|
|
|
|
Expert
|
|
Nov 9, 2013, 12:42 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Mostly people between jobs for a short time and invincibles who don't want it anyway (and probably deserve the hosing they are getting ,as they are the zombies who bit into his whole cr@p sandwich from the beginning) .
What we had before was a crap sandwich. Prejudicial rhetoric aside.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 9, 2013, 01:29 PM
|
|
Nah Gallup's latest poll found that only 22% of uninsured Americans say they plan to get insurance through the exchanges.So the whole system was destroyed to cater to a very small segment of the population.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/.../?spt=rln&or=2
Obamacare was sold as a way to get everyone health insurance. In the end, it is likely going to destroy the health insurance industry so that no one has it.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 9, 2013, 03:12 PM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Obamacare was sold as a way to get everyone health insurance. In the end, it is likely going to destroy the health insurance industry so that no one has it.
Well won't your protected medico's have to deal with reality then
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:04 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Depends on the group you belong to. If you were part of the 30 m then you would probably think it is a good idea. No doubt you are part of the 50 m who think it is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:09 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Depends on the group you belong to. If you were part of the 30 m then you would probably think it is a good idea. No doubt you are part of the 50 m who think it is a bad idea.
Most of them didn't want it anyway. They are the ones ,the so called young 'invincibles' that Obamacare screws, even as it is dependent on their participation. They had already made the calculation that they were healthy ,and their incomes would be better spent on other luxuries like starting their adult life. The very few who were legitimately falling through the cracks could've been dealt with without destroying what we had.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:15 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Most of them didn't want it anyway. They are the ones ,the so called young 'invincibles' that Obamacare screws, even as it is dependent on their participation. They had already made the calculation that they were healthy ,and their incomes would be better spent on other luxuries like starting their adult life. The very few who were legitimately falling through the cracks could've been dealt with without destroying what we had.
No one is invincible. In other words, you are saying these people can't have things both ways so they are prepared to take the risk that nothing major will go wrong with their health.
In all honesty what sort of justification are you trying to put forward. Of course it is possible to have it both ways.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:18 AM
|
|
I'm saying they exercised their right of choice.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:24 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm saying they exercised their right of choice.
So that makes it OK then?
Tom, do you want the tired horses or no horses at all? You have a right to choose.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 03:51 AM
|
|
It's a scam. The gvt cut Medicare and is depending on the young and healthy to pony up and make up the difference.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 04:06 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
It's a scam. The gvt cut Medicare and is depending on the young and healthy to pony up and make up the difference.
Tom that doesn't cut it. There is absolutely no way that a medically advanced society such as yours should offer up any sort of Hobson's choice, whether it be Medicare or; as in your post, a choice of lifestyle or health insurance.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 04:18 AM
|
|
The REAL problem is that state mandates and other factors like tort law make health care unaffordable to the young. Why should they be covered for sh+t they don't want or need ? When libs talk about affordable health care they mean subsidies that other people pay for . In this case ,it's a wealth transfer from these kids who are not making a lot of money and are trying to start their lives, to the elders who often have more than enough resources to care for themselves . That is and has always been one of the fatal flaws of social insurance .
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 04:33 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
The REAL problem is that state mandates and other factors like tort law make health care unaffordable to the young. Why should they be covered for sh+t they don't want or need ? When libs talk about affordable health care they mean subsidies that other people pay for . In this case ,it's a wealth transfer from these kids who are not making a lot of money and are trying to start their lives, to the elders who often have more than enough resources to care for themselves . That is and has always been one of the fatal flaws of social insurance .
The real problem is blame shifting. How about you put down your ideological lens for the moment.
Young people are being forced to move from the 'old system' whereby they at least had a choice between lifestyle or health insurance ( according to your post anyway).
Now under the new system they have no choice at all. It is like I said before, do you want the tired horses or no horses at all? I just can't understand why you can't do better. Well, actually I do know.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 04:42 AM
|
|
Better would be getting the government out of it . I don't have the time to go back to my past posts ,but I have already demonstrated that when a medical procedure is not covered by insurance ,and subject to market forces by competing physicians ,the prices are affordable . What the left feeds us is this bs about the possibility that things can be 'free'. Subsidies are just wealth transfers when you break them down to their essentials.
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 04:55 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by tomder55
Better would be getting the government out of it . I don't have the time to go back to my past posts ,but I have already demonstrated that when a medical procedure is not covered by insurance ,and subject to market forces by competing physicians ,the prices are affordable . What the left feeds us is this bs about the possibility that things can be 'free'. Subsidies are just wealth transfers when you break them down to their essentials.
You won't put that lens down, will you? Tom, going over your pervious posts will add nothing in terms of our discussion.
You have not addressed any of the issues I have raised.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 05:36 AM
|
|
And still the emperor lies ,even after he allegedly apologized for lying...
For Americans with insurance coverage who like what they have, they can keep it. Nothing in this act or anywhere in the bill forces anyone to change the insurance they have, period.
Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans | The White House
The emperor has no shame.
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 05:38 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
You won't put that lens down, will you? Tom, going over your pervious posts will add nothing in terms of our discussion.
You have not addressed any of the issues I have raised.
Tutt he is only capable of addressing his own issues from within an eighteenth century lens
He doesn't understand the principle of mutual assurance, where you contribute over time towards the expenses you may incur because of catastrophy, this is the very basis of insurance, not that you reap an immediate benefit but you will reap a defined benefit upon the happening of a defined event
What's with this spell checker that is only capable of capitalising at the beginning of sentences, if you are going to do something don't do it the US way of SNAFU which obviously carried over into your health system
|
|
|
Ultra Member
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 06:43 AM
|
|
He doesn't understand the principle of mutual assurance, where you contribute over time towards the expenses you may incur because of catastrophy, this is the very basis of insurance, not that you reap an immediate benefit but you will reap a defined benefit upon the happening of a defined event
Nice try but that isn't how the social insurance system has evolved . It's a generational wealth transfer with a Ponzi scheme built in.
|
|
|
Internet Research Expert
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 06:43 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
The real problem is blame shifting. How about you put down your ideological lens for the moment.
Young people are being forced to move from the 'old system' whereby they at least had a choice between lifestyle or health insurance ( according to your post anyway).
Now under the new system they have no choice at all. It is like I said before, do you want the tired horses or no horses at all? I just can't understand why you can't do better. Well, actually I do know.
Tired horses or no horses is sure a funny way of putting it when the facts show that not only are there no horses to do anything this system as it has been created (Obamacare) ends up pulling the horses along with everything else.
Lets not forget that this system was designed by the very system it was suppose to regulate and it represents a huge boon for insurance companies as well as more levels for the government to be directly involved in your life by way of law.
|
|
|
Internet Research Expert
|
|
Nov 10, 2013, 06:52 AM
|
|
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tutt he is only capable of addressing his own issues from within an eighteenth century lens
He doesn't understand the principle of mutual assurance, where you contribute over time towards the expenses you may incur because of catastrophy, this is the very basis of insurance, not that you reap an immediate benefit but you will reap a defined benefit upon the happening of a defined event
What's with this spell checker that is only capable of capitalising at the beginning of sentences, if you are going to do something don't do it the US way of SNAFU which obviously carried over into your health system
Actually we understand the system very well of mutual assurance as that is how home and auto insurance works here. The biggest difference between that and heath insurance is when you want to purchase home or auto you get to choose and it is a needs based system. But with health insurance its not needs based nor can you bypass it. And the monies that many policy holders are getting hit with has nothing to do with actual policy rates. It has to do with how much handout they are to recieve based on how much money they make. So to me wealth transfer is iheirent in the system.
P.S. > If your having trouble or do not want the spell checker you can now go to your "options" page in your profile page and turn it off if you like.
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Check out some similar questions!
Health and social care - hazards in health & social care settings
[ 10 Answers ]
Explain the potential hazards in health and social care settings, you should include:
1. hazards: e.g. from workinh environment, working condition, poor staffing training, poor working practices, equipment, substance etc.
2. working environment: e.g. within an organisation's premises
3....
Forget Hillary care, what about School-Based "Health Care?"
[ 37 Answers ]
Middle school in Maine to offer birth control pills, patches to pupils
When I was in school about the only good school "health care" was for was a bandaid, an excuse to skip a class or a pan to puke in. What on earth (or in the constitution) gives public schools the right to prescribe drugs...
View more questions
Search
|