat, Republican, Independent, or none of the above - would applaud, including getting a good education, making something of yourself, working hard, saving money for emergencies and retirement, helping your neighbor, etc. etc.
So I would like to see us get back to discussing real solutions to real problems, and stop the silly stereotyping.
You know, a long time ago we were asked on this forum to not engage in stereotyping.
I think your statement may be meant to be funny, but it's pretty tiresome to continually hear that Democrats want everyone to be unemployed and live off of government benefits. Really? Because I don't know a single one who doesn't have the same behavioral values that every normal person - Democrat, Republican, Independent, or none of the above - would applaud, including getting a good education, making something of yourself, working hard, saving money for emergencies and retirement, helping your neighbor, etc. etc.
So I would like to see us get back to discussing real solutions to real problems, and stop the silly stereotyping.
I'm just responding to Peggy's comments, I get tired of it also.
. I suppose it would have to require the vast majority of health care providers become government employees (wage slaves), another disincentive to future practitioners.
Other countries seem to have overcome that hurdle. I know that some Americans hate the idea that other countries have something to teach us, but maybe we could look at how other countries have continued to get people to go into the medical profession despite the horror of being a [gasp] government employee.
ApatheticNoMore
4-24-14, 3:56am
Well any 'taking advantage of the system' probably just stems from the flaw of the system not being universal really, it's built in. Whatever you can live with yourself with at any given time I guess, just don't complain when others also game systems, taking out student loans for non-student expenses is one I heard recently (but if one was broke and unable to find work it could be a means of survival and I don't knock survival).
Really? Because I don't know a single one who doesn't have the same behavioral values that every normal person - Democrat, Republican, Independent, or none of the above - would applaud, including getting a good education
or don't. I value learning. Just much of "education" is just job training rather than much else. So yes do job training if you need or want the additional income and have reason to believe it is likely to pay off and don't if you don't. It still does statistically pay off in many cases, if you don't go crazy with the debt, just less and less so.
making something of yourself
What is something? Career success, parenting, something more esoteric, self-actualization?
working hard
work as much as you must to survive if you don't have any better options, but no point in glorifying it. :)
saving money for emergencies and retirement
someone posted that the poor don't and instead give their money to the friends and family in need. I could find nothing wrong with that value system, the gift economy existed long before all this (and it's about a network of obligations). It's just perceived as a risky strategy by the middle class (and it probably would be for them if the support structures aren't there!). But is it risky? No the fact they may be poor doesn't prove it's risky, whether it helps in times of financial need or not compared to saving would be some proof (although the benefits of living that way may be greater than that - it's pretty stressful to be poor, maybe that helps).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.