Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Another wacko liberal. Nothing to see here.

Liberalism is a disease!

Quote:You're not gonna see me defend Obama care. Though it's obviously better than the system we had, it's got its issues.


But what do you expect when you base a health care plan on a republican idea?


I knew the plan was flawed when the insurance companies started seeing their stocks rise right at the run up to it passing.


But one must also remember the state of our healthcare system prior to the implementation of Obama care...

 

I only know what I've seen, having helped 2 friends sign up on the Marketplace the past two years. Tennessee did not expand Medicaid. One is living on a widow's SS pension of less than $1K per month, the other works and makes about $22K annually. Both had pre-existing conditions that preventing them from purchasing health insurance prior to the ACA.  One's premium is about $65, the other is $85. Both deductibles are $500 and out of pocket maximums under $1000. I may be a little off on the details, but not by much. Each had about 4 viable options from which to choose. The premiums increased slightly from last year, but their deductibles and out of pocket maximums are lower.

 

So, for them, it's working.

Quote:I only know what I've seen, having helped 2 friends sign up on the Marketplace the past two years. Tennessee did not expand Medicaid. One is living on a widow's SS pension of less than $1K per month, the other works and makes about $22K annually. Both had pre-existing conditions that preventing them from purchasing health insurance prior to the ACA. One's premium is about $65, the other is $85. Both deductibles are $500 and out of pocket maximums under $1000. I may be a little off on the details, but not by much. Each had about 4 viable options from which to choose. The premiums increased slightly from last year, but their deductibles and out of pocket maximums are lower.


So, for them, it's working.

My wife's parents are living well below the poverty level, they had not had health insurance for several years and are hard core republicans.


I helped them get on the new Mexico health exchange and get health insurance. Her dad had diabetes and is now finally getting good care. Before Obama care, he was going to some charlatan, because it was cheaper than going to a doctor.


They complain and complain about having to be forced to have it, but it benefits them.


It's obviously a vastly improved system than what we had. I'm just tired of the discussion. I've been debating it since 2010, with family members, class mates when I was getting my degree, etc...


It has faults and alot of benefits, I think this policy is the stepping stone to universal Medicare. But it's just been like 6 years of debating a plan that I've lost the passion to defend it anymore. It's here, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.


Though I do find it funny when people blame Obama care the lack of jobs, when in fact we have been seeing constant job growth for every year that it's been around...

Quote:Lack of competition is also a real issue.

The consolidation of the company's is staggering. I mentioned this in another thread last year...


But it's important to realize there are maybe 4-5 health insurers that are setting the prices. The health insurance industry is an oligopoly. And this hurts consumers alot.

Quote:I only know what I've seen, having helped 2 friends sign up on the Marketplace the past two years. Tennessee did not expand Medicaid. One is living on a widow's SS pension of less than $1K per month, the other works and makes about $22K annually. Both had pre-existing conditions that preventing them from purchasing health insurance prior to the ACA.  One's premium is about $65, the other is $85. Both deductibles are $500 and out of pocket maximums under $1000. I may be a little off on the details, but not by much. Each had about 4 viable options from which to choose. The premiums increased slightly from last year, but their deductibles and out of pocket maximums are lower.

 

So, for them, it's working.

 

For them...  What about those of us that would be considered "middle class"?

 

I can say that my employer plan is MUCH more expensive and I pay a MUCH higher premium than $65 or $85 for my wife and I.  My deductible and out-of-pocket expense is also MUCH higher than $1000.  Obamacare didn't really give me a better option.  It's actually cost more for someone like me.

 

Many liberals like to cite how it helps the poor, but ignore how much more it costs for middle or upper class families.  The problem is, it doesn't really affect higher class or higher income earners, it hurts those of us closer to the middle.

 

Quote:My wife's parents are living well below the poverty level, they had not had health insurance for several years and are hard core republicans.


I helped them get on the new Mexico health exchange and get health insurance. Her dad had diabetes and is now finally getting good care. Before Obama care, he was going to some charlatan, because it was cheaper than going to a doctor.


They complain and complain about having to be forced to have it, but it benefits them.


It's obviously a vastly improved system than what we had. I'm just tired of the discussion. I've been debating it since 2010, with family members, class mates when I was getting my degree, etc...


It has faults and alot of benefits, I think this policy is the stepping stone to universal Medicare. But it's just been like 6 years of debating a plan that I've lost the passion to defend it anymore. It's here, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.


Though I do find it funny when people blame Obama care the lack of jobs, when in fact we have been seeing constant job growth for every year that it's been around...

 

It's a stepping stone indeed.  A stepping stone to disaster and is slowly wiping the middle class away.

 

If you really think that universal medicare medicaid is the answer, then you are very mistaken.  All that would do is de-value the education and profession of being a doctor.  In essence, you are making the medical profession a "trade" rather than a "profession".

 

Want to bring the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels?  Then allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.  Move back to what health insurance really is, an "insurance policy" against catastrophic conditions.  "Health Insurance" and "Health Care" doesn't mean routine checkups or a physical at a doctor's office.  After all, your car insurance policy doesn't pay for routine oil changes or inspections.

 

Speaking of which, it would be interesting to see how many new Obamacare members even went in to a doctor for a physical, pap-smear or a breast exam.

 

Get rid of the employer mandate.  The only reason employers started offering health insurance was because they wanted to attract labor.  It's not an employer's duty to take care of your health insurance needs.  Put the responsibility back into the hands of the people.  After all, "the people" are demanding reasonable representation in the current election.

Quote:For them...  What about those of us that would be considered "middle class"?

 

I can say that my employer plan is MUCH more expensive and I pay a MUCH higher premium than $65 or $85 for my wife and I.  My deductible and out-of-pocket expense is also MUCH higher than $1000.  Obamacare didn't really give me a better option.  It's actually cost more for someone like me.

 

Many liberals like to cite how it helps the poor, but ignore how much more it costs for middle or upper class families.  The problem is, it doesn't really affect higher class or higher income earners, it hurts those of us closer to the middle.

You should drink more Starbucks.

Quote:You should drink more Starbucks.

 

Honestly... the very first time that I had a Starbucks cup of coffee was when my employer bought me a cup.  I refuse to spend that much money for a cup of coffee.  But then again, I'm neither in the "1%" nor am I a liberal.

Quote:My wife's parents are living well below the poverty level, they had not had health insurance for several years and are hard core republicans.


I helped them get on the new Mexico health exchange and get health insurance. Her dad had diabetes and is now finally getting good care. Before Obama care, he was going to some charlatan, because it was cheaper than going to a doctor.


They complain and complain about having to be forced to have it, but it benefits them.


It's obviously a vastly improved system than what we had. I'm just tired of the discussion. I've been debating it since 2010, with family members, class mates when I was getting my degree, etc...


It has faults and alot of benefits, I think this policy is the stepping stone to universal Medicare. But it's just been like 6 years of debating a plan that I've lost the passion to defend it anymore. It's here, and I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon.


Though I do find it funny when people blame Obama care the lack of jobs, when in fact we have been seeing constant job growth for every year that it's been around...

 

If your in-laws are not old enough to be on Medicare and yet don't have jobs that would provide medical insurance, then your last paragraph doesn't fit your example. "Job growth" should be more than pizza delivery, and frankly I doubt there has been much job growth in the US since 2010 other than for H1-B immigrants. The workforce participation rate is still near a record low.

Quote:I only know what I've seen, having helped 2 friends sign up on the Marketplace the past two years. Tennessee did not expand Medicaid. One is living on a widow's SS pension of less than $1K per month, the other works and makes about $22K annually. Both had pre-existing conditions that preventing them from purchasing health insurance prior to the ACA.  One's premium is about $65, the other is $85. Both deductibles are $500 and out of pocket maximums under $1000. I may be a little off on the details, but not by much. Each had about 4 viable options from which to choose. The premiums increased slightly from last year, but their deductibles and out of pocket maximums are lower.

 

So, for them, it's working.

 

Two people too young for Medicare but no decent jobs? I can think of a better way to solve that problem rather than forcing others to pay for their health care.


 

Fix the damned economy!

Quote:Two people too young for Medicare but no decent jobs? I can think of a better way to solve that problem rather than forcing others to pay for their health care.


 

Fix the damned economy!

 

Along with that I would say that people need to be responsible for their own health insurance and retirement, not the employers.

Quote:It's a stepping stone indeed. A stepping stone to disaster and is slowly wiping the middle class away.


If you really think that universal <del>medicare</del> medicaid is the answer, then you are very mistaken. All that would do is de-value the education and profession of being a doctor. In essence, you are making the medical profession a "trade" rather than a "profession".


Want to bring the cost of health care back down to reasonable levels? Then allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines. Move back to what health insurance really is, an "insurance policy" against catastrophic conditions. "Health Insurance" and "Health Care" doesn't mean routine checkups or a physical at a doctor's office. After all, your car insurance policy doesn't pay for routine oil changes or inspections.


Speaking of which, it would be interesting to see how many new Obamacare members even went in to a doctor for a physical, pap-smear or a breast exam.


Get rid of the employer mandate. The only reason employers started offering health insurance was because they wanted to attract labor. It's not an employer's duty to take care of your health insurance needs. Put the responsibility back into the hands of the people. After all, "the people" are demanding reasonable representation in the current election.

You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how naive and misinformed they are.


Like I said, I've had these debates for like 6 years. At one point I read read about 80% of the law.


As for your idea about how to lower costs, it would work! So long as we go back to leeches and using ether as the only form of anesthesia. Lol... again, very naive. Those types of solutions and talking points are popular with head nodding troglodytes that can't think for themselves, but it's not a solution. It's a libertarian propaganda fallacy disguised as credible policy.

In 6 years I expect a better response.

Quote:You're entitled to your opinions, no matter how naive and misinformed they are.


Like I said, I've had these debates for like 6 years. At one point I read read about 80% of the law.


As for your idea about how to lower costs, it would work! So long as we go back to leeches and using ether as the only form of anesthesia. Lol... again, very naive. Those types of solutions and talking points are popular with head nodding troglodytes that can't think for themselves, but it's not a solution. It's a libertarian propaganda fallacy disguised as credible policy.

 

O.K.  I'll play (for now, it's almost my bedtime).  Just one point.  What is so bad about putting healthcare responsibility back into the hands of the people?  Specifically, get rid of the employer mandate.  After all, a person's health needs are their own, not their employers.  Let's just start with that one.

Health insurance should bar for catastrophic events like surgery broken bones etc. Having normal run of the mill services like stitches simple prescriptions etc. Tied up within the massive bureaucracy of insurers and reimbursements hurts primary care providers by creating inordinate overhead. To combat this they designed concierge practices by which families pay the doctor monthly and he performs basic services. Couple that with health savings accounts and i think that's a foundation for sustainability.

Quote:In 6 years I expect a better response.

 

LOL, well too bad.  I'm sick of it.  The law is the law.  And it's better than what we had.  So quit your griping unless you have an actual plan.

 

And no, saying that people should take "responsibility" isn't an actual plan.  It's stupid.  And no real professional or serious person would think that way, unless they've been indoctrinated into some nonsensical propaganda.  

Quote:LOL, well too bad.  I'm sick of it.  The law is the law.  And it's better than what we had.  So quit your griping unless you have an actual plan.

 

And no, saying that people should take "responsibility" isn't an actual plan.  It's stupid.  And no real professional or serious person would think that way, unless they've been indoctrinated into some nonsensical propaganda.  

 

Actually the law is not the law.  By the letter of the law all the subsidies on the federal exchange to residents that didn't participate in setting up state exchanges are illegal.  John Roberts had to rewrite that part of the law to bail out the white house.  

 

Second, it's not better than what we had before.  Before an average person could buy catastrophic coverage and save money for basic medical care in a health savings account.  Now even the most basic HSA plans are loaded with so much mandated garbage that the average person can't afford them without a subsidy.  

 

Thirdly, last time I checked personal responsibility was a fact of life, not some gustapo ideal painted on the back of a swatstika.  The more that each individual can do to support their own weight in society benefits society.  The alternative leads to running out of other people's money and being forced into draconian austerity like Greece.  That's the real propaganda.

 

When someone starts telling you about making something affordable and the first thing they start spouting off about is how everyone and their friend is going to need a subsidy RUN!!!

Quote:O.K.  I'll play (for now, it's almost my bedtime).  Just one point.  What is so bad about putting healthcare responsibility back into the hands of the people?  Specifically, get rid of the employer mandate.  After all, a person's health needs are their own, not their employers.  Let's just start with that one.

 

Well, first of all...  The Constitution puts the power in the hands of the people.  In theory, the republic creates a government that represents the will of the "majority".  Not the most wealthy, but the majority of citizens.  (that's the problem, of course)  One which Trump initially got the Republican riled up about.  

 

But if we are true Constitutionalists that find our values based on the Constitution of the United States, we all understand that the people (you know WE THE PEOPLE) already have the power and responsibility via our government.  

 

To say you don't trust our government means that you really don't want responsibility in the hands of the people.  You want the power in the hands of whatever constituency you've been duped by, unfotunately, you're duped by the Republicans which means you go against your best interests every time.  It's sad (in my opinion), but it's your choice.  In your case, especially since you've lived your entire life getting checks from the government either directly or indirectly, it's really sad to see how much you dislike a democratically representative government having the ability to make the decisions.  I mean, it's alot better than just having a few people tell you what to do without any input by you.  But I think that's a discussion for another day.

 

In terms of the employer mandate, I think you mentioned the history of it, which is accurate.  It was only because of WWII and the depleted labor force and strained federal government's inability to support the citizenship that was at home during the war that caused the employer benefit of healthcare to be enacted.  Which means, in a world without war, where the democratic republic is not overwhelmed by the military industrial complex, the cost of health care (along with other social programs) would be funded fully by the government.  Of course this means via taxes and nationalistic pride in helping your fellow US citizen.

 

But we all know the failures of that.  The first being that republicans have been indoctrinated to not trust the government because of other coutnries failures.  It's such tripe.  But for whatever reason (dixie-crats, civil war, perhaps?) republicans have been brain washed to think that the government is out to get them and that they should hate it.  

 

Perhaps we should figure out a way to work within the government and do what's best for the majority, and not just worry about  businesses, especially since businesses have no loyalty to the USA.

Quote:Actually the law is not the law.  By the letter of the law all the subsidies on the federal exchange to residents that didn't participate in setting up state exchanges are illegal.  John Roberts had to rewrite that part of the law to bail out the white house.  

 

Second, it's not better than what we had before.  Before an average person could buy catastrophic coverage and save money for basic medical care in a health savings account.  Now even the most basic HSA plans are loaded with so much mandated garbage that the average person can't afford them without a subsidy.  

 

Thirdly, last time I checked personal responsibility was a fact of life, not some gustapo ideal painted on the back of a swatstika.  The more that each individual can do to support their own weight in society benefits society.  The alternative leads to running out of other people's money and being forced into draconian austerity like Greece.  That's the real propaganda.

 

When someone starts telling you about making something affordable and the first thing they start spouting off about is how everyone and their friend is going to need a subsidy RUN!!!

 

 

LOL, tell that to the oil industry, the banking industry, and car industry.  You guys have such selective imaginations when it comes to "responsibility".

 

If you would just admit that the majority of subsidies, the majority of bailouts, the majority of the redistribution (including tax breaks) goes to the top 1%, I'd begin to agree with you more.  

 

If not, you're just spouting the propaganda.  Sometimes, I just don't get you guys.  You defend those in power that are making it harder on all of us.  

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm doing well enough to support my family and allow my wife to stay at home with our 2 kids.  But, dude, I'd never side with the group that hosed us back under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and RayGun.  Yet you guys sit here and defend those policies as though they are the answer.  Have you not learned the lessons yet??

Oh and by the way, based on the Constitution, the law is the Law if the 3 branches all agree.  Whatever semantics you want to play, the supreme court upheld the law.  

 

The Legislature drew up the law  and both houses in our bicameral system and passed it.

 

The Executive signed off on it and did not veto it.

 

The Judicial ruled it Constitutional.

 

It's the Law.  The law is the Law.

 

Seriously, so sick of talking about that gosh dang law...  Just deal with it.  

Quote:Oh and by the way, based on the Constitution, the law is the Law if the 3 branches all agree. Whatever semantics you want to play, the supreme court upheld the law.


The Legislature drew up the law and both houses in our bicameral system and passed it.


The Executive signed off on it and did not veto it.


The Judicial ruled it Constitutional.


It's the Law. The law is the Law.


Seriously, so sick of talking about that gosh dang law... Just deal with it.

People act shocked that the three branches of government agree that government should have more control. I dont know why.