so now that the government can mandate that we buy something . . .

[davjohns 1]

Two points -

I had to explain this whole thing to someone last night as best i could. She works for a hospital. There was a big meeting for the hospital to explain that everyone's premiums are going up as a result of Obamacare. This lady's were going up $175 per month for her and her husband. She's 55. Low to mid income. Just a datapoint. Not a conclusion.

I am reading reports that young, healthy people are not signing up. Given the relatively low penalty in 2014, this isn't surprising. It makes more financial sense for single twenty-somethings to not sign up. Older people with pre-existing conditions are signing up. This doesn't bode well for the short term financial stability of the system. Those young, healthy premiums were supposed to pay for the older, broken people.

Just a couple of (admittedly pessimistic) datapoints.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Stumpy

***If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features.

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Seems like a better option don't you think?

Sorry. Bad logic. Your argument assumes anyone without health insurance is stealing from others. Even when I didn't carry health insurance, I paid for the healthcare I used.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Stumpy 256]

davjohns

******If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features.

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Seems like a better option don't you think?

Sorry. Bad logic. Your argument assumes anyone without health insurance is stealing from others. Even when I didn't carry health insurance, I paid for the healthcare I used.

Told you it was a shitty analogy.
Fact remains - if you had run into a problem where you couldn't afford the direct costs, the rest of the country would have paid for you.
When you add in the fact that those without insurance are less likely to seek preventative care (which is generally far cheaper) then the fact remains, that the purpose and intent of the new system is good, if not the execution to date.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[davjohns 1]

I expected you to point out that I COULD have had a serious illness or injury. But I took a calculated risk. People do that. Now, I'm being told that I can't be trusted with those calculated risks. There's a terribly slippery slope there.

Skydivers COULD be badly injured and cost the health industry money out of proportion with projected probabilities. Need to outlaw skydiving (hang gliding, SCUBA, martial arts...all the things I enjoy).

Speed kills. Some motorcycles already have speed limiters on them because someone COULD go too fast. Need to put speed limiters on all vehicles.

You see, you can always argue that something COULD have happened. But the reality is that young, single people really don't need health insurance from a statistical perspective. That's why the law is forcing them to get it. They pay for something they don't need so people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.

You have to be careful that the precautionary measures are commensurate with the probable outcomes; not the possible outcomes.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you. I just don't like the way this system is playing out. Other countries have socialized medicine, but they have a flat tax to cover it. That makes much more sense to me. It's the only way I know to be 'fair'. Whenever our government comes up with some convoluted system of taxes, credits, exemptions, etc. they invariably mess it up and it costs way more to administer than is necessary.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Skydivers COULD be badly injured and cost the health industry money out of proportion with projected probabilities. Need to outlaw skydiving (hang gliding, SCUBA, martial arts...all the things I enjoy).

Well, outlawing skydiving could be one way to deal with the problem. Requiring skydivers to have insurance is another.

- Dan G

[rushmc 18]

DanG

Quote

Skydivers COULD be badly injured and cost the health industry money out of proportion with projected probabilities. Need to outlaw skydiving (hang gliding, SCUBA, martial arts...all the things I enjoy).

Well, outlawing skydiving could be one way to deal with the problem. Requiring skydivers to have insurance is another.

At this point everyone
Male and female, should be ordered to buy and use womens sanitary products

We all need to explore our femime sides (by order)

What you actually do with them is NOT your business anymore

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

Know what else is (not) funny


But now even Obama's poster child enrollee can't afford the policy

And the GOP's poster child (Mary Brown, the named plaintiff in the ACA case) stiffed her medical providers when she couldn't pay her medical bills.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

davjohns

******If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features.

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Seems like a better option don't you think?

Sorry. Bad logic. Your argument assumes anyone without health insurance is stealing from others. Even when I didn't carry health insurance, I paid for the healthcare I used.

Good for you. Many don't (Mary Brown among others).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***Know what else is (not) funny


But now even Obama's poster child enrollee can't afford the policy

And the GOP's poster child (Mary Brown, the named plaintiff in the ACA case) stiffed her medical providers when she couldn't pay her medical bills.

Why do you hate the poor?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

Stumpy

*********If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features.

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Seems like a better option don't you think?

Sorry. Bad logic. Your argument assumes anyone without health insurance is stealing from others. Even when I didn't carry health insurance, I paid for the healthcare I used.

Told you it was a shitty analogy.
Fact remains - if you had run into a problem where you couldn't afford the direct costs, the rest of the country would have paid for you.
When you add in the fact that those without insurance are less likely to seek preventative care (which is generally far cheaper) then the fact remains, that the purpose and intent of the new system is good, if not the execution to date.

Negative Ghost Rider.
The cost going up on 85% of the country to force 10% of the country to buy something they probably aren't going to use anyway and redistributing your money around is bad.

If this is going to work at ALL anymore, then it should be a blanket medicare program where everyone is the same no matter what, period.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

*********If you want to use cars, then the ACA requires all Americans to purchase a vehicle, and is must have certain features.

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Seems like a better option don't you think?

Sorry. Bad logic. Your argument assumes anyone without health insurance is stealing from others. Even when I didn't carry health insurance, I paid for the healthcare I used.

Good for you. Many don't (Mary Brown among others).

Right, many don't. So . . . lets punish THEM, not everyone else.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

***

Quote

Skydivers COULD be badly injured and cost the health industry money out of proportion with projected probabilities. Need to outlaw skydiving (hang gliding, SCUBA, martial arts...all the things I enjoy).

Well, outlawing skydiving could be one way to deal with the problem. Requiring skydivers to have insurance is another.

At this point everyone
Male and female, should be ordered to buy and use womens sanitary products

We all need to explore our femime sides (by order)

What you actually do with them is NOT your business anymore

I don't understand why people are upset about this pregnancy coverage in all policies.

I am sure the actuaries setting the premiums take this into account setting premiums. Just like they do for prostate or testicular cancer.

Don't hear many women complaining their policy doesn't specifically exclude testicular cancer.

Or white people asking to have sickle cell specifically excluded.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Me deciding I do not want maternal care and selecting a plan that does not include it is not me having anything stolen from me.

That is why your comment makes no sense.

Me saying that the Government is saying I must get HC is like saying the Government is saying I must buy a car is accurate. Trying to compare the Government mandating airbags to the ACA is dishonest.

The ACA is like the Government saying each person must buy a car or pay a fine. In addition, each car must have certain features even if you do not want them... Some of those features might be good - Airbags and seatbelts for example. Some of those features might be great for some people and crap for others - For example I don't need a 4X4 or mammograms covered for me.

But the ACA is not only saying I have to buy a car, but saying I must have 4X4.

But giving me the option to select the features I want and discard the ones I don't.... Is in no way 'stealing' from me.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

DaVinci

Quote

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Me deciding I do not want maternal care and selecting a plan that does not include it is not me having anything stolen from me.

That is why your comment makes no sense.

Me saying that the Government is saying I must get HC is like saying the Government is saying I must buy a car is accurate. Trying to compare the Government mandating airbags to the ACA is dishonest.

The ACA is like the Government saying each person must buy a car or pay a fine. In addition, each car must have certain features even if you do not want them... Some of those features might be good - Airbags and seatbelts for example. Some of those features might be great for some people and crap for others - For example I don't need a 4X4 or mammograms covered for me.

But the ACA is not only saying I have to buy a car, but saying I must have 4X4.

But giving me the option to select the features I want and discard the ones I don't.... Is in no way 'stealing' from me.

So what happens when you select NOT to have coverage for breast cancer, cause you aren't that up to date on medical issues and figure men cannot get breast cancer. Now, lo and behold, you end up with breast cancer and a $250,000 bill for treatment.

$250,000 you of course don't have. Now what? Declare bankuptcy and the rest of society can pay for you?

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

If you are going to use this increasingly shitty analogy, then the end of this sentence would say "instead of stealing them off you which is the current situation"

Me deciding I do not want maternal care and selecting a plan that does not include it is not me having anything stolen from me.

That is why your comment makes no sense.

Me saying that the Government is saying I must get HC is like saying the Government is saying I must buy a car is accurate. Trying to compare the Government mandating airbags to the ACA is dishonest.

The ACA is like the Government saying each person must buy a car or pay a fine. In addition, each car must have certain features even if you do not want them... Some of those features might be good - Airbags and seatbelts for example. Some of those features might be great for some people and crap for others - For example I don't need a 4X4 or mammograms covered for me.

But the ACA is not only saying I have to buy a car, but saying I must have 4X4.

But giving me the option to select the features I want and discard the ones I don't.... Is in no way 'stealing' from me.

So what happens when you select NOT to have coverage for breast cancer, cause you aren't that up to date on medical issues and figure men cannot get breast cancer. Now, lo and behold, you end up with breast cancer and a $250,000 bill for treatment.

$250,000 you of course don't have. Now what? Declare bankuptcy and the rest of society can pay for you?

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying. And many more dollars are going to be stolen this way than in the rare senario you opine

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

***

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

Here again, is an example of the logic of a liberal
Who thinks he knows better for everyone else

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So what happens when you select NOT to have coverage for breast cancer, cause you aren't that up to date on medical issues and figure men cannot get breast cancer. Now, lo and behold, you end up with breast cancer and a $250,000 bill for treatment.

$250,000 you of course don't have. Now what? Declare bankuptcy and the rest of society can pay for you?

You die. But I actually have 250K. So I would decide if spending my investments to fight survive cancer or spending my investments to travel the world and have a blast is the course I want to take.

My Dad had the choice to fight cancer or live the rest of his days as best he could. We found out his cancer had returned during the autopsy.

These are extreme examples. But the point is if you try to compare the ACA to seatbelts, you are being dishonest.

The better analogy is saying the ACA is like forcing you to buy a car or pay a fee. And that car must have certain features even if you don't want them and will never use them... Like 4X4.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

I am not ignorant for using mammograms on men as an example.

1. The RATE of breast cancer for men is about 100 times less common among men than among women. For men, the lifetime risk of getting breast cancer is about 1:1,000

2. Mammograms are NOT suggested for men.

There is a significant difference between knowing and using statistics and not knowing them and ignoring them.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

You die.

Ah ok. SO no money, no care, no life.

Well, at least we know where you stand.

Sorry, I simply will never agree with you on this.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

*********

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

Here again, is an example of the logic of a liberal
Who thinks he knows better for everyone else

I do indeed know that those who pay, are paying.

[rushmc 18]

SkyDekker

************

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

Here again, is an example of the logic of a liberal
Who thinks he knows better for everyone else

I do indeed know that those who pay, are paying.

You also state YOU know what insurance eveyone else should have
Plese try and keep up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

rushmc

***************

Quote

Under current law those who pay (at a higher rate now) are already paying

Logic like that I cannot dispute.

People who pay are indeed paying.

and stolen from
But, you left that part out

Which is exactly why everybody should have insurance coverage, so my money doesn't get stolen to pay for ignorants who don't understand men can get breast cancer.

Here again, is an example of the logic of a liberal
Who thinks he knows better for everyone else

I do indeed know that those who pay, are paying.

You also state YOU know what insurance eveyone else should have
Plese try and keep up

Yes health insurance, cause every single person is going to need the services of a health care professional at some point. The far majority of you cannot afford it when that happens.