So has Obamacare worked? Has it not? Is it helping or hurting?

[IGBT]

Regardless of how it impacts our health care it's a dismal failure in that utterly destroyed the last vestiges of freedom by mandating participation in private enterprise.

Since I refuse to take part in the insurance industry, the law will be of ZERO benefit to me. In fact, it will eventually put me in prison for life, or on the streets to die, since I will neither obtain insurance nor pay the fine. Providing my coming lawsuit fails of course.

tell them your an illegal alien..you will get everything they offer for free and your next door neighbor will have to pay for it as well as his families.

 

[sactoking]

tell them your an illegal alien..you will get everything they offer for free and your next door neighbor will have to pay for it as well as his families.

FYI- "immigrants not lawfully present" are not eligible for insurance on an exchange and thus can't get a tax credit either. And I think California is the only state that doesn't confirm citizenship before extending Medicaid eligibility.

 

[michal1980]

FYI- "immigrants not lawfully present" are not eligible for insurance on an exchange and thus can't get a tax credit either. And I think California is the only state that doesn't confirm citizenship before extending Medicaid eligibility.

LOLOLOL

and you believe that?

Obama the dictator will just not enforce that part of the law. He already decided he has the power to ignore other parts of the law.

 

[PrinceofWands]

tell them your an illegal alien..you will get everything they offer for free and your next door neighbor will have to pay for it as well as his families.

It's not about getting it for free, it's about opposing the law on its face. Depending on the year I'd qualify for free (or nearly free) health care. I won't do it (even though I have a life threatening chronic issue) because I oppose the law.

Anybody can say they oppose something, but too often then they use what they can get for selfish reasons. That's not me. I oppose it so totally I'm willing to die (literally), and probably will.

 

[justoh]

It's not about getting it for free, it's about opposing the law on its face. Depending on the year I'd qualify for free (or nearly free) health care. I won't do it (even though I have a life threatening chronic issue) because I oppose the law.

Anybody can say they oppose something, but too often then they use what they can get for selfish reasons. That's not me. I oppose it so totally I'm willing to die (literally), and probably will.

lol?

 

[PrinceofWands]

lol?

I don't personally find my death amusing, but I incur enough vitriol among others that I can see it brightening some people's day.

 

[Juddog]

It's not about getting it for free, it's about opposing the law on its face. Depending on the year I'd qualify for free (or nearly free) health care. I won't do it (even though I have a life threatening chronic issue) because I oppose the law.

Anybody can say they oppose something, but too often then they use what they can get for selfish reasons. That's not me. I oppose it so totally I'm willing to die (literally), and probably will.

So basically you're going to wait until your condition is at the worse possible result and then go to the hospital and get hundreds of thousands of dollars charged to the taxpayer because of some objection to the way things were arranged, screwing over the general populace because you objected to one particular facet of a law. Brilliant.

 

[PrinceofWands]

So basically you're going to wait until your condition is at the worse possible result and then go to the hospital and get hundreds of thousands of dollars charged to the taxpayer because of some objection to the way things were arranged, screwing over the general populace because you objected to one particular facet of a law. Brilliant.

No, I'm going to continue to pay for it as long as I can manage, then I'll die. All the while opposing what is wrong (at least to me).

 

[jman19]

O'Bammacare has done about nothing so far unless you are paying the O'Bammacare taxes. Have the taxes even kicked in yet? Since O'bammacare stole money from Medicare it probably has some effect out there, but I have not seen it do anything except raise insurance premiums.

Any reason why you can't spell the president's name right? Or are you an idiot on purpose?

 

[sunzt]

*sigh* this used to be an interesting thread with points and counter points till it devolved to a conservative circle jerk.

 

[Juddog]

No, I'm going to continue to pay for it as long as I can manage, then I'll die. All the while opposing what is wrong (at least to me).

When the death process begins, are you going to stay at home and let it happen, or are you going to go to the hospital?

 

[PrinceofWands]

When the death process begins, are you going to stay at home and let it happen, or are you going to go to the hospital?

Since it would likely be due to a massive heart attack, I'll probably just die wherever I am. If someone finds me and takes me in, nothing I can do about that except slowly pay it back afterwards.

However, for anything else I just accept that death due to inability to obtain/afford medical care is part of being American at the moment. I sincerely hope that changes before it's too late for me, but if it doesn't I'd rather die than do something I don't believe in (in this case, participate in insurance).

 

[Brian Stirling]

*sigh* this used to be an interesting thread with points and counter points till it devolved to a conservative circle jerk.

Yeah, that's all they know -- truly sad.


We were talking about the electronification of medical records and the need that this be done but to some this boils down to:

hey, someones talking about medicine, I gotta tell them how much I hate Obama and this is a good opportunity.


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Since it would likely be due to a massive heart attack, I'll probably just die wherever I am. If someone finds me and takes me in, nothing I can do about that except slowly pay it back afterwards.

However, for anything else I just accept that death due to inability to obtain/afford medical care is part of being American at the moment. I sincerely hope that changes before it's too late for me, but if it doesn't I'd rather die than do something I don't believe in (in this case, participate in insurance).

Why on Earth would you have such strong feelings about insurance? It's not prohibited or even frowned upon by any major religion to my knowledge, and given that it has been around for at least near a thousand years before being mandated, obviously it serves a useful purpose. It's a simple, clean social contract between a bunch of individuals who all agree to pay a relatively small amount so that none of them are faced with paying a relatively large amount, with the understanding that some few of them WILL end up paying that relatively large amount. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, just a recognition of mutual benefit.

A human life has intrinsic value. I urge you to get health insurance so that if a cure becomes available, you can receive it and continue contributing to society.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Why on Earth would you have such strong feelings about insurance? It's not prohibited or even frowned upon by any major religion to my knowledge, and given that it has been around for at least near a thousand years before being mandated, obviously it serves a useful purpose. It's a simple, clean social contract between a bunch of individuals who all agree to pay a relatively small amount so that none of them are faced with paying a relatively large amount, with the understanding that some few of them WILL end up paying that relatively large amount. Nothing illegal, nothing immoral, just a recognition of mutual benefit.

A human life has intrinsic value. I urge you to get health insurance so that if a cure becomes available, you can receive it and continue contributing to society.

Actually it's prohibited by many (amish for example, which is why we have 1402(g)(1) in the IRC), frowned on by many (though not as many as in the past), and was sometimes outlawed without religious basis in the past in some places.

Slavery had been around for ~11,000 years before it was prohibited, AND it served a useful purpose. That didn't make it right. I could list less loaded examples, but they're all the same logical argument.

Contracts only exist between WILLING participants. In this case, it's mandated, removing the voluntary portion of that. Legality is temporal, not absolute, and morality is utterly subjective. While it's not immoral TO YOU, it IS immoral to me.

It is an evil, destructive force, destabilizing economies (by preventing equilibrium between earnings and costs by providing a false potentiality of payment), and siphoning off earnings on a gambled actuarial table that is not certain (and is itself based upon subjective, often kited prices, rather than actual costs). Moreover it adds unnecessary layers to transactions, further increasing prices and points of failure. Finally, any private for-profit insurance increases wealth concentration and in the case of traded companies may open investments to undue market risks.

I get what care I can afford without insurance. I will continue to do so. I will NEVER participate in any form of insurance. EVER. I would see every living things on the planet dead and burned first, though in application it's most likely just going to be me.

 

[werepossum]

Actually it's prohibited by many (amish for example, which is why we have 1402(g)(1) in the IRC), frowned on by many (though not as many as in the past), and was sometimes outlawed without religious basis in the past in some places.

Slavery had been around for ~11,000 years before it was prohibited, AND it served a useful purpose. That didn't make it right. I could list less loaded examples, but they're all the same logical argument.

Contracts only exist between WILLING participants. In this case, it's mandated, removing the voluntary portion of that. Legality is temporal, not absolute, and morality is utterly subjective. While it's not immoral TO YOU, it IS immoral to me.

It is an evil, destructive force, destabilizing economies (by preventing equilibrium between earnings and costs by providing a false potentiality of payment), and siphoning off earnings on a gambled actuarial table that is not certain (and is itself based upon subjective, often kited prices, rather than actual costs). Moreover it adds unnecessary layers to transactions, further increasing prices and points of failure. Finally, any private for-profit insurance increases wealth concentration and in the case of traded companies may open investments to undue market risks.

I get what care I can afford without insurance. I will continue to do so. I will NEVER participate in any form of insurance. EVER. I would see every living things on the planet dead and burned first, though in application it's most likely just going to be me.

It's only been mandated by the advent of Obamacare, and I can see two things that easily get around most of your objections, many of which I share. First, get a catastrophic policy that only covers things beyond what you can afford. If you can afford $10,000 then you buy a policy that kicks in after you've spent $10,000. That keeps your insurance company from getting into every transaction. Second, use a not-for-profit carrier such as Blue Cross Blue Shield.

I was aware that the Anabaptist faiths reject the concept of insurance, I just don't consider them a major religion. No offense intended.

 

[sactoking]

LOLOLOL

and you believe that?

Obama the dictator will just not enforce that part of the law. He already decided he has the power to ignore other parts of the law.

In many cases its not up to him, States are doing the eligibility determinations. That's why Vermont's plan to not have an off exchange market got shot down.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's only been mandated by the advent of Obamacare, and I can see two things that easily get around most of your objections, many of which I share. First, get a catastrophic policy that only covers things beyond what you can afford. If you can afford $10,000 then you buy a policy that kicks in after you've spent $10,000. That keeps your insurance company from getting into every transaction. Second, use a not-for-profit carrier such as Blue Cross Blue Shield.

I was aware that the Anabaptist faiths reject the concept of insurance, I just don't consider them a major religion. No offense intended.

Actually it's backdoor mandated in many ways. Try to obtain a mortgage without homeowner's insurance. Try to drive a car without auto insurance. It's only the non-mandatory nature of those things (which honestly should be considered guaranteed rights) that has made such requirements endurable.

Sure, I can compromise my values by rationalizing a way to tow the line. However, doing so is bordering on immoral in my book (compromise is the great destroyer). Back before I finished my study of economics and cut all insurance I did try to stick with non-profits whenever possible. It was a poor balm.

Most importantly, none of this addresses the core problem with insurance - that its mere existence (at least when in broad use/acceptance) is destabilizing and drives up costs for all until it is only with insurance that you can afford what the thing is insuring. So long as that false potentiality (and bleeding off of incomes) exists, prices for goods and services cannot find equilibrium with our incomes.

 

[michal1980]

In many cases its not up to him, States are doing the eligibility determinations. That's why Vermont's plan to not have an off exchange market got shot down.

He's demonstrated that he is willing to ignore whatever portions of laws we have on the books.

employer mandated. Naw not this year, so says King Obama.
out of pocket limits. Naw not this year, so says King Obama.


Guy's on a power trip and no one is calling him on it.


You lib's would be blowing your top if for example Romney had won, came into office and just said. 'Obamacare? I wont enforce any of it' or I'll delay it till 2100

 

[Lash444]

He's demonstrated that he is willing to ignore whatever portions of laws we have on the books.

employer mandated. Naw not this year, so says King Obama.
out of pocket limits. Naw not this year, so says King Obama.


Guy's on a power trip and no one is calling him on it.


You lib's would be blowing your top if for example Romney had won, came into office and just said. 'Obamacare? I wont enforce any of it' or I'll delay it till 2100

You think any democrats would have been surprised if Romney would have came in and spent every waking moment of his first term to erase Obamacare? Is that really what you are asking?

Is that really what you are saying?

Have you been following anything Romney preached about in his campaign? How many times have they repealed Obamacare in Congress?

 

[Zaap]

So basically you're going to wait until your condition is at the worse possible result and then go to the hospital and get hundreds of thousands of dollars charged to the taxpayer blah blah blah

Wait, why are you griping at this person for doing this? That's EXACTLY what tens of thousands of people are going to do under this monstrosity.

 

[hans030390]

We can't even begin to use more complex data analytics until all medical records are made electronic; right now there is an unbelievable amount of bloat, fraud, waste, and abuse in the medical system, in insurance, and in pharmacology.

This. Big Data and Analytics + EMR could provide huge benefits to the health industry, which in turn will hopefully be passed on to the patients.

it can't be that damn hard to digitize medical charts in a timely manner.

It is. Crappy and variable handwriting, shorthand language and abbreviations coupled with medical terms and names that are fairly complex and uncommonly used in "average" dialog (what if something is misinterpreted?), lack of consistent structure and format in various forms and even in the same forms across different practices and states, and not to mention auto scanners won't be able to correct for these issues or cross compare for differences and inconsistencies if a patient has forms from a variety of locations. Even then, the sheer volume of documents to scan and enter into a database...no way you could be timely about that.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be scanners, that there aren't, or that they aren't trying to improve such technology. I'm just saying it's not a simple or easy task to undertake just yet. It is a necessary step, though.

No, I'm going to continue to pay for it as long as I can manage, then I'll die. All the while opposing what is wrong (at least to me).

I might not entirely agree with your views on insurance (can't say I think insurance is preferred), but I do respect the fact that you hold true to your morals (at least, in this situation you appear to not be bringing others into the fold, on either side, against their will). However, I personally would "play the game" so that I could "live to fight another day" against the issue. I respect, understand, and prefer more passive resistance, but sometimes issues don't get solved that way. Though, I tend not to view morals as black and white as many other people do.

 

[Juddog]

It is. Crappy and variable handwriting, shorthand language and abbreviations coupled with medical terms and names that are fairly complex and uncommonly used in "average" dialog (what if something is misinterpreted?), lack of consistent structure and format in various forms and even in the same forms across different practices and states, and not to mention auto scanners won't be able to correct for these issues or cross compare for differences and inconsistencies if a patient has forms from a variety of locations. Even then, the sheer volume of documents to scan and enter into a database...no way you could be timely about that.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be scanners, that there aren't, or that they aren't trying to improve such technology. I'm just saying it's not a simple or easy task to undertake just yet. It is a necessary step, though.

True - Doctors are notorious for having bad handwriting, sometimes even the pharmacy doesn't understand the chickenscratch written on the prescription.

I might not entirely agree with your views on insurance (can't say I think insurance is preferred), but I do respect the fact that you hold true to your morals (at least, in this situation you appear to not be bringing others into the fold, on either side, against their will). However, I personally would "play the game" so that I could "live to fight another day" against the issue. I respect, understand, and prefer more passive resistance, but sometimes issues don't get solved that way. Though, I tend not to view morals as black and white as many other people do.

^^ I agree with hans030390 on this one.

PrinceofWands - I agree with the meat of your statement that healthcare needs massive reform and would benefit greatly from a single payer system or a national universal healthcare system like in Canada, but wouldn't it be more effective to play along with the current system and try to champion the subject of universal healthcare instead?

If you're willing to die to prove true to your moral system, then why not extend your life a few years and champion a cause for the greater good? The world is in sore need of people dedicated to a cause to make this a better place. I applaud the fact that you are willing to stick with your guns to that extent, but I feel that if you really want change, then it's not the most effective way to get change to happen by just dying alone because you don't want to deal with the insurance entities.

 

[palehorse]

I'll just leave these right here...

Southern Illinois Limits Graduate Students' Hours
http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/08/23/southern-illinois-limits-graduate-students-hours

Delta warns ObamaCare will drive $100 million spike in health care costs
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ion-spike-in-health-care-costs/#ixzz2dHhVdaRw

 

[shadow9d9]

LOLOLOL

and you believe that?

Obama the dictator will just not enforce that part of the law. He already decided he has the power to ignore other parts of the law.

Do you want us to argue against your fantasies?