Obama Care Increases
 

SURPRISE!!!Not so much if you paid attention 6yrs ago.

Absolutely shocked there has been no discussion on this subject.

Have at it boys and girls!I want some real entertainment...please don't disappoint.:lurk:

I don't think anyone, except the "stupid" Americans Gruber was counting on to help get Obamacare passed, is surprised. Certainly not Obama. The intention all along is that it would fail. Obama was saying as far back as 2003 that single payer government health care was needed and would require a transitional private sector form--such as Obamacare for instance--before it could be made a reality.

The necessary transition has come, is on its way toward disappearing, and Hillary will work to usher in universal government healthcare.

I am OK with health coverage for all citizens (Citizens Only!!!) and even single payer, provided:

Fix the budget deficit first
Plan reduction to national debt (how?)
Fix SS

If Government shows it can be responsible and do all that without cutting/gutting defense, I would even pay a little extra in taxes.

Currently, our elected Government has not shown well enough if it can manage its current responsibilities let alone manage new ones.

Agreed. But what you have to do (which Obamacare failed at) is to get young, healthy people to pay in to the system as well. The math doesn't work if only sick people sign up, you need to spread the cost among healthy people too.

And there's a whole lot of fraud and waste that needs to be addressed, that would at least put a dent in costs.

The timing of the premium spikes will help Trump. Probably not enough, but it will help.

The penalties are too small to force people into the program. They are going up to I believe $700/year. People can just cancel/buy insurance at any time. That is prob. as big or a bigger problem.

Good point, Paul. You can't have a system where people sign up the day before they have surgery, then opt out the day they get out of the hospital. The math doesn't work.

Force people into a government program? Sounds kind of Fascist? I thought Democrats were about choice not coercion.

It is a penalty for not enrolling.

I thought Repubs. where about personal responsibility - I guess not when it comes to abortion.

We already had health coverage (health care) for all citizens before we concocted Obamacare. What was objected to was its reverse progressivity. The more you could afford it, the better coverage (care) you could get.

"Universal" health coverage, the same amount, type, and quality, of all health care provided by government to everyone regardless of ability to pay for it, is one of the types of socialist dreams which disincentivize the drive to improve one's life. Government universalization of necessities is basically government control of its populace. And it is a control which most likely will lead to stagnant mediocrity in the populace which will be more or less trapped in its "classless" position within the "masses," and will be dependent on its elite rulers. Of course, the elites will have better stuff in spite of "universalization."

Sure, if we can stop the universalization at healthcare, other things might not change. But the nature of socialism is not to stop at partial or limited control. What stops it, eventually, is failure. As you have pointed out, our Federal Government is failing even to manage its current responsibilities. It's solution is not to lessen those responsibilities (control), but to double down. Of course it will take on more . . . and more . . . until utter collapse and necessary revolution.

If we want universalized health care, would it be better if we left it up to the individual States to put proposals to their ciltizens for various plans? Wouldn't that fulfil the original plan, federalism, of States as the laboratories of experiment? Wouldn't that give us different perspectives on what worked, what didn't, or what worked better? My guess is that the plans which left the most discretion to individuals and the market would ultimately be the best and most affordable. And certainly would be the ones which allowed flexibility and opportunity for change or improvement rather than the stubborn doubling down imposed on us by bureaucrats.

And would be the ones which most distanced ourselves from the control of centralized bureaucratic government.

One could argue that forcing someone to purchase something, goes against core conservative principles. But we force drivers to buy insurance, because we all have a vested interest in making sure that those we share the road with, have adequate insurance.

I think a similar case can be made with health insurance. I don't think anyone - ANYONE - should suffer long-term financial hardship because of health issues they have no control over (issues from obesity or smoking are a whole other matter, that's the result of choice, for the most part). To me, it seems very fair to spread the cost of un-preventable, lifelong catastrophic health issues, among all of us.

"I thought Repubs. where about personal responsibility - I guess not when it comes to abortion"

Can't imagine what you mean by that. Being opposed to abortion is perfectly consistent with the notion of holding people accountable for their actions - if you are healthy and chose to engage in consensual sex, you can deal with the consequences of that choice.

Not when it comes to school choice they're not. Nor when it comes to opting out of a labor union you have no desire of supporting.

Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care.

"Force drivers to have insurance in order to make sure they have insurance--really"

Everyone who drives, has a vested interest in sharing the road only with people who have adequate insurance. I worked in Personal Auto insurance, I've seen what happens to people who are hurt by drivers who don't have adequate insurance. Does the requirement limit freedom? Sure. So does the law that says I can't park in handicap parking spaces, but I don't quarrel about that, either.

"Exactly. Force everyone to buy health insurance. And when that eventually fails, transition to "universal" government health care. "

I make no claim to having any kind of viable solution. But while I was lucky to be born ailment-free, others are not so lucky, and I have no issue with all of us sharing the financial costs of un-preventable medical problems that some are born with. I'd rather pay to treat a little kid born with leukemia, than pay for someone to get food stamps that they trade for beer and cigarettes. That's my Catholicism talking.

Not sure what abortion has to do with my thread title but this is exactly the kind of entertainment I was hoping for!

Keep it going ladies and gents!!!

That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it.

I have tremendous respect for your church. And for Christianity, and a good amount for Judaism, and for good atheists, but none, as everyone can guess from my posts, for Islam. And there are other religions, cults, and philosophies that I feel some kinship with.

But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines.

If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that. But if your sentiments are imposed on me, I am not free to do that or not to. I am impelled, coerced, forced to do what you want to do.

Since you claim to not have any kind of viable solution, perhaps, then, you don't believe in a free market, nor in the charity of a free people. Perhaps, your Catholicism requires a controlled market and a regulated people to "do the right thing."

Where is the "faith" in all that? Do you have faith in the good, or do you require good to be mandated by the opinion and force of men.

"If you want to pay for the treatment of a kid born with leukemia, you're welcome to it. "

The thing is, I can't do it on my on. But all of the healthy people, together, can. And in my opinion, should.

"There are already charities that do it. You can contribute to them. You are FREE to do that."

I do. But there aren't enough people contributing which is why families who deal with un-preventable ailments, suffer severe financial consequences for the rest of their lives. I don't like it.

"That's the problem with your Catholicism. Everyone else should feel obligated to share in it. "

Now you sound like someone at MSNBC. I have no interest in forcing people into my tent. In fact, I think we need to clean house and kick out phonies like Tim Kaine and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

"But I don't want to be compelled by government, especially some distant central one, to share in inclinations that arise from the practice of those various beliefs or disciplines."

Well then I have bad news for you. The Constitution, which I think you like, was largely formed via the religiously-informed consciences of the founding fathers. It sounds like you are saying you are OK with constitutionally valid federal laws, as long as they weren't inspired by religious motivation. I don't particularly care what motivated the conscience of the person who supports a law, as much as I care about the content of the law.

And while your insurance company has made a lot of money on you individually, they haven't made much on the pool of people you are rated with. Premiums and losses must be submitted to your insurance department, and if profits are too rich, the state of Michigan will tell your carrier to lower their rates. Margins are pretty thin here.

That's rich. I should feel good about being the cash cow because insurance companies didn't make much on those I am rated with. Probably, if it weren't for cash cows like me, they would have lost money on others in "the pool."

Don't insurance companies make massive amounts of money by investing the premiums they collect (on a thin margin)? I guess I'm not feeling the proper sympathy for some of the richest companies in the world because they profitably invest my premiums, for which I have gotten nothing but a big chunk of my income being removed from my well being in order to enrich theirs.

Boo Hoo!

Oh yeah, that's right . . . I should be happy about being forced to defray somebody else's costs of reckless behavior or bad luck.

congress had 8 years to fix the issues and just attempted repeal it like 50 times so i ask who screwing who

I am in a Group of thousands and my insurance is 700 a month and 1st 750 out of pocket .. not seeing the outrage

the people seeing this increase are single or family policys whom are not in a group ..they are buying as individuals its Price and demand

so it seem outrageous if you never have had health insurance

how many here fall into 1 of 4 categories

Medicare, Medicaid private or employee based (group) this changes your pricing greatly

"not seeing the outrage "

That's because you don't want to see the outrage, nd because MSNBC isn't covering the outrage. That doesn't mean there isn't outrage.

Yes, we have had this discussion, and I don't expect it to go anywhere. It's a big issue, not going to get addressed here.

I am not anti-government. I don't mind the feds doing that which (1) needs to be done, and (2) can't be done by a loose collection of individuals. There are a very small number of things on that list, you and I agree whole heartedly on that. This is one of those items on which we disagree. I don't like to see despair that was unavoidable to the person who is suffering, yet which cn be mitigated by social programs. And we don't need to raise taxes to address this, just cut a tiny fraction of the stupid waste that's out there,

As to your car insurance, no, no one expects you to feel good that you subsidized bad drivers in your town, which is exactly what you did. But you can, and should, take some small comfort in knowing that if you accidentally hurt someone today, you have an insurance policy designed to make sure that you don't lose everything you have.

That's the same exact kind of protection that I think sick people deserve. They can't help having a pre-existing condition, so why should they have to pay (and struggle for their entire lives) dearly for that?

Tone can be badly misinterpreted in emails, I hope that's not the case here. I have nothing but respect for you, this is just s friendly, challenging disagreement.

"Don't insurance companies make massive amounts of money by investing the premiums they collect (on a thin margin)?"

First of all, there are no investment gains these days. Insurance companies can't invest premiums in hedge funds, most of it is in bonds, which no pay interest rates pretty close to zero. Second of all, in personal auto insurance, there often isn't a lot of time to invest and earn, before claims are paid out. As opposed to some other lines, like medical malpractice, where claims often take 10 years to settle, companies have a lot more time to invest. No company is making big money as a result of buying short term bonds with your automobile premiums.

"If you insist that we must all be coerced into sharing the cost of someone foiling or putting off the moment of death"

I'm not talking about spending a zillion dollars so that a 99 year old with acute liver failure can live 3 more days. I am talking about a family whose child is born, for example, with something like spinal bifida (spelling error likely). Something that the family will live with for decades. Is it right that such a family might never be able to afford to buy a home, or send their kids to college, because every spare cent gets sucked up by medical expenses? I don't think so. I just don't.

It's fair to charge bad drivers more for car insurance. I don't think it's fair to charge sick people more for their healthcare. I can't prove it, it's just my gut.

You two should stop responding to each other. The post is a troll.

When any insurance becomes mandatory and universal, fairness is no longer an issue.