OT: Best Discussion yet on Obamacare IMO: Nixon

[paramount]

Excellent insight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE1cN9shMyI

[paramount]

Tyranny and Fascism via Obamacare and a throwback to Nixon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQtxcKT-u_Y

[spdrun]

Hope it does collapse and we end up with socialized medicine (or at least a public option) instead. There now, I said it.

[paramount]

Obamacare can be summed up this way: Pay More, Get Less! (for most American’s)

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Hope it does collapse and we end up with socialized medicine (or at least a public option) instead. There now, I said it.[/quote]

X2

[Jazzman]

[quote=spdrun]Hope it does collapse and we end up with socialized medicine (or at least a public option) instead. There now, I said it.[/quote]
Maybe that’s the plan.

[SD Realtor]

The two things I like best are the reference to the “substandard” plans and the fact that the administration knew that standards set in the legislature would eventually result in the loss of these plans for the past few years.

Our “substandard” plan was perfect for our family. We got what we wanted at the price we wanted. However we were informed it would be cancelled. So that lie about if you like your plan you get to keep your plan was a direct lie but we knew it was anyway.

The fact that most of the employer offered insurance plans will suffer the same fate is not yet realized, but it will happen over the next 2 years.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=spdrun]Hope it does collapse and we end up with socialized medicine (or at least a public option) instead. There now, I said it.[/quote]

X2[/quote]

X3

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]
The fact that most of the employer offered insurance plans will suffer the same fate is not yet realized, but it will happen over the next 2 years.[/quote]

You’re probably right, but this has almost nothing to do with the new law. Over the 10 years before the law was passed, 15 million people lost employer sponsored coverage. There is nothing to indicate that trend will change. Employers have been dropping coverage, reducing the benefits of plans, and charging employees more for their coverage and coverage of dependents. What is different now, is that everyone who loses employer sponsored coverage will have more and better access to continued coverage.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=spdrun]Hope it does collapse and we end up with socialized medicine (or at least a public option) instead. There now, I said it.[/quote]

X2[/quote]

X3[/quote]

X4 to power of 1000

[Jazzman]

[quote=paramount]Obamacare can be summed up this way: Pay More, Get Less! (for most American’s)[/quote] But that is what created the health care crisis, so nothing has changed in that respect. Out of control costs are, and have always been, at the epicenter of the problem. The problem faced by Obamacare is one of disrupting the pyramid scheme; which brick do you remove without it collapsing in on you. It really shouldn’t be too hard to figure out but rationale is being lost in the fog of political war. If ideological differences were put aside for a day, the conclusion would emerge that a universal system of health care provides the same kind of inalienable rights enshrined in the Constitution. Presently, it remains conspicuous by its absence among fellow, modern-democracy stalwarts: rights to vote, equality under the law, freedom of speech, safety and security, social security, and everything else that is taken for granted. Universal healthcare is not without its problems, so as ever, this is a choice of the lesser of two evils.

[SD Realtor]

SK the last line of what you said is the administrations cowbell.

“What is different now, is that everyone who loses employer sponsored coverage will have more and better access to continued coverage.”

The issue that I have is the complete elimination of what the administration calls substandard plans. You may argue they are not eliminated however the if they change a single iota then they will be eliminated. So in reality they are eliminated because the nature of policies are that they are fluid and change annually. The administration knew it 3 years ago and to blame insurance companies for cancelling the policies and label policies that are less comprehensive “substandard” is pretty lame.

Why should any plans be considered substandard?

Why do I have to be told I will be given something better when what I had worked fine for me? I don’t want something different, or better. I don’t need to be told what is better and what is worse because I can differentiate and make my own decision.

So what should really be said is that you will have access to more comprehensive coverage that will be more expensive and you will not be able to purchase plans that were less comprehensive and less expensive.

All I ask is that the administration and those towing the line for it say things like they really are.

[joec]

[quote=SD Realtor]SK the last line of what you said is the administrations cowbell.

“What is different now, is that everyone who loses employer sponsored coverage will have more and better access to continued coverage.”

The issue that I have is the complete elimination of what the administration calls substandard plans. You may argue they are not eliminated however the if they change a single iota then they will be eliminated. So in reality they are eliminated because the nature of policies are that they are fluid and change annually. The administration knew it 3 years ago and to blame insurance companies for cancelling the policies and label policies that are less comprehensive “substandard” is pretty lame.

Why should any plans be considered substandard?

Why do I have to be told I will be given something better when what I had worked fine for me? I don’t want something different, or better. I don’t need to be told what is better and what is worse because I can differentiate and make my own decision.

So what should really be said is that you will have access to more comprehensive coverage that will be more expensive and you will not be able to purchase plans that were less comprehensive and less expensive.

All I ask is that the administration and those towing the line for it say things like they really are.[/quote]

Obama is getting quite a bit of flak for this point right now. Republicans are hammering him that people ARE losing their health care plans and he totally blew it that people can keep their coverage.

That said, I think it was done this way because if say I wanted a plan that covered pretty much nothing and I wanted to save coin, at the end of the day, if the shit hits the fan and I need care, I’m forced to go to emergency rooms anyways and get saved/covered for that thing which was excluded. You, the other tax payers are still paying for it so now, up front, everyone has a basic level of coverage.

It may not be fair, but like I have said so many times here already, until we are seriously willing to just let people die, having a certain level of coverage is a good thing overall for society/US.

Also, you are probably smart enough to see what coverage is good for your family and you have the savings to cover things which aren’t, but if something is excluded, isn’t it true that it’s not even a policy limit issue at that point and they just won’t pay anything? Like if you don’t have maternity cause you didn’t expect to have another kid, but ended up having a kid by accident and worst even, having a premie with now a 400k hospital bill, is it time to now just file bk and move on?

I think the majority of “people” in the US have no clue what is a good plan.

This is why it was setup this way IMO and a good thing for everyone. Sorta like if in auto insurance, someone had coverage just for 1k minimum, good luck trying to claim much from the other side if your own insurance wasn’t good.

Oh well, I’m not a liberal or a democrat, but being self employed, never smoke/drink and paying through the roof for coverage now, I’m glad this is here since I’ll probably make out better with the credits than my current situation.

Long term, like other’s have said, I think companies will start removing health care from their benefits since the Obama plans are probably actually BETTER than a lot of corporate coverage as well.

I think this is a good thing as insurance costs have been inflated since someone else has been paying the bill forever, and companies can focus on their business rather than health care…

[scaredyclassic]

kid at my kids college recently had an accident int he dorm, severly fractured collarbone, required a plate with surgery. broke paretns with no insurance, she had no insurance, whopping bill, she’ll be broke, maybe if she doesnt make payments she wont get student aid later…but shell have to pay back the loans shes received…and cant go bankrupt on those….

doesnt seem like a great way to organize society…i guess she needs to figure out someone to sue….

[EconProf]

I’m surprised so many people on this site want to go whole hog into single payer. I guess the government has done such a good job rolling out Obamacare, they should now take over 100% of health care.

[Author]

Posts