Indisputable Facts Of Obamacare

[scorpio]

The main thing that repulses me about the bill is people being forced to purchase health insurance or facing penalties. I don't want or need health insurance, I don't want to pay some company that will pocket some of the money and use the rest to pay for someone else's healthcare, and yet, now, I'd have no choice.

That's the real source of money for this new program, forcing healthy people who don't need insurance to buy it, or face prosecution.

There are lots of "haves" forced on us in society. You "have" to adhere to the laws of your community or face fines. You "have" to pay taxes if you work. You "have" to pay the GST on everything you buy.

[Bonam]

Not having health insurance, or car insurance is just a stupid and irresponsible option. Of course healthy people don't need healthcare, but healthiness is not a permanent state of being now is it ?

Not having car insurance is illegal. There would be nothing stupid about it otherwise. In Canada, I payed more for my insurance each month than for my car lease, which is just stupid. Only thing I ever got out of it after years of paying insurance (over 10 grand in total) was they paid for fixing a little dent I got in a parking lot.

As for health insurance, the whole reason insurance companies exist is because they make money, that is, on average, the premiums you pay them are more than what you actually spend on health insurance. Furthermore, if you are more healthy than average, you are very likely to require far less in health spending than what you pay in premiums.

By far the wisest course of action would be to simply put away into a savings/investment account each month the same amount that you would otherwise have to pay for health insurance. Not only will this allow you to pay for health procedures as needed, the money will also grow in value over time, unlike insurance premiums which disappear into a black hole.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Bonam

[ironstone]

Am I the only one who Remembers it was FDR and a very progressive house and Senate who got rid of Prohibition? Was there ever a more Progressive president then FDR? I don't see how prohibition shows progressivism failing it shows that when something doesn't work progressives aren't dumb enough to stay the course like some other political leanings.

Didn't they bring in term limits because of the FDR experience?

[Smallc]

Didn't they bring in term limits because of the FDR experience?

Edit: You're right, but it wasn't necessarily because he was bad.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

Not having car insurance is illegal.

No it isn't it just means you can't drive

[BubberMiley]

No it isn't it just means you can't drive

No matter how I punctuate that sentence, I still can't make sense of it.

[Alta4ever]

No matter how I punctuate that sentence, I still can't make sense of it.

good

[waldo]

Not having car insurance is illegal.

No it isn't it just means you can't drive

No matter how I punctuate that sentence, I still can't make sense of it.

you can't drive on them thar city streets. Those country boys don't need no insurance driving pickmeups around the north forty!

[Pliny]

Not having health insurance, or car insurance is just a stupid and irresponsible option. Of course healthy people don't need healthcare, but healthiness is not a permanent state of being now is it ?

Ahh....you are an insurance salesman!

[Pliny]

There are lots of "haves" forced on us in society. You "have" to adhere to the laws of your community or face fines.

But you don't have to live in that community if you disagree with the laws. Nations are harder to move between, so federal law can be more oppressive.

You "have" to pay taxes if you work.

And many are choosing not to work. The benifits are getting better and better.

You "have" to pay the GST on everything you buy.

Except unprepared foods. The rest you don't have to buy.

There are laws forced upon us and the one of the problems I have with that is no being informed what they are. Another problem is when they become too complex to understand and a lawyer or accountant can't even figure them out.

We need some simplification of law, but good luck getting that. It cuts too deep into the pockets of the legal establishment.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Ahh....you are an insurance salesman!

Door-to-door vacuums actually. The money isn't great, but the housewives ... the housewives ...

Edited March 27, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Shady]

As predicted, Obamacare begins its destruction of job creation and economic growth. And just in the nick of time! The economy was just beginning to show signs of improvement. Thank God Obama was able to stomp all over that problem.

AT&T sees $1 billion healthcare related charge

AT&T Inc (T.N) said on Friday it would record a $1 billion non-cash charge for the current quarter related to the new U.S. health care reform law

Link

Deere Expects $150 Million Hit From Health-Care Reform

John Deere & Co. (DE: 60.53, 0.32, 0.53%) said Thursday the health-care reform act signed into law this week will cost the company an extra $150 million this year.

Link

Caterpillar: Health care bill would cost it $100M

Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

Link

Yes, the economic illiterate who's President strikes again!

[Bonam]

No it isn't it just means you can't drive

I thought it would have been obvious that I meant driving without car insurance is illegal. I shall endeavor to be more exact in my statements for your benefit...

[Guest American Woman]

Alta4ever, on 26 March 2010 - 06:42 PM, said: No it isn't it just means you can't drive

I thought it would have been obvious that I meant driving without car insurance is illegal. I shall endeavor to be more exact in my statements for your benefit...

I think Alta4ever's point is that while it's illegal not to have car insurance, it's not a legitimate comparison to requiring the purchase of health insurance. After all, if one can't afford car insurance, one doesn't have to own a car. By making this choice, one can avoid the necessity of car insurance and not be fined. No one is being "forced" into anything. There is no 'out' regarding the necessity to have health insurance, unless one opts 'not to live.'

Edited April 3, 2010 by American Woman

[Bonam]

I think Alta4ever's point is that while it's illegal not to have car insurance, it's not a legitimate comparison to requiring the purchase of health insurance. After all, if one can't afford car insurance, one doesn't have to own a car. By making this choice, one can avoid the necessity of car insurance and not be fined. No one is being "forced" into anything. There is no 'out' regarding the necessity to have health insurance, unless one opts 'not to live.'

Yup, I agree with that too. In fact, that was my general point if you take a look back at the context of the quote.

[Shady]

There is no 'out' regarding the necessity to have health insurance, unless one opts 'not to live.'

Well said. I'm so tired of the false car insurance analogy.

[punked]

Well said. I'm so tired of the false car insurance analogy.

How about the false Health Insurance analogy? John Adams signed into law an act with made all private sailors, buy their own Health insurance to do that job? How about that one? You know more about what the founders wanted then someone who helped write the Constitution. Read a book. Now time for Shady to ignore this post because he has no reply.

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago

Edited April 3, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

How about the false Health Insurance analogy? John Adams signed into law an act with made all private sailors, buy their own Health insurance to do that job? How about that one? You know more about what the founders wanted then someone who helped write the Constitution. Read a book. Now time for Shady to ignore this post because he has no reply.

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago

The Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen doesn't require one to buy any particular product or service. What it does, is tax said sailor. That tax is collected and then spent as the government sees fit.

Obamacare is a mandate for buy a product/service, it's not a confiscated tax. If Obama was going for a single-payer system, you'd have a point. But unfortunately for you, he didn't, and you don't.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Obamacare is a mandate for buy a product/service, it's not a confiscated tax. If Obama was going for a single-payer system, you'd have a point. But unfortunately for you, he didn't, and you don't.

Obamacare is trying to get the "public option" through existing insurance products, with coercion through the tax code. But it will run afoul of state rights and constitutional equal protection clause in the courts. Regulating "state commerce" from Congress will only get him so far.

Edited April 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[punked]

The Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen doesn't require one to buy any particular product or service. What it does, is tax said sailor. That tax is collected and then spent as the government sees fit.

Obamacare is a mandate for buy a product/service, it's not a confiscated tax. If Obama was going for a single-payer system, you'd have a point. But unfortunately for you, he didn't, and you don't.

No that is not what it said Shady.

Section three of the act.

....and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or

disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established

in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no

such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:

Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended

within the same.

It says the monies shall specifically go to

temporary relief and maintenance of sick or

disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established

in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no

such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:

It is health insurance Shady. Like it or not you can't go back in time and rewrite the legislation if you would like to read because you apparently have only read the talking points on it I will link it. Could please not put words in the mouth of John Adams Shady.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=i8UpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=CHAP.+LXXVII+%E2%80%93+An+Act+for+the+Relief+of+Sick+and+Disabled+Seamen&source=bl&ots=rIP_CFKsCb&sig=sMS2Ql0Lp8dUnMR2c18Be6anHOs&hl=en&ei=9Zi3S_vJCoG88ga5-5ThBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=CHAP.%20LXXVII%20%E2%80%93%20An%20Act%20for%20the%20Relief%20of%20Sick%20and%20Disabled%20Seamen&f=false

I repeat open a Book.

Edited April 3, 2010 by punked

[Shady]

No that is not what it said Shady.

Section three of the act.

It says the monies shall specifically go to

temporary relief and maintenance of sick or

disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established

in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no

such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:

It is health insurance Shady. Like it or not you can't go back in time and rewrite the legislation if you would like to read because you apparently have only read the talking points on it I will link it. Could please not put words in the mouth of John Adams Shady.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=i8UpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=CHAP.+LXXVII+%E2%80%93+An+Act+for+the+Relief+of+Sick+and+Disabled+Seamen&source=bl&ots=rIP_CFKsCb&sig=sMS2Ql0Lp8dUnMR2c18Be6anHOs&hl=en&ei=9Zi3S_vJCoG88ga5-5ThBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CA8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=CHAP.%20LXXVII%20%E2%80%93%20An%20Act%20for%20the%20Relief%20of%20Sick%20and%20Disabled%20Seamen&f=false

I repeat open a Book.

It's a tax punked. Try re-reading your talking points, and feel free to inform the leftwing blogs that are spreading the story. A tax is a tax is a tax. Nice try though.

Oh, and there was a reason it was specific to sailors. But it looks like you and your leftwing resources failed to look into that as well.

[Shady]

And it begins...

CBO: Millions of Middle-Class Americans Will Pay ObamaCare Tax Penalty

Now, the Congressional Budget Office has released data estimating that by 2016, 3 million Americans earning less than $59,000 a year will face a penalty for not having health insurance. An additional 900,000 earning more than that will also pay the penalty.

Link

Report: Health overhaul will increase USA's tab

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

Link

The deficit reduction spin put on this legislation turns out to be a huge lie.

[punked]

And it begins...

The deficit reduction spin put on this legislation turns out to be a huge lie.

So what you are saying that right now there are 42 million uninsured and by 2014 it will be 3 million. Ok I will take that even if Shady thinks this is a bad thing.

As for cost controls from Shady's own link.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020

Edited April 23, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

So what you are saying that right now there are 42 million uninsured and by 2014 it will be 3 million. Ok I will take that even if Shady thinks this is a bad thing.

But that's not what is stated at all....millions will face tax penalties but the uninsured will not plummet to just 3 million. Why buy insurance if you can wait until it's needed? The tax penalty is less than the price of even a stripped down policy.

[Shady]

As for cost controls from Shady's own link.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020

Yes, if a different congress takes the bullet and cuts the proposed $500 billion in medicare, and then takes another bullet and taxes high-cost and union insurance plans, then there might be some cost control.

Of course, that's if you believe in a projection for 10 years from now, and that's if you believe that members of congress 6 and 8 years from now will make the proposed cuts and taxes that this congress was too chicken to take on.

Fact is, Obamacare was a big lie. It's not going to cut the deficit, it's going to add billions to the deficit.