ObamaCare destroyed by my math calculation in 4 lines.

[polychronopolous]

Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.

[Gonuclear]

Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.

He's delivering plenty of shit now.  Problem is, he is no match for the Republicans when it comes to that.

[Soul Crusher]

He's delivering plenty of shit now.  Problem is, he is no match for the Republicans when it comes to that.

[Gonuclear]

ok first your using deductible where premium should be, the deductible is what you pay when you get sick and go to the doctor...THE PREMIUM is what you pay monthly!!!!

so again the penalty is much less than the premium paid, annually...SO what makes you think a person who doesnt have insurance now will sign up for it if its cheaper not to?

Sorry, I don't get it, Pal.  Of course if you go without insurance it will be cheaper provided you don't get sick.  That's the whole point.  Over time, the penalty or fine will go up and the premiums will go down.  That is how it is supposed to work, anyway.

You're the one who mentioned deductibles.   So I figured 10% of the kid's salary for premiums and deductibles just to be generous.  It is not a lot  - you can run up a $2K bill with just three office visits in some places.

Anyway, I don't think I can convince you of anything on this, so off you go to a Ted Cruz rally and be well.

I hope you are rich, because if you're not, you appear to have been played for a fool.  What the anti-Obamacare forces are afraid of is its success, not its failure.  If they really thought it would fail, they could sit back and watch the train wreck they are predicting without getting painted as irresponsible extremists.

So they are afraid of its success, and they do expect it to be successful.  Else, why the panic?

[Roger Bacon]

Barack Obama got up there and promised the world to everyone and so far he hasn't delivered shit.

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally

[Gonuclear]

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally

Says much more about the sorry state of knowledge among American voters than anything else. 

I also understand that many people are against Obamacare but support the Affordable Care Act!

[Roger Bacon]

I got one for your new Canadian Political Board

Dying vet ordered to speak French at hospital
 By Giuseppe Valiante   ,QMI Agency

First posted: Sunday, October 20, 2013 02:09 PM EDT | Updated: Sunday, October 20, 2013 02:26 PM EDT

MONTREAL -- A 77-year-old Canadian navy veteran dying of cancer and his family say they were treated rudely by a hospital orderly last week because they spoke English.

The orderly at the Hull Hospital near Ottawa allegedly snapped at the family of patient John Gervais when he asked to use the bathroom.

Gervais' wife, Iris, told QMI Agency that the orderly had been rough with her husband and rude to the family, and he became particularly hostile after liquid from a bedside tray dripped onto the orderly's shoes.

"(The orderly) said: 'This isn't a hotel. I don't speak English; This is Quebec,'"

Read More: http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/10/20/dying-vet-ordered-to-speak-french-at-hospital

[polychronopolous]

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally

Hahaha yeah that is about what I envision your average Obama worshipper on this forum to look like.

While we are on the subject, how many lies you reckon the Obama Adminstration is going to tell this week?

[avxo]

If you don't buy a policy and you are not covered by an employer plan, you pay a fine to the IRS.  That fine  for a healthy young person, is going to cost more than a basic catastrophic coverage policy for that person.  So it just makes sense to buy the coverage.

Most people don't get subsidies. 

Why should I have to pay a fine? Why can't I be allowed to evaluate my own risk and act appropriately. If I get sick and don't have insurance, don't treat me.

[whork]

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/10/08/democrat-voters-confused-i-didnt-realize-i-would-be-the-one-who-was-going-to-pay-for-it-personally

He is paying for the uninsured now Obamacare gives more people insurance so he doesnt have to pay for it.

Again Bacon Roger if you want to save money and end "free shit" you should vote for Obamacare.

[Gonuclear]

Why should I have to pay a fine? Why can't I be allowed to evaluate my own risk and act appropriately. If I get sick and don't have insurance, don't treat me.

Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay.  The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem.  "All hospitals" means all those participating in any government medical program, like Medicare and Medicaid.

Requiring that all patients be treated could be changed, of course.  But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America.  

I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.

[Soul Crusher]

Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay.  The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem.

That could be changed, of course.  But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America. 

I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.

FALSE.  The lawis called EMTALA. 


Get it right fagget.

[Gonuclear]

FALSE.  The lawis called EMTALA. 


Get it right fagget.

Wow.  How knowledgable you aren't.

For your information, EMTALA is part of COBRA.   "Take a listen" (as they say on Faux News):

"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.[1]"

- From Wikipedia (emphasis added).

[avxo]

Part of COBRA, which became law in 1986, requires all hospitals to accept all patients for emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay.  The idea was to eliminate "patient dumping", which had become a substantial problem.  "All hospitals" means all those participating in any government medical program, like Medicare and Medicaid.

Requiring that all patients be treated could be changed, of course.  But many (including me) would not support a "the poor and unhealthy be damned" policy on health care in the United States of America.  

I agree, however, that the "fine" concept is raising hackles, if only because everyone recognizes it for what it is - a new tax, from which you are exempted if you have health insurance.

I understand that hospitals will treat people since they are required by law, which is why I phrased my post the way I phrased it.

While I don't have a problem with the government attaching conditions to hospitals that want to do business with Medicare/Medicaid (or, more generally, to entities that choose to voluntarily participate in a program), this particular law is simply a bad idea.

You say that you and others wouldn't support a "poor and unhealthy be damned policy" in the United States. First of all, nobody's asking you to so you can put that straw man argument down and act like an adult.

First of all, prior to the law in question, people who couldn't afford care still got emergency treatment. Acting as if they didn't before and wouldn't today, without the law in place is just moronic.

But, more importantly, nothing stopped you and those who share your position from helping to cover the lot and the unhealthy in a much better way: providing charitable healthcare. You could do so directly (start a hospital funded by charitable donations, treat everyone) or indirectly (choosing to cover the cost of those who can't afford it).

Why don't you do that? Hmm?

The facts are simple: Health insurance in the US is broken. There are many reasons. The most important reason is that people view health insurance not as an insurance but as a bill-paying machine, that must cover all healthcare bills.

So instead of fixing the problem by coming up with sensible solutions, you keep advocating for more bad ideas and you propose that we continue going 100mph down a one-way street.

Forgive me if I think that makes you an idiot and for wanting to slam the brakes.

[Gonuclear]

I already give very substantially to charity, including to a private hospital that provides free treatment to children with cancer.

I think giving to charity generally is important, and that everyone should do it who can do it.

And I am not going to launch into a full-fledged debate on health insurance, because we just will not agree.  I feel health coverage should be provided by the government, with incentives for people to take responsibility for their health.  You apparently don't want government involvement at all.  Hard to reconcile that.

I am sure you know that Obamacare is almost identical to "Romneycare", successfully implemented in Massachusetts.  And that plan was based substantially on a proposal from the Heritage Foundation back in the 1990's, which itself was a response to the Clinton plan, which was a single payer (ie, government provided) system.

Obamacare is not.  I am sure it has many flaws, which of course can all be addressed through the normal legislative process, provided that process (and not name-calling and utter chaos) will continue to exist in this country.

And I am sorry if you think I am attacking a straw man.  Eliminating how the uninsured are now covered when they are sick and offering just private charity was the Tea Party's answer.

And obviously I know that medical treatment is now covered for those must have treatment, since I cited why that is.  And since that law is not being changed, that will continue.  I just don't think, given the large number of people without insurance, that charity can or should absorb all of that cost. 

Finally, to your point about what "insurance" should cover, there are and will continue to be policies that vary by how much and for what their coverage provides.

I understand that hospitals will treat people since they are required by law, which is why I phrased my post the way I phrased it.

While I don't have a problem with the government attaching conditions to hospitals that want to do business with Medicare/Medicaid (or, more generally, to entities that choose to voluntarily participate in a program), this particular law is simply a bad idea.

You say that you and others wouldn't support a "poor and unhealthy be damned policy" in the United States. First of all, nobody's asking you to so you can put that straw man argument down and act like an adult.

First of all, prior to the law in question, people who couldn't afford care still got emergency treatment. Acting as if they didn't before and wouldn't today, without the law in place is just moronic.

But, more importantly, nothing stopped you and those who share your position from helping to cover the lot and the unhealthy in a much better way: providing charitable healthcare. You could do so directly (start a hospital funded by charitable donations, treat everyone) or indirectly (choosing to cover the cost of those who can't afford it).

Why don't you do that? Hmm?

The facts are simple: Health insurance in the US is broken. There are many reasons. The most important reason is that people view health insurance not as an insurance but as a bill-paying machine, that must cover all healthcare bills.

So instead of fixing the problem by coming up with sensible solutions, you keep advocating for more bad ideas and you propose that we continue going 100mph down a one-way street.

Forgive me if I think that makes you an idiot and for wanting to slam the brakes.