Obamacare, or, I might be up a creek w/o a paddle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Alan, do you have some life time guarantee of health insurance some how? Don't you think it is possible some day you or someone you love, might develop a pre-existing condition, or have some financial catastrophe and need help with health insurance yourself some day?

Don't you feel any empathy or concern for a family working minimum wage jobs without insurance and a child with cancer?

---

Yes, as I approach my retirement years and worry about the future of my special needs grandson, I feel great concern on a personal level. And on a societial level, I worry about people such as the OP who is now facing increased difficulties as a result of the Affordable Care Act requirements.

I think it's important to remind others, who may revel in the fact that the negatives involved with their life choices have now been mitigated by the increased demands upon their neighbors, that their benefit is someone else's loss. Forced participation in higher cost plans and subsidy dollars forcefully taken from their neighbors have a negative impact on more folks than are rewarded with the result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iris lilies

Don't you dare vote for Hilary!

---

That's cool if you don't vote for her as I will.....Seriously, I wonder if she's going to be running in 2016? Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Yes, as I approach my retirement years and worry about the future of my special needs grandson, I feel great concern on a personal level. And on a societial level, I worry about people such as the OP who is now facing increased difficulties as a result of the Affordable Care Act requirements.

I think it's important to remind others, who may revel in the fact that the negatives involved with their life choices have now been mitigated by the increased demands upon their neighbors, that their benefit is someone else's loss. Forced participation in higher cost plans and subsidy dollars forcefully taken from their neighbors have a negative impact on more folks than are rewarded with the result.

---

Aren't you happy to know that your special needs grandson and everyone else's special needs children and grandchildren will no longer be excluded from health care, if their parent's lose their jobs?

Does it make any more sense to lose your homeowners insurance or your car insurance when you lose a job?

Having the government help to provide health care for the population isn't some failed social experiment. It is the way the vast majority of the developed world works. It is the way the countries that score higher than the U.S. on happiness and life satisfaction scales work. Almost all other developed countries provide universal health care as a basic population need, like education or police protection. Here is a map of the countries that provide universal health care -

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-on-it/259153/

Yea those countries have good systems to some degree whereas at the best the people I care about will be left with garbage Medicaid, which like I said almost no doctors are even taking.

Those I care about that I worry about: smoke a pack a day, does nothing all day most days but sit in front of the t.v., eat nothing but junk food, avoid vegetables like the plague, take a dozen pharma pills a day that I'm sure is making them sicker and sicker, and have worse and worse health reports everytime they go to the doctor and they are in their early 30s, wont' get therapy either (though I guess I could make the offer to pay for it). Do I worry they will have health problems? I know it, it's pretty much inevitable. Dead in 10 years, it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL, that's a funeral I would not be surprised to attend. But not only will they not change their health behaviors they also won't ever get a job, have NEVER held a job of ANY sort, won't ever think about working even, don't even have the dignity of being full time students or aspiring musicians or vagabonds or something (it's literally spending one's entire life in front of the t.v.). So .... noone is that deep pockets richy rich to support them long term and they bring in no income, so the only healthcare they can qualify for is subsidized is garbage California medicaid that's complete garbage (they have private coverage now paid for by others of course). Do I know someday someone will probably be left with a big bill for them that can never be paid? Probably. Would there be some advantage to a real healthcare system (not utter and complete corporate garbage like the ACA so I wouldn't have to worry about it personally). Yes!!! I don't actually support them financially, In my dreams I tell them to "F off" and then discuss how justified I am, and I probably would be, but even in my dreams my heart splits in two. I have tried to save them a 1000 times. I can not but will probably keep trying. But yes it's not really fair for family members to bear the burden of BAD family members who are only capable of self-destruction 24/7 (it's really when the truth is told not our fault we were born into rotten families).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

Yea those countries have good systems to some degree whereas at the best the people I care about will be left with garbage Medicaid, which like I said almost no doctors are even taking.

---

So your point is that they are much better off with no health care and zero doctors than they are with free health care that includes some but not all doctors and hospitals as participating plan providers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

...Almost all other developed countries provide universal health care as a basic population need, like education or police protection. Here is a map of the countries that provide universal health care -

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-on-it/259153/

---

But that's not what our government gave us. One party gave us what they wanted us to have and it is not universal health care. It is a bad law that violates democratic principles in that the majority of the citizens are against it, and it violates republican principles in that it places the government over the individual. It is filled with flaws and cannot be instituted fairly as a result of all the waivers from compliance that are necessary to keep from further weakening an already struggling economy. Even with that, it forces many businesses to scale back on hiring decisions and reduce hours to many existing employees rather than reduce their workforce.

It is, in my opinion, a piece of vanity legislation that does more long term harm than good.

If universal health care was what you wanted, you'd be better off petitioning your representatives to replace this law with the real deal. One party created this one without a single vote from the opposition. Maybe if there was enough support from like minded citizens, they'd do a better job next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by try2bfrugal

Aren't you happy to know that your special needs grandson and everyone else's special needs children and grandchildren will no longer be excluded from health care, if their parent's lose their jobs?

Does it make any more sense to lose your homeowners insurance or your car insurance when you lose a job?

Having the government help to provide health care for the population isn't some failed social experiment. It is the way the vast majority of the developed world works. It is the way the countries that score higher than the U.S. on happiness and life satisfaction scales work. Almost all other developed countries provide universal health care as a basic population need, like education or police protection. Here is a map of the countries that provide universal health care -

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-on-it/259153/

---

Tnanks for providing this! I often am amazed at how little Americans understand how health care works elsewhere and how our system of health care works against so many of our citizens. It actually boggles my mind. Rob

Quote:

---

So your point is that they are much better off with no health care and zero doctors than they are with free health care that includes some but not all doctors and hospitals as participating plan providers?

---

More just not celebrating a @#$# sandwich that is the ACA as the best thing since sliced bread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

But that's not what our government gave us. One party gave us what they wanted us to have and it is not universal health care. It is a bad law that violates democratic principles in that the majority of the citizens are against it, and it violates republican principles in that it places the government over the individual. It is filled with flaws and cannot be instituted fairly as a result of all the waivers from compliance that are necessary to keep from further weakening an already struggling economy. Even with that, it forces many businesses to scale back on hiring decisions and reduce hours to many existing employees rather than reduce their workforce.

It is, in my opinion, a piece of vanity legislation that does more long term harm than good.

If universal health care was what you wanted, you'd be better off petitioning your representatives to replace this law with the real deal. One party created this one without a single vote from the opposition. Maybe if there was enough support from like minded citizens, they'd do a better job next time.

---

Government over the individual? To be free of the constant fear of getting sick with US citizenship I'm all for that if that is what it takes to have saner health care.....But then I never really bought into America anyway, from a very young age. Perhaps the ACA is not perfect but hot damn, getting more people covered under some kind of insurance? This is a bad thing? I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding this. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

But that's not what our government gave us. One party gave us what they wanted us to have and it is not universal health care. It is a bad law that violates democratic principles in that the majority of the citizens are against it, and it violates republican principles in that it places the government over the individual. It is filled with flaws and cannot be instituted fairly as a result of all the waivers from compliance that are necessary to keep from further weakening an already struggling economy. Even with that, it forces many businesses to scale back on hiring decisions and reduce hours to many existing employees rather than reduce their workforce.

It is, in my opinion, a piece of vanity legislation that does more long term harm than good.

If universal health care was what you wanted, you'd be better off petitioning your representatives to replace this law with the real deal. One party created this one without a single vote from the opposition. Maybe if there was enough support from like minded citizens, they'd do a better job next time.

---

I feel even if it has its flaws, it is a move in the right direction. It is huge to now be able to get insurance with pre-existing conditions and to decouple health insurance from employment.

What if you didn't have a job you couldn't get car insurance? Does that make any sense?

BTW, according to Forbes, only 1/3 of the U.S. population want to repeal Obamacare -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ing-obamacare/

The U.S. has the highest health care costs in the world for not very highly rated care. All developed countries with universal care have significantly lower costs because the government sets limits on what they will pay. Here are graphs that show health care costs in the U.S. vs other countries -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-ludicrous/

The real gravy train right now is going to the owners and executives in the health care industry, not Medicaid recipients. See the Time article called Bitter Pill -

http://content.time.com/time/magazin...136864,00.html