Footwedge;1041284 wrote:The lady could have gotten the operation with or without Obamacare. She lied. We have had socialized a large portion of medical costs for decades and decades...don't let this lady fool you.

You think our old system would have said..."sorry lady, you must wither away and die"?

The idea behind Obamacare...these low enders will now have to chip in a little bit of the cost. The very people who criticize Obamacare should be the people applauding it.

As for the across the board rise in health care plans...that's been going on a long time too. Blame it all on Obamacare if that gives you good wood. The real culprits....corporate health care/insurance companies colluding and price fixing...and not enough free market competition in those oligopolies. Throw in a little "no tort reform" allowed and presto...we all pay more.

You and I rarely agree but in this case you are correct.

The issue with Obamacare is that it is designed to be the first step towards pushing us to a single-payer, gubmint run national health care system. There are plenty of legit private businesses who are so fed up with dealing with health care benefits programs that they will be more than happy to treat health care like SS, Medicare, etc. and turn over the issue to the Feds.

SS and Medicare are such successfully run programs I can't wait to be a part of it.

gut;1042151 wrote:People like this piss me off. This girl could have had decent insurance for $100 a month, probably less (especially if it was only catastrophic insurance with a high deductible). She didn't have insurance not because she couldn't afford it but because, like many people, she sees no benefit to the expense (until you need it!) and CHOOSES to spend her money on smartphone, data plans, premium cable, etc....

Not to ignore the points about her being able to get free treatment anyway, but as cold and heartless as it sounds YOU need to be responsible for the decisions and choices you make. It shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayer to bail out YOUR poor decisions.

Yes, yes, and yes some more.

Catastrophic health insurance with a high deductible is NOT expensive.

Think about this like car insurance, the woman is basically complaining that she didn't feel the need to have any, she totalled her car and then tried to get new car insurance to pay for her wrecked car.

At that point she complains that taxpayers should pay for her car. All she had to do from the beginning is pay for her own insurance.

gut;1042151 wrote:People like this piss me off. This girl could have had decent insurance for $100 a month, probably less (especially if it was only catastrophic insurance with a high deductible). She didn't have insurance not because she couldn't afford it but because, like many people, she sees no benefit to the expense (until you need it!) and CHOOSES to spend her money on smartphone, data plans, premium cable, etc....Not to ignore the points about her being able to get free treatment anyway, but as cold and heartless as it sounds YOU need to be responsible for the decisions and choices you make. It shouldn't be the burden of the taxpayer to bail out YOUR poor decisions.

That is the point of the personality responsibility provision, otherwise known as the individual mandate, in "Obamacare" is it not...to make sure people are personally responsible for insuring their own health and they will pay a fine if they try to be a freeloader. That was the original justification for the rule by conservatives when they use to support it...that it frames healthcare as one's own responsibility rather than a right. With Obamacare, people are penalized for being irresponsible and are discouraged from passing their costs onto others.

jmog;1044669 wrote:Yes, yes, and yes some more.Catastrophic health insurance with a high deductible is NOT expensive.Think about this like car insurance, the woman is basically complaining that she didn't feel the need to have any, she totalled her car and then tried to get new car insurance to pay for her wrecked car.At that point she complains that taxpayers should pay for her car. All she had to do from the beginning is pay for her own insurance.

And yet Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to repeal the very law that would penalize her for being a freeloading succubus. Under Obamacare, if her employer does not offer her health insurance she will have to purchase health insurance on her own in the state exchange/marketplace if she is not eligible for expanded medicaid. If she does not take responsibility for herself she will pay a fine.

BoatShoes;1044754 wrote:And yet Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to repeal the very law that would penalize her for being a freeloading succubus. Under Obamacare, if her employer does not offer her health insurance she will have to purchase health insurance on her own in the state exchange/marketplace if she is not eligible for expanded medicaid. If she does not take responsibility for herself she will pay a fine.

The part you are missing BS, is that conservatives say its the person's responsibility, either they have their own private health insurance, or they pay out of their own $$.

Conservatives don't want the government involved with fining/taxing those who don't have health insurance.

That's the difference, and you know that, but are trying to paint conservatives as loons who flip flop unlike those amazing liberals.

jmog;1044860 wrote:The part you are missing BS, is that conservatives say its the person's responsibility, either they have their own private health insurance, or they pay out of their own $$.

Conservatives don't want the government involved with fining/taxing those who don't have health insurance.

That's the difference, and you know that, but are trying to paint conservatives as loons who flip flop unlike those amazing liberals.

That is the only way to make largely private health insurance systems work because of the free rider problem in the economics of the matter. Insurance companies and healthcare providers know that people like the woman in this picture will not use health care until they need it and thus they pass on those costs to us. When they choose not to get cheap insurance and instead "self-insure," almost always inadequately, then they go to the Hospital with uterine cancer this greatly increases the costs you and I all pay and they themselves pay. They are harming everyone by contributing to the most inefficient healthcare system in the world and an explosion in healthcare costs because of their lack of personal responsibility.

Our healthcare system is the most inefficient in the world and a large factor is these types of free riders. If you want to keep private health insurance what is your plan to get people to take up their personal responsibility...fairy dust? You claim that private health insurance is already at an easily affordable price. Yet the U.S. has more uninsured people than any OECD country.

Conservative economists of course being reasonable came up with the mandate as a reasonable solution to insure private universal coverage. But, Joe Republican thinks that people ought to be free to pass on their personal responsibilities to others and not be discouraged or punished from doing so. When people refuse to insure themselves when they can afford to, as you say they can, they cause demonstrable harm to other citizens. Liberty does not include the ability to freely harm others and face no consequence.

BoatShoes;1044883 wrote:Liberty does not include the ability to freely harm others and face no consequence.

This is correct. Now who does me harm? The person who goes to the hospital and can't pay them? Or the government who steals my property against my will to pay for people who can't pay? The government does the harm, not the patient.

Cleveland Buck;1044903 wrote:This is correct. Now who does me harm? The person who goes to the hospital and can't pay them? Or the government who steals my property against my will to pay for people who can't pay? The government does the harm, not the patient.

The people don't steal your property against your will. individual person's have contracted with the people at large to agree to pay for such individuals. Through your representatives you have agreed to willingly provide money for such instances and it is the freeloaders in your united republic with a popular sovereign that are in breach of their duties for which they are obliged to perform in our social contract.

BoatShoes;1044906 wrote:The people don't steal your property against your will. individual person's have contracted with the people at large to agree to pay for such individuals. Through your representatives you have agreed to willingly provide money for such instances and it is the freeloaders in your united republic with a popular sovereign that are in breach of their duties for which they are obliged to perform in our social contract.

Where did I sign this contract? I didn't. It doesn't exist.

Cleveland Buck;1044913 wrote:Where did I sign this contract? I didn't. It doesn't exist.

A person need not sign a piece of paper to be bound by the terms of a contract as a contract is just a relationship between parties and it may be agreed to by mere conduct alone. The Constitution is the memorial of this arrangement and in it the people agreed to be bound by the actions of their representatives in Congress as in any other Principal may be bound by an agent. Knowing full well the terms of this agreement you fully agreed to stay within its jurisdiction.

BoatShoes;1045146 wrote:A person need not sign a piece of paper to be bound by the terms of a contract as a contract is just a relationship between parties and it may be agreed to by mere conduct alone. The Constitution is the memorial of this arrangement and in it the people agreed to be bound by the actions of their representatives in Congress as in any other Principal may be bound by an agent. Knowing full well the terms of this agreement you fully agreed to stay within its jurisdiction.

The Constitution doesn't limit the people. It limits the government. That contract actually exists, and government is bound by it, not the people. There is no such contract that volunteers my property to be seized and distributed to someone else or dropping in a bomb over someone else.

Cleveland Buck;1045184 wrote:The Constitution doesn't limit the people. It limits the government. That contract actually exists, and government is bound by it, not the people. There is no such contract that volunteers my property to be seized and distributed to someone else or dropping in a bomb over someone else.

This is absolutely not true. In order for there to even be popular government you have to give up some of your freedom. For example, the Constitution is clear in that it gives your agents in Congress the power to tax you individually and spend that money. How is that not a limit on your own personal freedom should your representatives agree to create a duty for you to pay a tax and impose you with an obligation you otherwise would not have? Just like any other agent may bind a principal and limit a principal's freedom through obligations he imposes on the principle, so to may our agents in Congress bargain in ways that may limit our freedom as they are expressly authorized to do in the Constitution.

BoatShoes;1045194 wrote:This is absolutely not true. In order for there to even be popular government you have to give up some of your freedom. ...

The people chose to do so. The freedom to grant such authority to a representative with certain restrictions of power through the constitution doesn't limit the people. The people have the ability to take that power away from the representatives just as easily as they granted it.

We need some sort of socialized medicine like Canada . Will not vote republican

Thinthickbigred;1048998 wrote:We need some sort of socialized medicine like Canada . Will not vote republican

We all know that the Dems will give us "free" socialized health care. And we also know that "free" socialized health care is working quite well in socialist countries all over the world.

After all, the more "free" fiat money the government spends on socialist entitlement programs, the more the economy sustains real growth.

believer;1049029 wrote:And we also know that "free" socialized health care is working quite well in socialist countries all over the world.

As evidenced by anyone from these countries with means coming to the U.S. for any kind of significant medical issue.

Thinthickbigred;1048998 wrote:We need some sort of socialized medicine like Canada . Will not vote republican

We do, its called Medicare and Medicaid. It already exists for those old and poor.

We do not need the debacle that was passed recently.

BoatShoes;1044748 wrote:That is the point of the personality responsibility provision, otherwise known as the individual mandate, in "Obamacare" is it not...

She probably won't be paying for her insurance under Obamakare, either, so the cost will still be passed on to others. It will ultimately be the middle class that continues to get screwed, like they do with most govt entitlement/taxation programs.

jmog;1051010 wrote:We do, its called Medicare and Medicaid. It already exists for those old and poor.

And both are broke and busted ......... and some fools want to do more of it, aka obamakare

BoatShoes;1044754 wrote:And yet Conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to repeal the very law that would penalize her for being a freeloading succubus. Under Obamacare, if her employer does not offer her health insurance she will have to purchase health insurance on her own in the state exchange/marketplace if she is not eligible for expanded medicaid. If she does not take responsibility for herself she will pay a fine.

Well stated. Why so many people on the right can't visualize the realities here makes no sense to me.

Obamacare is engineered and designed for the low enders to pony up a tad....thus alleviating some the the costs of for those that actually buy their own health insurance....either through cash disbursements direct to the HCP, or through bennies from work or a combination of both.

There are a bunch of highly intelligent conservatives that post regularly here. Why they can't sift through the schit and analize it correctly for what it's worth, is simply mind boggling to me.

My wife is an RN at the local hospital and I know a few of the "bigs" from coaching their kids in hoops and baseball over the years.

They have told me that roughly 35% of the patients they take care of don't pay for their care. So who pays? All the rest of us do in the premiums for our own health care. It's like having uninsured motorist liability coverage....only there is no choice for us to make in whether we want it or not.

Footwedge;1051180 wrote:Obamacare is engineered and designed for the low enders to pony up a tad....thus alleviating some the the costs of for those that actually buy their own health insurance....either through cash disbursements direct to the HCP, or through bennies from work or a combination of both.

There are a bunch of highly intelligent conservatives that post regularly here. Why they can't sift through the schit and analize it correctly for what it's worth, is simply mind boggling to me.

Its really quite simple. Many of us believe it is not a power of the federal government to make people "pony up". I just can't seem to find this power in the constitution. I have posted on this before and have sifted through the shit. Its mind boggling to me that some intellegent people on this site think the feds have nearly unlimited power to lord over our lives but when it comes to their powers to make war they dust off their Constitution and demand it be followed to a tee.

Footwedge their is a constitutional process to handle those that did not "pony up". Number one it is up to the states and the locals but their is a federal role.

In the cases that those individuals who chose not to individually insure themselves and passed that risk on to their fellow citizens in lieu of personal sacrifices, and now find themselves in a precarious health care related financial situation. We have a constitutional process in place to deal with them. Citizens will absorb the higher costs they may endure to assure these individuals are given medical care for their needs. After this the individual will be assessed the bill.

The individual can be sued in local court and be brought before the local peoples judge to make an account for his/her financial decisions. The local judge may render a judgment to garnish a percentage of the individual's wages. An individual "tax" if you will. The local peoples attempt to hold the individual accountable.

If the individual has no financial means to pay for it the individual can declare bankruptcy and chose to plead his/her case before all citizens within the union. The individual will be made to make a financial account to the people for his/her burden they have placed on the people by means of their own personal financial decisions.

Under article 1 section 8 of the constitution:

Congress shall have the power...To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States

This gives the legislative branch in the federal government the power to regulate and pass laws throughout the union to deal with those who are passing an individual financial burden on to their fellow citizens. This is done through the judicial process by judges assessing laws on the matter passed by congress.

Congress has established bankruptcy courts to deal with these matters. The individual now has a chance to present his/her case before the people of the union. The judge will assess the individuals situation and within the laws that the peoples legislature have passed make a judgment on the individual.

The court has the power to seize assets that the individual possesses in order to compensate the people. In most cases (even those who are grossly irresponsible with their finances) the people will grant a level of financial forgiveness. In return the individual is financially black balled for period of time.

Majorspark....what you state above is very true. However, we are talking about the indogent. Forcing them into bankruptcy does not work, nor does it happen in the real world.

They may garnish attachments to their future wages....but good luck with that...when we are talking about tabs approaching or exceeding 6 figures.

Nothing from nothing equals nothing. For example, the hospital evaluates each individual case on delinquent accounts. They send them the bills, they remain unpaid, and either they are written off or a lawsuit is constructed, based on their in house money people who decide whether the reward is worth the risk in filing suit.

Again, approximately 35% of the hospital debt is written off. Whereby the hospital where my wife works at is a "non profit entity", the bills still must be paid and payroll needs to be met. Obviously, the money must come from the gross sales revenue stream....which of course is the deductibles from the patients and the payments from the insurance companies (HCP)

Make no mistake about it....the health insurance premiums that the individual pays, or what our employers pay, or the combination of the two, pay for the dead beats....such as the lady in the clip.

majorspark;1051274 wrote:Its really quite simple. Many of us believe it is not a power of the federal government to make people "pony up". I just can't seem to find this power in the constitution. I have posted on this before and have sifted through the ****. Its mind boggling to me that some intellegent people on this site think the feds have nearly unlimited power to lord over our lives but when it comes to their powers to make war they dust off their Constitution and demand it be followed to a tee.

Touche....you win....My health care premiums will continue to rise...in order to follow the letter of the Constitutional law.

Either that...or we can let the sick poor fuggers die of cancer...then my insurance costs will remain lower!

Footwedge;1051341 wrote: Either that...or we can let the sick poor fuggers die of cancer...then my insurance costs will remain lower!

Or you could always get the government out of the health care business completely, and also out of the money printing business. Then your costs will plummet. People are afraid of deflation though.