My experience with ObamaCare thus far.....

[Yossarian]

We need an icon for "going over your head".

It's not about who's covered. I'm on record for supporting single payer universal care. But no one owes you health care in the sense that others should be compelled at gun point (which is what the force of law and taxation really means) to pay for it when you demand it. I see it as a benefit that we collectively have decided that we want to give to others, and receiving it is a privilege of citizenship.

Again, most people support designing a rational, fair system. But I think personal initiative and responsibility should remain part of our national character. I don't think we should all adopt Rob's approach of just seeing what you can squeeze from the system, e.g. "citizenship to me is all about what's in it for me as far as a social welfare". Citizenship to me is about creating a fair and equitable society that provides opportunity and advancement for the most number of people.

YMMV.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Gee, now that Obamacare is here, I can't WAIT til I get sick so I can finally abuse the system and live off of you healthy taxpayers. Life is good!

Well if your income is too low you'll just end up on Medicaid where people are driving two hours to see doctors (if your income is low enough you don't even have a choice to benefit from subsidies on the exchanges - it's just Medicaid for you). But it's better than nothing? That may be. But ANYONE WITH AN OUNCE of sanity is going to choose the golden handcuffs and keep the employer provided medical care instead of that! I mean come now. Where's your revolution now? Not possible in a system where the main purpose was to satisfy the existing entities like the insurance companies, the hospitals, pharma. But Medicaid is what socialized medicine would look like? Uh I hope not, it's the lowest common denominator. I would hope it would be more Medicare. And that it wouldn't claw back from your estate if you are over 55 and use it.

[JaneV2.0]

I'm for single payer because it eliminates the greed factor of for-profit "care," which not only removes any incentive to actually heal people--it's much more profitable to keep them sick and on drugs indefinitely--but costs us twice as much as other countries pay for more effective treatment. And handcuffing people to their employers for healthcare is a terrible idea.

[gimmethesimplelife]

We need an icon for "going over your head".

It's not about whose covered. I'm on record for supporting single payer universal care. But no one owes you health care in the sense that others should be compelled at gun point (which is what the force of law and taxation really means) to pay for it when you demand it. I see it as a benefit that we collectively have decided that we want to give to others, and receiving it is a privilege of citizenship.

Again, most people support designing a rational, fair system. But I think personal initiative and responsibility should remain part of our national character. I don't think we should all adopt Rob's approach of just seeing what you can squeeze from the system, e.g. "citizenship to me is all about what's in it for me as far as a social welfare". Citizenship to me is about creating a fair and equitable society that provides opportunity and advancement for the most number of people.

YMMV.

Please read my last few postings. I tried to make it clear that for me it is much more than what I can squeeze from the system - unless as in the case of Western Europe, pretty much it is everyone "squeezing from the system." And I don't think personal responsibility and initiative are bad things - they just feel out of place in a society that is so inequitable and is only getting more so since the economic meltdown. Were the deck not so stacked against the average person, I myself might buy into the concepts of personal responsibility and initiative - as a matter of fact, in some ways I have because I have been on public assistance for less then seventh months of my adult life overall - unless you consider Pell grants for college not taking responsibility and initiative.

I will grant my way of thinking is very different from yours. That does not make it any less valid, however. Just as my not agreeing with your thinking doesn't make your thinking any less valid, either. Whatever works for you, if it does not hurt me, is your thing. I merely mean to present an alternative view towards looking at these issues. I am not here to convert anyone and rest assured, at this late date, given what I have experienced and what life has taught me, I am beyond being converted myself. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Yossarian - came back to add that you lost me a bit on fair and equitable. I hazard to guess a lot of folks out there who are not at the very top would agree that America is less fair and equitable than it once was. I also believe that how unfair and unequitable folks consider the US has at least partially to do with social class and where folks stand with that. Rob

[dmc]

Well if your income is too low you'll just end up on Medicaid where people are driving two hours to see doctors (if your income is low enough you don't even have a choice to benefit from subsidies on the exchanges - it's just Medicaid for you). But it's better than nothing? That may be. But ANYONE WITH AN OUNCE of sanity is going to choose the golden handcuffs and keep the employer provided medical care instead of that! I mean come now. Where's your revolution now? Not possible in a system where the main purpose was to satisfy the existing entities like the insurance companies, the hospitals, pharma. But Medicaid is what socialized medicine would look like? Uh I hope not, it's the lowest common denominator. I would hope it would be more Medicare. And that it wouldn't claw back from your estate if you are over 55 and use it.

I'll be gaming the system in that I have been moving enough money to cash that I won't have to show as much income per year. This will enable me to get the subsidies along with those who have to still work for a living. I'll get a very nice return on the cash just by the tax credits.

Some here want us to be more like Europe. How much longer till Europe goes bankrupt? What happens then when you have a population that expects the government to take care of them?

[dmc]

Yossarian - came back to add that you lost me a bit on fair and equitable. I hazard to guess a lot of folks out there who are not at the very top would agree that America is less fair and equitable than it once was. I also believe that how unfair and unequitable folks consider the US has at least partially to do with social class and where folks stand with that. Rob

Whats not fair? Whats holding you back?

Now I may think its not fair that I can't play golf like Tiger Woods, but that's life.

[Yossarian]

America is less fair and equitable than it once was.

Maybe it's less comfortable if you are unskilled labor, but I would not agree that it is less fair if you are gay, black, a woman, or entrepreneurial middle class.

I also believe that how unfair and unequitable folks consider the US has at least partially to do with social class and where folks stand with that.

Rob, we've beaten this one up pretty hard elsewhere so I am reluctant to rehash it here. But since I don't really buy into social class to start with I wouldn't know where to begin. Suffice to say I would base it on the system you would design before knowing when or where you would land in it. My personal view is that we provide a safety net floor but don't unduly inhibit activities that allow the whole system to rise and improve living standards.

[ApatheticNoMore]

But since I don't really buy into social class to start with I wouldn't know where to begin.

I may buy into it. But you need good definitions not the arbitarary stuff floating around, someone is not suddenly poor because they don't have one thing they want (although healthcare is at least a basic fundemental thing - so I could see it as being part of a definition). And pretty much everyone who has to work for an employer for a living is working class in my book.

[try2bfrugal]

IWhat happens then when you have a population that expects the government to take care of them?

They score higher than the U.S. on happiness and life satisfaction surveys?

http://unsdsn.org/happiness/


Or you could ask people in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, Japan, and just about every other developed country if they would like to drop universal care and change to the U.S. model of the highest health care costs in the world, 37th ranked health care system by WHO and 28 million people uninsured.

Or ask the Heritage Foundation -

"Consider Heritage's "Index of Economic Freedom," which measures how friendly countries are to business, investors, and property rights.

The countries that rank the highest on the list are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Chile, Mauritius, Denmark, and the United States.


Of those ten [non-U.S.] countries, nearly every one has a universal healthcare system or mandates that individuals pay into medical savings accounts. Australia and Canada both have single-payer systems. Denmark's system is pretty much government controlled. Switzerland's system is similar in many ways to Obamacare. Among the top twenty nations on the list are Ireland, the U.K., Germany, Sweden, and Finland -- other countries that also have universal healthcare systems. "

From Universal Healthcare and Economic Freedom Go Hand in Hand -

http://www.demos.org/blog/universal-...m-go-hand-hand