ObamaCare is NOT a good idea when you simply study the scope and purpose of the
federal government. The People have not authorized Congress to force them to
buy any type of health insurance. The duties assigned to Congress where the
people have agreed to be taxed are enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. ALL OTHER
DUTIES are to be left to the States or to the People.ObamaCare may
be perfectly legal if implemented on a State by State basis (depending on the
Constitutions of each State), but it is not authorized by the Constitution of
the United States. No matter how the President or Congress twists and turns the
Constitution, ObamaCare is not an authorized duty of the federal government.That is all that we need to know about ObamaCare. Forced health
insurance and federal government duties are two concepts that must never be
allowed to be used together unless the Constitution is amended.
In a perfect world, don't get sick or fall ill either but this is not a
perfect world. The only way Obamacare is successful is if everybody is forced
into the system. If you take away our free agency, it might just work as long
as medical people never expect a higher income in the future.
It is hard to fathom how adding tens of thousands of paper shuffling beaurocrats
to the system is going to make it cheaper or better.
If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people and organizations want to opt
out? Even union members know their present healthcare is far better than what
Obamacare will be! Obamacare may improve healthcare for some of the uninsured
and illegal aliens but it will not be better for the vast majority of Americans,
especially taxpayers! Ask millions of Americans who can only find part time work
because of Obamacare mandates! Higher unemployment, more poverty, higher
deficits, rationing, massive fraud and abuse and what's worse, the IRS is
@Mountanman" Even union members know their present healthcare is far
better than what Obamacare will be! "A union could, you know...
just keep it's present health insurer if they like it. Obamacare
doesn't change that...
Bottom line all income levels need to have decent health care not just a middle
class or the rich.
@ alt. Not true, Under Obamacare, those with "Cadillac" healthcare
programs, like union members, will be forced to pay more! Their premiums will
@MountanmanUnder Obamacare, you have the option to keep your current
insurance program.BTW, I'm unemployed because of Republican
austerity measures which have cut education budgets in Utah...and I'm very
much looking forward to Obamacare. I'm currently uninsured. Oh, and the IRS
is only in charge of collecting fees for non-compliance. You can check your
hysterics at the door to the ER.
it is amazing that people are quick to ridicule Obama Care when it mirrors the
Romney plan. In Massachussetts the plan has been very popular and was
successful in covering 98 percent of population. So why not take a step in that
direction. Because opponents really do not care about any solution or attempts
to make 1) health care affordable to the less fortunate and mandate 2) a greater
level of participation among all sectors of our population. If I am wrong tell
me where the republican solutions are.
QuercusQate. No hysterics here. I have been unemployed a few times but I never
took a dime from the government. I have worked two jobs much of my life to make
ends meet and never considered myself a victim. I guess that's the
difference between us and I think you are right, Obamacare is for
Mountainman 6:13 p.m.:You say you never took a dime from the
government, but I'm guessing that you relied upon either family members
and/or the LDS Church when you needed help. What are nonmembers (who are the
vast majority of Americans) without family resources supposed to do? Go hungry
and hope they don't get sick?
We should have public yachts too. Let's face it, it isn't fair that
rich people have yachts and poor people don't. Poor people have no chance
of ever getting a yacht. We could improve everyone's'
mental health if we made sure everyone had access to affordable yachts for
quality recreation. It would definitely be a good deal.
National Romney care is needed. That will be his legacy.
To "louie" the ACA only superficially mirrors Massachussetts.
Romney's bill was just a couple of pages long. The ACA was over 800 pages
long.Beyond that, we should look at the disaster that occured in
Massachussetts.After the mandated insurance there took effect, the
ERs were flooded with people needing minor help.Nationally, the ACA
is discouraging people from becoming doctors because of the paperwork involved.
The ACA has also made things more expensive from insurance, to medical devices,
to overhead costs a insurance companies.Tell us, how is it a good
thing if everything is looking like it will make things more expensive and
harder to comply with.
@Mountanman: "Their (unions) premiums will explode!"And, of
course, they will figure a way to make the employer pay for it.@Mountanman: "Oh, and the IRS is only in charge of collecting fees for
non-compliance."Doesn't matter which government agency,
whether the IRS or HHS's Kathleen Sebelius. It's still the
government.@louie: "it is amazing that people are quick to
ridicule Obama Care when it mirrors the Romney plan."Romneycare
is a state program... authorized by the US Constitution. Obamacare is a federal
program not authorized by the US Constitution.
In the game of "Life" (by Milton Bradly)... you are always eventually
rewarded or escape disaster IF you took advantage of your opportunities to get
insurance (life, heath, fire, car, etc) early in the game.I assume
the game was designed to teach us something about life. And one lesson I
learned when playing the game as a child were:1. Always take the
college route (instead of the short-cut to the early Pay Day).2. Always
buy insurance (it will pay off BIG later in the game)3. Have kids... it
pays off throughout the game, and especially at the end.And now that
I'm playing the real game of life... I've noticed that the lessons
taught were true. Insurance really IS a good thing. And the minimal cost of
insurance really does pay off when you need it. And even if you don't
need it... it doesn't hurt you.My problem with the
President's plan is... from his own words when he doesn't know
he's being recorded is... that the ACA is not the "end". It's
the "Start". And he admitted the intended "End" is single-payer
government healthcare nation wide).
All you right wing naysayers. What in your infinite wisdom would you do with
the 40 million plus or minus that could not get or afford health insurance
before the ACA. What would you do about those that could not get insurance
because of a pre-existing condition, including new born babies? What would you
do about the freeloaders that get their health services in the emergency room?
What would you do to prevent health insurance lobbies from writing legislation
favorable to their bottom line? What would you do to see that rising health
costs be controlled? You all seem to have a lot Fox News talking
point criticisms but offer little to solve the problems that we have been
experiencing for the last 10-20 years. And 2 bits, if single payer is the
"end", I like it because I have it,it's called medicare and I am
sorry everyone does not have it.
To "Mike in Cedar City" first, to help those that couldn't afford
insurance before the ACA, I would cut regulations and mandates on insurance back
to the 1980's levels. That alone can cut costs by up to 50%.As
for Pre-existing conditions, that is easy. We let the companies do what they
have done for a long time. Include a mandatory waiting period where
pre-existing conditions are not covered for 6 to 9 months. Nothing needs to be
changed for new born babies since insurance companies cover them at birth
anyway. For the freeloaders, that is easy. We cut off the free-stuff. Allow
hospitals to have the choice of providing free care (tax break for charity work)
or to work out a payment plan with them.Any true improvement to the
insurance regulations will improve business for the insurance industry, so it
doesn't matter who writes the regs as long as there are fewer regs.To further control costs, the lawyers must be reigned in, so that
Doctors will stay in practice longer and will go into the specialties that
typically are more expensive to use.
Back to my likening the game of "Life" to real life...There
may come a day when you play that game with your kids, and when you come to the
"Stop and buy Health Insurance/Life Insurance/Fire Insurance/etc space...
your kids will ask, "What's Health Insurance"? And you will
obliviously have to answer, "This game is about making decisions... We
don't have to make decisions now days... our Government takes care of all
of that for us".Maybe Milton-Bradly will come out with a new
game, called "Cradle to Grave", where you don't have to make any
decisions for your family, becuase every event that happens in life has printed
on the back of the card, "Don't worry, your benevolent government has
taken care of this for you". The old game may make absolutely no sense to
our kids in the future.
I have a hard time believing that a currently uninsured healthy young 28yr old
individual, the target demographic who is currently uninsured and that the ACA
is relying on to make this whole program more cost efficient, will opt to pay
$3500/yr for health insurance when the penalty for not doing so is only $500.
Especially when there is no penalty for pre-existing conditions. So what's
to keep this person from paying the $500 penalty and then when they get sick,
apply for insurance and start paying then? I hope that insurance
costs do go down, especially since mine are almost twice as expensive today as
compared to 2009 when this law was first passed (monthly premium for my family
in 2009 $470, today it is $910. Thanks ACA for that little gem). But for today,
I will remain skeptical about the ACA saving me any money.
Redshirt1701. Improve business for the insurance companies.? What does that
mean. Let them obtain higher and higher profits margins? Who do you think will
pay for that supposed "improvement" in business. I watched the
insurance companies increase rates annually by rates of 15 to 40 percent per
year over the last 10 years of my working life. I was directly responsible for
that function in the firm I worked for. That was not due to some nefarious
unstated regulations prior to the ACA. That was pure greed and the ability of
the health insurance companies to pass on rising costs with little incentive to
control them In fairness, they did try to do some cost controlling with the so
called HMO's but that attempt eventually failed. Why? because when all is
said and done it is about profit with the health insurance industry. That is
why the ACA had to put a cap on the profit margin, and why a whole bunch of
citizens and businesses are getting rebate check under the ACA.By the way, under your view people could die if they had to wait the 9 months
for preexisting insurance coverage. And many needlessly did.
To "Mike in Cedar City" if you look at the profit margins for insurance
companies, they have been dropping. It was less than 20 years ago that they
were at a 5% profit margin. They are now at around 3% profit margins.Here is the trick, that you and your ilk don't understand. It is
government that has been driving up the cost of insurance year after year.Read "The True Effects of Comprehensive Coverage: Examining State
Health Insurance Mandates" by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber. They have a
really neat graph that shows that between 1979 and 2007 there were about 1350
new mandates imposed by state and federal governments on insurance companies.
Currently there are over 2200 total mandates. Those mandates all add up.Here is one example of how premiums are raised by all of those mandates.
Read "Clay's Law passes Utah Senate" in the examiner. That one
mandate would increase premiums by 1%. While that doesn't sound like much,
imagine what happens to your premiums when 10 of those mandates are added in a
single year, in addition to just increases due to inflation.
To "Mike in Cedar City" continued....Under my view, people
would only suffer and die if they did not want to pay for their care.You and so many of your ilk fail to recognize that in the US healthcare
system the insurance companies do not control the business of the doctors. The
doctors control their practices, typically. If a person needed care, they
better take their credit card along to pay for the services rendered.It wasn't that long ago that if you had maintained insurance coverage
that if you started treatment with one provider, then switched to another that
the two companies would work out how to maintain continuous coverage. The only
people that had to wait were those that did not maintain coverage.Your plan allows irresponsible people to remain irresponsible and to never
have to suffer the consequences of their choices. Do you ever punish your kids
when they made bad choices, or did you just shrug your shoulders and clean up
the mess that they made?
You need to look at overhead costs Redshirt. Medicare's overhead is about
7% private overhead is capped at 20%. That means that the insurance companies
must refund premium dollars if they exceed the cap. And they have, so checks
are being issue. I am not certain of your profit numbers but a 3% profit means
billions in that industry that they are making off of human misery. And,
Redshirt the ACA is not "my plan". If it were up to me I would have
expanded Medicare over time to include everyone. When that happens imagine the
clout a single payer plan would have to control healthy provider costs. Looking
at some of my recent Medicare statements the provider for example bills $500,
medicare pays $175 and my supp pays the remaining 20% Total cost $210 Premium
cost to be for both medicare and the Supp about $225 per month for $0
deductible, unlimited cap, no coinsurance coverage. Try that with a private
unencumbered private policy at age 69. "..people would only
suffer and die if they did not want to pay for their care". What an
incredibly cold view. What about those that just can't pay for their care?
To "Mike in Cedar City" you are wrong about Medicare. Looking at
Medicare's overhead is like looking at just the billing department's
overhead for a large corporation. The Federal Government runs about 20% to 30%
on their overhead. Private insurance companies are typically running at 15% to
20% for overhead plus profit.You think a 3% profit is bad, did you
not pay attention to the ACA selling points? They originally said it would cost
around $900 billion, and would reduce the debt by $200 billion. If a 3% profit
is bad, what about 22% profit? Any money not spent on healthcare or overhead is
profit. The government sold ACA on the idea of higher profit margins for them
than what private companies get. So, if 3% is bad, what about the 22% the
government wanted to reap?You may think my view is cold, but that is
reality. But, I find your point of view highly offensive. Who do you think you
are that you know how to run the lives of other people better than they do? Why
force people to buy or do something they don't want to do?
The last time I looked at the professional literature on this subject, about 1/3
of our national health care bill goes for administration and another third goes
to cover the risk (health care expenses) of persons who are uninsured. It seems
to me that by mandating that everyone has to be insured we could lower the cost
to cover the uninsured by about 80% and lower the administrative costs by
roughly 50%. It is no wonder why every industrialized county except us already
has some form of mandatory coverage and pay roughly half what we do for
comparable or better care.As far as folks complaining about the
insurance mandate, my response is it is way past time that we act like adults
and accept personal responsibility for our own health care risk.
Mr. or MS. 2 bits,Why, pray tell, are you so opposed to a single
payer insurance system? The mathematics it is based on has been around since
the 1700's as is known as the law of large numbers. It simply means that
the people there are in a risk pool, the easier it is to cover the most
expensive cases. Furthermore, standardized billing to one source is far less
expensive than what we do now. So why do you insist on paying more as well as
making the rest of us pay more than we need to if we had a single pay system?