here is what you will be fined (TAXED) for not having health insurance

[cybrsage]

Not so much apparently. You felt so insecure that your best response was acting superior and dishing insults. Not exactly brimming with good ideas.. so I guess I understand.

It is always a temptation to resort to insults when debating. You could always tell people's abilities and knowledge by whether they choose to go this route or not. It also shows maturity level. Some people just cannot control themselves.

Stop Stop already! This is too much! Breathe!

 

[cybrsage]

Really, that's your retort? Inane folly of an adolescent?

I made no mention of folly, or adolescents.

And yes, if you can't grasp the fact that care providers pass on the "charity care" costs onto the insured, you should remove yourself from this discourse.

ALL providers of EVERYTHING pass on ALL their costs to EVERYONE who buys their services or goods (charities not included).

Did you not know this before I typed it?

 

[WackyDan]

Isn't 32 million based on the numbers prior to the court's decision? IE, an unrealistically optimistic number?

No... those 32 million are an estimate yes... but are not part of the population that would be buying or subject to the exchanges. These 32 million at those that live just outside the "dirt poor" status that prevents them from receiving Medicaid coverage today. These 32 million have no skin in the game... They just get added to the state's Medicaid rosters by default with the ACA... That changes a bit with the SCOTUS ruling, as states can opt out... but time will tell.

 

[WackyDan]

Funny how adding 32 million to medicaid is suppose to cut down on "freeloaders"

It cuts down on those 32 million walking on an ER bill... at the expense of the taxpayer. Progs will argue that it either comes out of our taxes or the bills we get from the providers because their costs are already forked over onto us in the current system... That part is indeed true of course... but shifting the costs else ware in this case does not magically equate to a lower insurance premium, or bills from the providers.

 

[shadow9d9]

Stop Stop already! This is too much! Breathe!

Are you laughing at yourself? You find it funny that your maturity level is 0 and that when you have no substance you resort to name calling?

Is this your equivalent of umad bro?

 

[nehalem256]

It cuts down on those 32 million walking on an ER bill... at the expense of the taxpayer. Progs will argue that it either comes out of our taxes or the bills we get from the providers because their costs are already forked over onto us in the current system... That part is indeed true of course... but shifting the costs else ware in this case does not magically equate to a lower insurance premium, or bills from the providers.

So before we paid their ER bill.

Now we provide them with medicaid.

It seems like either way the tax payer is footing the bill for their healthcare.

 

[shadow9d9]

So before we paid their ER bill.

Now we provide them with medicaid.

It seems like either way the tax payer is footing the bill for their healthcare.

Except medicaid would allow them to see doctors that are less expensive than the most expensive in the world(ERs). It also frees up the ERs for people that really need it.

 

[WackyDan]

So before we paid their ER bill.

Now we provide them with medicaid.

It seems like either way the tax payer is footing the bill for their healthcare.

Certainly... But I'll argue that it is going to be far worse. Now these people have incentive to go to the doctor for more preventive care or for ailments not requiring an ER... They will be using the same doctors that you or I use today... It will impact our experience and ability to get an appointment.... Nothing in the ACA made provisions to produce more Doctors... No tax incentives, special student loans... nothing... We will have to hope that the free market makes being a doctor even more appealing and that the ACA doesn't actually make it less appealing... LOL... Either way, by time we have enough health care workers to deal with the masses I'll be dead.

But the costs before were for the ones hitting the ER and jumping on bills... now they get covered not just for ER for those that need it... but ALL 32 million have coverage for preventive care.... which I expect to be costlier.

Then you still have the 12+million illegal immigrants that still will use the ER and cut and run on their bills....so that issue still is unresolved and driving costs regardless.

Ironically... I'm a conservative... who somewhat favors single payer - Done right.The difference in my view is that those with skin in the game should get the best treatment and those who are able to work versus consume, but choose to consume should get the lowest tier of treatment... It works. It is essentially what we have today privately but you'd never get the libs and progs to sign off on that compromise as they view health care services as a right and that there should be no delta between the care I get versus what a welfare queen gets... and that is part of the problem. Parasitic relationships are rarely beneficial.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except medicaid would allow them to see doctors that are less expensive than the most expensive in the world(ERs). It also frees up the ERs for people that really need it.

You realize that people can see doctors under medicaid now but CHOOSE to go to the ER rather than have to make an appointment?

 

[shadow9d9]

You realize that people can see doctors under medicaid now but CHOOSE to go to the ER rather than have to make an appointment?

Some. There will always be some abuse. All of a sudden 30-40 million will have that choice.

 

[shadow9d9]

Certainly... But I'll argue that it is going to be far worse. Now these people have incentive to go to the doctor for more preventive care or for ailments not requiring an ER... They will be using the same doctors that you or I use today... It will impact our experience and ability to get an appointment.... Nothing in the ACA made provisions to produce more Doctors... No tax incentives, special student loans... nothing... We will have to hope that the free market makes being a doctor even more appealing and that the ACA doesn't actually make it less appealing... LOL... Either way, by time we have enough health care workers to deal with the masses I'll be dead.

But the costs before were for the ones hitting the ER and jumping on bills... now they get covered not just for ER for those that need it... but ALL 32 million have coverage for preventive care.... which I expect to be costlier.

Then you still have the 12+million illegal immigrants that still will use the ER and cut and run on their bills....so that issue still is unresolved and driving costs regardless.

Ironically... I'm a conservative... who somewhat favors single payer - Done right.The difference in my view is that those with skin in the game should get the best treatment and those who are able to work versus consume, but choose to consume should get the lowest tier of treatment... It works. It is essentially what we have today privately but you'd never get the libs and progs to sign off on that compromise as they view health care services as a right and that there should be no delta between the care I get versus what a welfare queen gets... and that is part of the problem. Parasitic relationships are rarely beneficial.

Wouldn't the "free market" see the extra demand and create more doctors?

You are paranoid about your exclusivity with doctors. You are not better than anyone else and don't deserve to see doctors more than others.

 

[alkemyst]

Well, I am not trolling and I am not you...so that would be neither.

What he said:



I will go out on a limb and say he has NEVER been stuck with ANYONE's six figure medical bill.

What do you think? Do you agree with me? Care to go out on a limb and say if you think it every happened?

Do you not pay taxes? Do you have health insurance? Do you pay for medical services?

 

[alkemyst]

You realize that people can see doctors under medicaid now but CHOOSE to go to the ER rather than have to make an appointment?

Many that qualify for medicaid "think" they are too good for it.

This will sort of force their hand to sign up for the government programs available.

Still nothing stops them from not presenting their Medicaid card at the ER and claiming they don't have any identification.

 

[piasabird]

Of course you could just not pay the penalty. Then the IRS can sue you? If they sue you it is twice the penalty. Well I could start a commune and make all things common and work off the barter system.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Some. There will always be some abuse. All of a sudden 30-40 million will have that choice.

Which means since there is no ER penalty the likely outcome is that the ER will be even busier not less.

Further, obamacare does nothing to really address the real cost of Medicare, which is driven mostly by this.

So just cut what we spend? We've already done this and we've lost over 52K health care jobs in the public sector since 2009. Government handled their mess by cutting costs. That's the "fix". Hospitals aren't going to get help, they are going to get hit with the stick for running into some very difficult to resolve issues, some of which aren't really in the control of anyone. Yes, some are and that needs to be addressed, but there are agencies within hospitals which know about liability. We're going to give them help? No we're giving them a finger. The result is that you'll get staffing cuts there too, just like the government did to themselves in public health. The solution? Give them the whole thing to really screw it up?

These are problems that should have been addressed before Obamacare, but the Dems are too stupid to realize their own hubris and cluelessness, and the Reps haven't any idea at all. They are politicians doing something beyond their competency level, which thrills the authoritarian crowd, but it is completely ass backwards as to how to handle things. First you identify the issues, research possible solutions, calculate advantages and disadvantages of each, the likely costs and develop a framework including financing then implement in a logical order.

No one wants that.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I won't be getting insurance or paying the tax, or any legal penalties or court costs. I will refuse, and take a stand of physical violence if necessary. I'd rather die than give the government $.01 over this.

 

[shadow9d9]

Which means not that there is no ER penalty the likely outcome is that the ER will be even busier not less.

Further, obamacare does nothing to really address the real cost of Medicare, which is driven mostly by this.

So just cut what we spend? We've already done this and we've lost over 52K health care jobs in the public sector since 2009. Government handled their mess by cutting costs. That's the "fix". Hospitals aren't going to get help, they are going to get hit with the stick for running into some very difficult to resolve issues, some of which aren't really in the control of anyone. Yes, some are and that needs to be addressed, but there are agencies within hospitals which know about liability. We're going to give them help? No we're giving them a finger. The result is that you'll get staffing cuts there too, just like the government did to themselves in public health. The solution? Give them the whole thing to really screw it up?

These are problems that should have been addressed before Obamacare, but the Dems are too stupid to realize their own hubris and cluelessness, and the Reps haven't any idea at all. They are politicians doing something beyond their competency level, which thrills the authoritarian crowd, but it is completely ass backwards as to how to handle things. First you identify the issues, research possible solutions, calculate advantages and disadvantages of each, the likely costs and develop a framework including financing then implement in a logical order.

No one wants that.

All you did was create a conclusion that you wanted. To me, it means way way less in the ER. You did nothing to explain why, if people have access to preventative healthcare and other options, that they would choose to go to an "overcrowded" ER rather than make a convenient appointment.

The democrats used the republican plan, and watered down everything because the republicans refused to play ball. They would not participate in the process and have never even attempted to address healthcare for the general populace in 100 years. Equal blame? Hardly.

 

[nehalem256]

The democrats used the republican plan, and watered down everything because the republicans refused to play ball. They would not participate in the process and have never even attempted to address healthcare for the general populace in 100 years. Equal blame? Hardly.

Maybe because they do not think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide everyone with healthcare

 

[shadow9d9]

Maybe because they do not think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide everyone with healthcare

How about simply addressing the skyrocketing costs and the fact that healthcare is a necessity that humans need.

 

[momeNt]

<--- I just converted to being an Amish. How do I get out of social security tax? I suppose there is a form to file.

The form is online. You can download it at www.... wait a minute what are you even doing online! You're committing fraud, but the government can't go after you because they can't tell you how to practice your faith. Oh, you are very smart indeed.

 

[Sunburn74]

I won't be getting insurance or paying the tax, or any legal penalties or court costs. I will refuse, and take a stand of physical violence if necessary. I'd rather die than give the government $.01 over this.

People also said the same during periods of racial integration. "I will die rather than [insert dumbass statement here] to the government and will take a stand of physical violence if necessary". They also thought they were totally in the right.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All you did was create a conclusion that you wanted. To me, it means way way less in the ER. You did nothing to explain why, if people have access to preventative healthcare and other options, that they would choose to go to an "overcrowded" ER rather than make a convenient appointment.

The democrats used the republican plan, and watered down everything because the republicans refused to play ball. They would not participate in the process and have never even attempted to address healthcare for the general populace in 100 years. Equal blame? Hardly.

My point isn't a hypothetical. Medicaid non emergency use consumes much ER resources. Baby has a cold, go to the ER. You don't have to like it but it's there.

Regarding the rest the Dems own it. They never even brought up looking to what ought to be done. Just having Obamas seal of approval was sufficient. When the shit hits the fan it's all on the supporters.

 

[alkemyst]

Many of you are missing the obvious that you can now make appointments to most ERs, down here there are also several billboards that show in real-time the waiting times at those same ER's.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

My point isn't a hypothetical. Medicaid non emergency use consumes much ER resources. Baby has a cold, go to the ER. You don't have to like it but it's there.

Sorry, I have a hard time believing that most people will willingly deal with the hassle of going to the ER if they have better options.

Regarding the rest the Dems own it. They never even brought up looking to what ought to be done. Just having Obamas seal of approval was sufficient. When the shit hits the fan it's all on the supporters.

You're kidding, right? Neither side will accept responsibility for any bad aspects of any program or plan, no matter what it is. In a few years, regardless of what is actually going on, the Republicans will claim that things are bad and it's because of Obamacare. And the Democrats will claim that things are much improved, because of Obamacare.

This is how it always goes in these situations.

 

[PrinceofWands]

People also said the same during periods of racial integration. "I will die rather than [insert dumbass statement here] to the government and will take a stand of physical violence if necessary". They also thought they were totally in the right.

The difference being who is holding the moral high ground. I have no illusions of accomplishing anything, only dying while holding to my principles.