Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Access_Denied']Yes, but this is the largest increase we've had since my dad started with his insurance company, and I fail to believe that it has no relation to Obama's bill.[/QUOTE]

Do you think your premiums will go down if Obama's bill fails to pass?
 
Again, the only way premiums will go down is if there's a strong public option as the lower premiums it will offer as a result of not being ran to maximize profits will force other companies to cut their rates or go out of business.
 
sweet. the government has an advantage of needing no profit to stay afloat (because it will just take our tax dollars if it goes in the red) and everyone tries to say it will be fair competition and won't put anyone out of business. sounds awesome.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, the only way premiums will go down is if there's a strong public option as the lower premiums it will offer as a result of not being ran to maximize profits will force other companies to cut their rates or go out of business.[/QUOTE]


Truth. I've seen too many of my friends unable to afford health insurance due to them squeezing the shit out of everyone. They decided it was wiser to get Cable TV and beer then Health care which isn't really used when you're young.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']sweet. the government has an advantage of needing no profit to stay afloat (because it will just take our tax dollars if it goes in the red) and everyone tries to say it will be fair competition and won't put anyone out of business. sounds awesome.[/QUOTE]

I think it should be required to be self sufficient. It can just be cheaper buy not having the goal of maximizing profits, paying absurd executive salaries etc. Just the goal of making enough in premiums to stay afloat as the population ages etc.

Though I wouldn't be at all opposed to completely nationalized health care either.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Absolutely.
Maybe :(
[/QUOTE]

I firmly believe I'm going to hit a tree this evening on my way home. Will my airbags be deployed when I get out to my car tonight?
 
This bill isn't currently raising premiums and your premiums will not go down if the bill is not passed, they never go down (unless you change your plan).

You might as well blame the bill for the sun rising.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']If it was a completely separate entity and had no tax payer support whatsoever i would be fine with it.[/QUOTE]

So healthcare is ok with you as long as the entire system receives less subsidies than your average Cabela's or Wal-Mart.

Why should anyone take you seriously again?
 
[quote name='SpazX']This bill isn't currently raising premiums and your premiums will not go down if the bill is not passed, they never go down (unless you change your plan).
[/QUOTE]

Yep. Again, some type of public option is absolutely the only thing that could lower premiums.

They've been rising for years across the board, an without a public option will continue to do so.

If the bill that's passed has no public option--then you can probably bitch about it raising rates. As the companies will do that across the board since they'll be required to cover everyone and no deny people with pre-existing conditions or charge more to people with poor health.

Thus they'll raise everyones premiums so their bottom line doesn't take a hit.

Only a public option being ran as a not-for-profit can force rates down. Otherwise they'll keep going up as health care costs rise and insurance companies keep raising rates to make sure their own pocketbooks aren't suffering.
 
Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?
 
[quote name='Msut77']So healthcare is ok with you as long as the entire system receives less subsidies than your average Cabela's or Wal-Mart.

Why should anyone take you seriously again?[/QUOTE]

Why do I care if you take me seriously?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?[/QUOTE]

I find it much less offensive that having to register for selective service and face jail time if the draft ever came back during a war I didn't support and refused to fight.

I'm not a huge fan of the penalty--especially if there is not a public option and we're forcing people to buy coverage from private companies.

I'd much prefer a nationalized system like France or Taiwan, but that's unfortunately unrealistic for the time being.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Why do I care if you take me seriously?[/QUOTE]

Because maybe you would stop looking like a troll for 5 seconds?

Do you have a credible reason for holding healthcare to some standard basically nothing else is?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?[/QUOTE]
I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?

You aren't clever enough to have put that together all by yourself. Where'd you get that incredible insight thrust?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE.[/QUOTE]

I pointed this out a while ago but it is lose-lose, call it a service and they whine if you call it a tax you get a different kind of whine.

It is all the same spiel.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Why do I care if you take me seriously?[/QUOTE]

You mean people still read Msut's posts anyway? I put him on ignore some time ago. Live has been better since then. :)

[quote name='speedracer']I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?[/QUOTE]

You know what's funny about SSI, Unemployment and Workman's Comp? There's not a single law on the books that requires every single living American to pay into those funds. Interesting, eh?
 
[quote name='speedracer']There ain't a bucket of brains between the lot of em.[/QUOTE]

Ignorance or stupidity is one thing, dishonesty is another.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Again, some type of public option is absolutely the only thing that could lower premiums.

They've been rising for years across the board, an without a public option will continue to do so.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are many policies that could reduce premiums, some by a little and some by a lot. Tort reform is the most obvious, since malpractice insurance is insanely expensive and gets passed on to the patient. Allowing more competition is also something that could reduce prices (you can't currently buy across state lines, which is stupid). But those are small potatoes compared to a systemic decoupling of health insurance from employment, although unfortunately we're unlikely to see that happen because most people are happy with their current arrangement (even though it screws a significant number of people).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Allowing more competition is also something that could reduce prices (you can't currently buy across state lines, which is stupid).[/QUOTE]

Yup. My wife's health insurance, which has always been *great*, is dropping her because they no longer wish to do business in Illinois.

Hmm... Illinois. Why does that sound familiar?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yup. My wife's health insurance, which has always been *great*, is dropping her because they no longer wish to do business in Illinois.

Hmm... Illinois. Why does that sound familiar?[/QUOTE]

You'd think a free marketeer would be ecstatic at that news.
 
Well, the government is now starting to say that we don't need to screen for breast cancer as much as we do currently. This is a U.S. government task force, not a medical society such as the American Cancer Society (which by the way disputes this claim). Kind of interesting timing, with nationalized health care becoming closer to reality. The government is already looking at ways to further cut costs at the expense of quality of preventative care, which is exactly the wrong way to approach curtailing health care costs in the long run.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You know what's funny about SSI, Unemployment and Workman's Comp? There's not a single law on the books that requires every single living American to pay into those funds. Interesting, eh?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut']I pointed this out a while ago but it is lose-lose, call it a service and they whine if you call it a tax you get a different kind of whine.[/quote]
Right on cue. Apparently this dance has been danced before. So then we suggest we codify it in tax law and ya'll then complain about what?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Do we really want to pass the first bill in our nations history that actually REQUIRES a person pay money for a service or go to jail? In other words, we want to put a tax on just being alive and citizenship? Really?[/QUOTE]

We still tax being dead, right?
 
[quote name='depascal22']You'd think a free marketeer would be ecstatic at that news.[/QUOTE]

Why would a "free marketeer" be ecstatic at the idea of one state preventing me from buying services and products from another state?

Could you imagine a state saying "Well, you can't buy food from another state anymore. All food for consumption in Illinois must be purchased in Illinois."

Would you support that?

[quote name='speedracer']Right on cue. Apparently this dance has been danced before. So then we suggest we codify it in tax law and ya'll then complain about what?[/QUOTE]

But it's not a tax. Obama says so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFxomW3RqYY&feature=related

Obama wouldn't lie!

Besides, I've said for a long time - I'm against anything that is going to increase taxes.
 
I don't get the line of reasoning. You're saying it's killing some sacred cow for the government to charge for health care because it's a service, but if we magically change it to a tax it becomes a sacred cow cause the big guy in the White House says no calling it a tax.

I feel like the whole train of thought is kind of a fool's game. What is the end result you're looking for here Bob? I mean, the thought exercise kind of trying to separate a health insurance mandate from other not-required-but-you're-going-to-pay-for-the-insurance-if-you-work programs doesn't seem to result in anything substantive. I don't get it and I'm trying to see what the goal is.
 
>You're saying it's killing some sacred cow for the government to charge for health care because it's a service,

Not at all. The government is charging for health insurance, not health care. There's a big difference there. And the problem isn't that the government is charging for it - it's that the government proposes to MANDATE it.

>but if we magically change it to a tax it becomes a sacred cow cause the big guy in the White House says no calling it a tax.

It's not because Obama says it isn't a tax. It's because it's a tax increase. Period. Just pointing out that Obama said it wasn't a tax because there are some folks who seem to believe nothing buy butterflies and rainbows come out of this man's mouth.

>What is the end result you're looking for here Bob?
No Mandate.

For the record, I'm no fan of requiring folks to pay into SSI and such. Should be opt-in.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I get it. By calling it a service, we aren't comparing it to social security INSURANCE, unemployment INSURANCE, and worker's compensation INSURANCE right?[/quote]
Call it whatever you want. Nothing else you mentioned forces every single citizen to pay for something, just for being a citizen, or go to jail. The stuff you mention is on employers shoulders to pay or suffer fines.

The people writing this bill want to simply say "Are you a US citizen? Are you alive? If yes to both, you MUST pay for insurance or you could go to Jail." Stop and think about that for a minute. No matter what you do in life, no matter what type of life you choose to lead, you must pay or fear. How is that MORE freedom? How is that MORE liberty? It's not, it's less any way you cut it.

Last I checked, it actually mentioned in one version of the bill that jail time was a possibility. Once punishment for not having health insurance can't put you in jail, then you can make those comparisons and have a valid point. I'm optimistic that such draconian fascist measures will get removed by the time it passes.

You aren't clever enough to have put that together all by yourself. Where'd you get that incredible insight thrust?
Click to expand...
Cute and clever!
Starting to see why so many have you on ignore. Your comments often are not much more substantive than msut's.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Call it whatever you want. Nothing else you mentioned forces every single citizen to pay for something, just for being a citizen, or go to jail. Last I checked, it actually mentioned in one version of the bill that jail time was a possibility.[/quote]
Which version being debated right now would I find that provision?
Once punishment for not having health insurance can't put you in jail, then you can make those comparisons, can't you? Getting it yet?
Click to expand...
That makes perfect sense. Point me to the bill that's getting consideration that says that.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Which version being debated right now would I find that provision?

That makes perfect sense. Point me to the bill that's getting consideration that says that.[/QUOTE]

I take it you've not been reading much of this thread - we've already discussed that.

Read: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6500175&postcount=1661
Skip three posts, then read FoC's post.
Skip two more posts, then read the last half of my post.

Long story short -The bill passed by the House creates penalties for not having Health Insurance. These penalties are included with your Federal Income Taxes.

Fine for not complying with Federal Income Tax laws: "a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why would a "free marketeer" be ecstatic at the idea of one state preventing me from buying services and products from another state?

Could you imagine a state saying "Well, you can't buy food from another state anymore. All food for consumption in Illinois must be purchased in Illinois."[/QUOTE]

Here lies another huge falsehood in this debate. People keep saying that rates will stay the same if people are allowed to cross state lines but there is nothing to support that argument. Insurance companies will just raise rates in cheaper states to offset the higher risk they'll be taking on from people in high risk/more expensive states. It won't matter if you cross state lines if Anthem charges the same regardless of location. Great for New Yorkers and Californians. Bad for people in the South and other low-cost states in the rest of the country.

Your wife's insurance company is pulling out of Illinois because it's unprofitable to insure citizens of that state. Guess what? It'll still be unprofitable for them to insure them if they can cross lines but now they'll be forced to raise rates for EVERYONE to cover the increased costs. They probably would've raised rates anyway but now they have a legitimate reason to bend everyone over.

Keeping it the way it is doesn't help either. Know what helps? A public option.
 
H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.[/QUOTE]

I mentioned this. It didn't really go anywhere. They're handling it the same way as tax evasion.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Here lies another huge falsehood in this debate. People keep saying that rates will stay the same if people are allowed to cross state lines but there is nothing to support that argument. Insurance companies will just raise rates in cheaper states to offset the higher risk they'll be taking on from people in high risk/more expensive states. It won't matter if you cross state lines if Anthem charges the same regardless of location. Great for New Yorkers and Californians. Bad for people in the South and other low-cost states in the rest of the country.

Your wife's insurance company is pulling out of Illinois because it's unprofitable to insure citizens of that state. Guess what? It'll still be unprofitable for them to insure them if they can cross lines but now they'll be forced to raise rates for EVERYONE to cover the increased costs. They probably would've raised rates anyway but now they have a legitimate reason to bend everyone over.

Keeping it the way it is doesn't help either. Know what helps? A public option.[/QUOTE]


Wow. You really don't understand how things work.

Individual states are allowed to require insurance operators within a state to offer particular types of services or coverage.

For example, one state may require that, say, mammograms be covered by insurance while another state does not. Another state may require drug rehab therapy be covered, while another does not.

This creates a system where insurers either have to create and market different policies for individual states or decide not to do business in states that are overly regulated.

The "cost of doing business" in Illinois isn't higher than Indiana because people in Illinois "lead riskier lives". Yet so many businesses avoid Illinois and go to Indiana. Weird, eh?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I mentioned this. It didn't really go anywhere. They're handling it the same way as tax evasion.[/QUOTE]

We know, either thrustbobbit has a short memory or it is an example of the dishonesty I was talking about.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']H.R. 3962, Section 7201 (Pelosi's Bill)

Failure to pay the fine can constitute “felony willful evasion” which is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

You can google things like "HR 3962 Jail time" and get all kinds of information and commentary on it.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind, Section 7201 doesn't refer to "Pelosicare" - it's in the tax code...
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/26/26USC07201.html

I like this idea that the jail time will only be used in the "worst case offenders".

I mean, nothing bad has ever came out of giving the Federal Government the power to detain people with the understanding that they'll only use said power for "the worst of the worst".
 
Yeah it's one of those situations, like jaywalking, that nobody is likely going to go to jail for in practice, but the very last thing we need, after the Patriot Act, is to give the government more reason to label good people criminals and punish them.
 
[quote name='Msut77']We know, either thrustbobbit has a short memory or it is an example of the dishonesty I was talking about.[/QUOTE]

I'll go with a short memory.

I'm still not comfortable with the government having another way to send me to prison or fine me into oblivion, but I'm a relatively small fish.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wait a minute. We're raising a stink about something we all believe will not be enforced? THAT'S our big beef here?[/QUOTE]

Thrust and Bob will do anything to avoid talking about real issues.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wait a minute. We're raising a stink about something we all believe will not be enforced? THAT'S our big beef here?[/QUOTE]

I don't think it won't be enforced. I think it will end up being abused like most government powers.

If it's not going to be enforced, why have the law written that way to begin with.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I'll go with a short memory.

I'm still not comfortable with the government having another way to send me to prison or fine me into oblivion, but I'm a relatively small fish.[/QUOTE]

I fully understand we've already discussed this - however, speedracer was the one who was asking about the jail time aspect of the bill and thus I had to fill him in on the discussion we've already had. And now, I guess I'm filling msut in on the conversation we've had. Man, it sure would be nice if y'all would keep up with this thread.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Speaking of real life msut, how many people do you know in real life that went bankrupt or died because of the "lack of affordable healthcare" in America.[/QUOTE]

Just to give you a little lesson in logic perdition(troll.

If you don't know any Portuguese people that doesn't mean Portugal doesn't exist.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Just because you think no one will be arrested for not paying for healthcare doesn't mean no one will be arrested under HR3962.[/QUOTE]

Define "no one", if you ever learned to read, count or stop trolling for five seconds you would know I talked about this previously.

It would take a ridiculously blatant attempt to rip off for jail to be considered let alone prosecuted for.
 
Four of your last five posts on this page alone are insults thrown at people whose opinions differ from your own. I'll pass on taking any advice from you.

Edit:

Why even have it in the bill if its not going to be enforced. It makes no sense to have a vague law thrown in there if it will never be enforced unless you a "serious" offender (or w/e your argument was).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top