10CCObamacare won't fail because of people being selfish, it will
fail because it is unworkable and fatally flawed.I do not for one
minute contend that I know the thoughts and intents of others' hearts, or
if they are trying to be true disciples of Christ. Perhaps that is why I
don't claim they have an attitude of "other people aren't my
problem".And you talk about something being morally codified
into public policy. I thought liberals were diametrically opposed to
legislating morality. But then, like I said, I don't know the thoughts and
intents of their hearts - I guess, from your comment, that liberals DO want
morality legislated. May I ask, who's morality do you want
codified into law?
Lost in DC:You misconstrued the point I was making.I'm healthy, but I don't mind being in a larger pool of people with
health problems. I'm of the mindset that we're all in this thing
together, that people do better when we're looking out for each other.When society devolves into individuals who seek their own interests
first and foremost, with a distant consideration given to charity (if at all),
we're moving toward a more explicit Survival of the Fittest ethos, which is
exactly what Jesus was not teaching.If Obamacare fails because
people want to be selfish, we're moving toward Darwinism. Most
Republicans are Christian, which is the supreme irony in moving to a "other
people aren't my problem!" mindset, not just in attitude, but morality
codified into public policy. Doing charity for others will basically amount to
donating to the homeless shelter and buying some boots for impoverished
children... pretty much what we have right now, which is simply not enough
(otherwise people wouldn't appear at the ER with serious problems that
should have been caught earlier by a primary care physician).
If Obamacare were as wonderful as the liberal would have you believe, why do
they have to work so hard to convince people to sign up, especially young people
who are supposed to be BO supporters?Why would a person under 26
sign up, when they can be on their parents’ plan?For most
young people, it’s probably cheaper to pay the fine (SCOTUS said
it’s a tax) AND pay for any medical expenses than buy insurance.Moderate,Be glad you paid for those young people’s education.
Somebody paid for yours!Beverly,Obamacare REWARDS the
for-profit health care system. Your attack is misguided.10CC,Blame Obamacare for your not being able to get into a low-risk pool.
Obamacare prevents risk-grouping by requiring coverage for all.
reading through some comments, it appears to me that either the old way or the
"imposed/forced way" will amount to pretty much the same...Those who are
working and healthy will bear the expense. So why on earth have this forced on
us? We're already paying. We're getting ourselves deeper and deeper
into 'big brother' dependency. Where have we lost the personal
responsibility for ourselves??? There will always be those who need at one point
or other in their lives and yes we help them; but, it should not be a life-style
Redshirt:You're getting very close to the moral tensions
inherent in applying the free market to health insurance. When I worked in
health insurance, the game was about how to attract young, healthy employees of
an employer client, while letting the *other* insurance companies get the older,
less healthy, more expensive employees. Younger, healthier employees cost less
money, and as the insurance company, that's pure profit for us. Older,
less healthy employees, or people with problem family health issues, were to be
avoided, very costly, a loss to our bottom line.If we push the
auto-insurance model too far, we'll see tiered insurance offerings and
thereby (by a process of elimination in selecting preferred clients) punish
people with less "desirable" genetic backgrounds, as I satirically
described above.This would be a free market solution, it would
eliminate cost shifting from healthy people toward unhealthy people, and would
be a strong move toward Darwinism... survival of the fittest by tiering the
population based on healthcare expenditure risk.This would be a
utopia for the Darwinist model of thought, but I'm pretty sure this would
be a nightmare scenario, from a "What Would Jesus Do" perspective.
What risk? Thanks to Obamacare, the young adults can pay a small fine for not
having health insurance, which is less than actually buying insurance. Now, if
they get hurt, they cost to get a cast put on is less than what they would have
paid in premiums. However, if it is something that is going to require surgery,
no problem. Sign up for insurance the day they diagnose you with a problem and
now the insurance company has to take you and pay for your care. Then when your
treatment is over, stop paying for your insurance and wait until you need care
again.We have removed risk from equation. It is now a game about
how to get the young and healthy to sign up to support the older people.
How are they going to handle a $6,000 deductible?These pitchmen would do
better to hype the birth control benefit, which is a disgusting ad campaign.
@ATThe fine for not having insurance is relatively small the first year.
The second year fine is greater and the third year fine is fairly substantial.
Not sure, but I think it can increase to 10 percent of earnings. Since the only
way the fine can supposedly be collected is from IRS withheld taxes this might
drive a lot of youth into starting their own businesses so that they can control
how much money is sent for taxes. Or, maybe just claim more deductions so less
taxes are withheld I have heard reports that the govt. can suspend
driver privileges and put leans on property to collect the fine, but according
to what I have heard that is not in the bill.The purpose of
Obamacare is to destroy the current system and I think that it will accomplish
Moderate makes a great point - if the youth want to skip out of paying into the
insurance pool, let's have them reimburse society for their K-12 education,
first. As for those whining about youth having to cover the costs
of maternity care, we can take that line of thinking a few steps further: My family has basically no history of cancer or heart disease in our
family. Why shouldn't we be able to join a "preferred" health
insurance pool, just like is done with auto insurance, since we present a lower
risk of incurring expensive healthcare problems.Sure, it's
illegal for insurance companies to factor in a person having a genetic
predisposition to certain expensive health issues, but why couldn't healthy
people voluntarily submit their own DNA to qualify for greatly reduced health
insurance premiums?This will make insurance a lot more expensive for
those people who have cancer, heart disease and diabetes in their families, but
hey, life isn't fair.For that matter, just like how employers
check the credit history of potential employees, people who are dating can check
what health insurance their dates have, so they can assess their potential
The only lipstick smearing on a pig is done in support of a profit driven health
care system. Just imagine no drug commercials on TV, no drug sales people
bugging the heck out of doctors, and no insurance companies trying to scare
people into buying over priced policies. Our Country's health care is
changing for the better and conservatives, as with Social Security and Medicare
in the past, will eventually understand and catch up.
The best financial decision for young people in good health is to skip the
insurance and pay the fine. The fine will cost them less, considerably, than the
insurance. They no longer need to worry about having "what if" insurance
because they can always sign up for the insurance when their health expenditures
exceed the cost of the difference between the insurance cost and the penalty.
Even though I do not have children, for years I have beed forced to pay for the
education other people's children. Ironically, people with children
receive a tax break, so I pay a greater share of tax dollars to education.If a young person feels put out about subsidizing my primary health
care, let's call it even. I paid for your primary education.
Yes you are taking a risk by not being insured. However you are also taking a
risk by being insured. If you are struggling to make ends meet, spending
$3000-4000 per year is also taking a risk which could cause a bankruptcy. Over
a ten year period, the odds that a 20 year old is going to rack up $40, 000 in
medical bills is pretty low. Thus many may decide to self insure. Why should a
single guy pay for maternity coverage and birth control? If it were not for all
of the mandates, a young person could get a pretty inexpensive policy to cover
against a major loss. Now they have to buy a bunch of stuff they do not need to
subsidize older people who likely have higher incomes and more assets.I am from a great generation. We have learned how to borrow from our children
and grandchildren ($17, 000, 000, 000, 000 so far) and tell them it is for their
benefit. Now please understand thay it is for your benefit to subsidize our
I was a healthy 27 year old when one day, I started having trouble seeing in one
of my eyes. I had MS. I didn't even know what the disease was. Thankfully,
I had a full-time job and was insured. I hope young people do get insurance.
I'm pretty sure, we, as a country, are going about it the wrong way. Guess
10CC are we not asking the young to bear the cost for others with obamacare what
is the difference.
Evidently, the liberals figure that if they just continue to smear enough
lipstick on this pig, nobody will ever recognize it as an actual pig. What they
don't seem to realize is that all the major components of the law are
totally wrong and unworkable, and represent strong evidence that those drafting
the legislation obviously don't understand the realistic basics regarding
government, economics, "health" care, or insurance. They just figure
that if they point fingers elsewhere and keep singing the scripted praises,
somehow it will all just work out wonderfully at some point. Never gonna
It's very odd that conservatives, in their zeal to hammer Obama, are
encouraging young people to not engage in "inter generational
subsidies", ie, not be responsible and insure themselves.Apparently the mentality is to avoid buying insurance, and then depend on
Reagan's law that requires Emergency Rooms to provide treatment regardless
of the patient's ability to pay, thereby shifting the cost onto others.Yet we're lectured by conservatives that Obamacare is socialism,
and sends erroneous signals to people that healthcare is free.Which
way is it? You can't claim it's an onerous financial burden for
individuals and families, and then moan about free healthcare ruining the
incentive for people to take their health and fitness seriously.I'm starting to think we need to submit a missing persons report on
conservatives, those people who encouraged self reliance, and being responsible.
Who are these imposters? Oh yeah, I forgot - they hate Obama more than they
support their own principles.Strange times...
young adults will be forced to buy - you watch. They will be forced to buy or be
penalized big time. Its the Obama way. Any fool who thought that ANYTHING Barack
promised is actually going to come to pass gets what they get. The man is a liar
and 100% of the things he promised concerning Obamacare are outright lies....and
we fell for it. Can you imagine - young healthy college kids are going to be
FORCED to buy expensive insurance for maturity and mental heath and on and on...
These are kids that are living off of Mac n Cheese and peanut butter sandwiches.
Socialism destroys every single civilization it touches and shame on America for
not being smarter and more informed back in 2009. Ignorance more than anything
else leads to a loss of freedom.