no,no,,,,,no,,,,,run up a 14,trillion dollar medical bill,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
OBAMACARE LAUNCHES TODAY,,,,WHAT HAPPENS NOW???
- Thread starter iamsoandso
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
no,no,,,,,no,,,,,run up a 14,trillion dollar medical bill,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmm,,"well mr. iamsoandso,what seems to be the problem to day?".....,,,,"well dr. Obama,,,i think i have a bone in my leg",,,,,,,,,,,,
well their not exactly the same if we look real close at the punctuation,,,i thought i cleared the first one,,,,,apologies,,,,
If they got rid of the individual mandate and the penalties id be fine with it. Providing 'affordable' healthcare to everyone but then penalizing those who still cant afford it is dumb. I dont even think i can pay the penalty right now...money is tight in this economy.
50 USC 1520a: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents here is another section hidden in the fine print of the affordable health care act (notice the date=oct.1,2013 and the source us.gov),,that is i thought it would make more sense to skip the "conspiracy web sites" and go straight to the government sites for the source.
that is now that the mandated health care act is in effect we should (now) look into the exact privileges and rights the government has in its possession that they can now use on the public. here is the path to research this your self if you would feel more comfortable ruling out the possibilities of copy/past errors,,,,
go to the house gov. web page,,, SEARCH RESULTS[%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3Afalse%3A]|[%3A] and type in (1520a) and search,,,then read (1520b)
that is now that the mandated health care act is in effect we should (now) look into the exact privileges and rights the government has in its possession that they can now use on the public. here is the path to research this your self if you would feel more comfortable ruling out the possibilities of copy/past errors,,,,
go to the house gov. web page,,, SEARCH RESULTS[%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3A%3Afalse%3A]|[%3A] and type in (1520a) and search,,,then read (1520b)
i cannot get(1520b) to open (due to shut down they are experiencing glitches) either wait and try again later or with the 1520a page open,click the (next page tab) in the top right hand corner,,,,,,,
S
ServantStrike
Guest
There is blood on the hands of the average voter, yes.
The entire robin hood attitude cannot be applied to healthcare. This is not making the rich pay for healthcare for the rest, as much as people think it is. It's a new tax and new pork barrel spending.
This will lower the standard of care for everyone involved. It has to.
You, you'll be labelled a conservative troublemaker. You should know better, conservatives are all closeted middle age fat white men with money flowing through their veins!
Joking aside (because you have to laugh to keep from crying), I don't think people even realize what this will do to the standard of care. This is going to be rationed care. I'm betting HMO times 1000. There will be a formulary and only certain drugs will be able to be prescribed, and no off label use (even though sometimes that shows great promise).
Although, I could also see it going another way. People with insurance through their employer will have HMO's that will not allow certain drugs and procedures, but people paying comparatively less for care under the ACA will get all sorts of treatments not available to those who's taxes are paying for a lot of this (I don't care what anyone says about premiums paying for all of the ACA, it's rubbish).
You'll have people under the ACA getting liver transplants for alcoholism while people on HMO's who need a liver transplant die. We've already had that for over a decade with medacaid vs private insurance. Here's a procedure that works quite well but most insurance companies will not pay for it, but those on the dole get it for the dumbest of reasons (because since only the govt will pay for it, you can give alcoholics multiple liver transplants).
V
voiceoftheshires
Guest
O' wonderful, now I just have to wait to go to jail for avoiding the act, and ignoring the penalties associated within this act.
H
Hellooo
Guest
In comparison to a lot of private insurance plans...I'm not impressed.
I can see how the feel-good idea that everyone now has 'affordable' insurance might appeal to a lot of folks who just don't know any better. What a cluster.
I can see how the feel-good idea that everyone now has 'affordable' insurance might appeal to a lot of folks who just don't know any better. What a cluster.
Saw a news story about who will pay for all the newly insured under Fiasco...I mean Obamacare.
Those who have a history of low health care concerns, the young, will have their premiums jump, depending on the state ( not sure why its different from state to state ) from, 40% to 125%.
Its not free folks.
Covetness is a sin.
Those who have a history of low health care concerns, the young, will have their premiums jump, depending on the state ( not sure why its different from state to state ) from, 40% to 125%.
Its not free folks.
Covetness is a sin.
First let me say, no plan man can come up with will ever solve the problems of man's own greed. "You can not love both God and money". With that being said...
Remember the original problem that "most" American couldn't stomach? It was a thoroughly Christian problem.
"I should not have to pay for someone else getting sick! I worked hard for my money. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else who goes to the emergency room? If I can pay for medical insurance so should everyone else. That's the American way."
This healthcare problem was one of the big issues contributing to the deficit. So a new health care act was in the works...but what would it look? Well you had:
A Democratic Idea) A nationalized healthcare plan similar to other nations like Canada, where everyone is covered for free!
- This choice wouldn't have worked because that wasn't solving the problem this "Christian" nation was griping about; the problem of "no freeloaders".
A Republican Idea) Healthcare plan in an open market, where *everyone* is required to pay for their own insurance: "No Freeloaders".
- I want to emphasize this was a Republican idea because America is based on Capitalism ("take care of yourself; create your own success"), not based on Christianity...err...I mean Socialism (take care of each other equally).
So to compromise, a Democrat Administration chose the Republican idea as the core of the new healthcare plan and then went about adding Democratic elements to help with those who couldn't afford to pay. One of the BIGGEST elements was the "Public Option", but that wasn't popular (for the *minority* of Americans...even though the *majority* of Americans polled REALLY wanted it). Again, such an idea was too Christian...err...I mean that idea wouldn't let the markets work in reducing the price of healthcare naturally, like it has ~successfully~ done for all of these years (sarcasm).
Then a watered down version of the Public Option was proposed which – instead of sharing Medicare's pricing power – would make it a government-run health insurer. But, strangely, even a minority of Democratic senators didn't want ANY public option in the bill or they wouldn't sign it. These individuals were said to be the conservative caucus of the party.
…So we end up with a healthcare law as it currently exists; a Republican Idea at its core peppered with a few democratic "help-me-outs" where there's an economic threshold before people are seriously taxed, but otherwise it's almost IDENTICAL to the historically successful healthcare plan that the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney implemented in his own state.
If you've got health insurance you can keep it. But if you don't have any this is a less costly way to get it. And if you don't want any, you still contribute SOMETHING (through penalties) in the (God forbid) likelihood that you DO need serious medial attention.
"No freeloaders."
So what’s the problem now?
Well now the problem is (a) "everyone has to pay" (o_0?) and (b) "these plans won't amount to adequate coverage compared to traditional plans" and (c) "the rich will find a way to pass the costs back down to the working class" (something I happen to agree with).
To address each of these...
(A) But wasn't the whole point to make sure there were "no freeloaders" that others are paying for?
(B) Isn't some coverage better than nothing?
(C) Someone's clever avoidance of a law doesn't conclude that the law is the problem. Historically the rich have always found ways around taxes, but that doesn't mean taxes are the problem...the problem is much deeper.
Also I don't think it's completely correct to say that government regulation and taxation are the reasons why prices increase while wages stay the same. Again, taxes are the "branches", but not the "root" of the problem.
Remember the original problem that "most" American couldn't stomach? It was a thoroughly Christian problem.
"I should not have to pay for someone else getting sick! I worked hard for my money. Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else who goes to the emergency room? If I can pay for medical insurance so should everyone else. That's the American way."
This healthcare problem was one of the big issues contributing to the deficit. So a new health care act was in the works...but what would it look? Well you had:
A Democratic Idea) A nationalized healthcare plan similar to other nations like Canada, where everyone is covered for free!
- This choice wouldn't have worked because that wasn't solving the problem this "Christian" nation was griping about; the problem of "no freeloaders".
A Republican Idea) Healthcare plan in an open market, where *everyone* is required to pay for their own insurance: "No Freeloaders".
- I want to emphasize this was a Republican idea because America is based on Capitalism ("take care of yourself; create your own success"), not based on Christianity...err...I mean Socialism (take care of each other equally).
So to compromise, a Democrat Administration chose the Republican idea as the core of the new healthcare plan and then went about adding Democratic elements to help with those who couldn't afford to pay. One of the BIGGEST elements was the "Public Option", but that wasn't popular (for the *minority* of Americans...even though the *majority* of Americans polled REALLY wanted it). Again, such an idea was too Christian...err...I mean that idea wouldn't let the markets work in reducing the price of healthcare naturally, like it has ~successfully~ done for all of these years (sarcasm).
Then a watered down version of the Public Option was proposed which – instead of sharing Medicare's pricing power – would make it a government-run health insurer. But, strangely, even a minority of Democratic senators didn't want ANY public option in the bill or they wouldn't sign it. These individuals were said to be the conservative caucus of the party.
…So we end up with a healthcare law as it currently exists; a Republican Idea at its core peppered with a few democratic "help-me-outs" where there's an economic threshold before people are seriously taxed, but otherwise it's almost IDENTICAL to the historically successful healthcare plan that the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney implemented in his own state.
If you've got health insurance you can keep it. But if you don't have any this is a less costly way to get it. And if you don't want any, you still contribute SOMETHING (through penalties) in the (God forbid) likelihood that you DO need serious medial attention.
"No freeloaders."
So what’s the problem now?
Well now the problem is (a) "everyone has to pay" (o_0?) and (b) "these plans won't amount to adequate coverage compared to traditional plans" and (c) "the rich will find a way to pass the costs back down to the working class" (something I happen to agree with).
To address each of these...
(A) But wasn't the whole point to make sure there were "no freeloaders" that others are paying for?
(B) Isn't some coverage better than nothing?
(C) Someone's clever avoidance of a law doesn't conclude that the law is the problem. Historically the rich have always found ways around taxes, but that doesn't mean taxes are the problem...the problem is much deeper.
Also I don't think it's completely correct to say that government regulation and taxation are the reasons why prices increase while wages stay the same. Again, taxes are the "branches", but not the "root" of the problem.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
I always laugh at this stereotype since most conservatives that I know fall into either upper end of low class or middle class and most of the liberals I know fall into either the upper class or those who have been bought by government entitlements. Remember Joe the Plumber from the '08 campaigns? He is the true personification of the shrinking middle class.
I have. I'll be paying my penalties like a good girl for the next few years at least.
I know a boat load of people in this hole including myself. First year penalty $95 First year premium over $1,200 with a $6,500 deductible. In order to bring the deductible down, the premium soars. Even when the penalty maxes out it's only $650 which is half of what the garbage policy costs.
The problem is the federal government decides who can "afford" it. According to their chart I would receive minimal premium assistance and I live check to check (and I am pretty frugal). The only reason I have any savings at all is from doing additional side work outside of my regular job. Oh, by the way, my boss is a small businessman who will end up paying some of those taxes that fund Obamacare.......basically my next pay raise (and everyone else's in the company) is disappearing due to those additional taxes that he will have to pay. Wealth redistribution ALWAYS hurts the middle class.
Ignorance reigns supreme! The whole point of obamacare was NEVER about covering the uninsured or helping those who couldn't afford coverage. If this was the case then all they had to do was increase funds and availability using medicaid and left the rest of us alone!! IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT CONTROL OVER YOU AND YOUR FAMILY!!
yep it's all in the definition,,,,military bases are everywhere,,,let us go to the same doctors paid by the government that funds Medicaid,,,and the private medical firms will have to compete.all the definitions are wrong,,,there's no such thing as a terrorist,they are enemy spies trained by foreign governments,sent to attack sovereign nations and fall under military law,,,,,,