Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
F3SS

Obamacare average $20K per family!

232 posts in this topic

China is slated to be the worlds largest economy in 2025 http://www.telegraph...my-by-2025.html. This is unavoidable.

I remember similar predictions about Japan. Projections have a way of not taking into consideration anything except past trends, and China is going to have a severe demographic crisis what will cut into growth.
Japan has debt equal to 229% of its GDP. The US is currently at 102%.
Kinda ironic -- the past Japanese government has gotten into this situation by raising taxes and cutting spending.
There are definately problems with America's love of the credit card economy but that is a different discussion. And sadly, there is even money to be made in collecting debt.
Just something more efficient than writing checks. Consumer protection in the States to protect the ignorant from credit sharks is seriously lacking. If the credit companies had to eat a few more bad debts the business would straighten itself out.
The economy is not perfect and I never claimed that it was doing great but it is not "killed" as joc claimed and which you seemed to be supporting by your posts. Hence the "economy is doing okay".

Mainly thanks to the Federal Reserve pumping in liquidity -- the opposite of what the Japanese were doing. I think Obama needs to do a few symbolic things to reduce the appearance that his administration is anti-business, so that investment will loosen up.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again fact driven ND. I applaud your insight and have sent in my forms to the Feurher I mean President to join his program of socialized medicine.

Just to be nit-picky, it's not really socialized medicine in the traditional meaning of the word, or even in the European sense, as practiced by Britain or France or other countries.

It is not socialized medicine, it is the American Model, in which the insurance industry controls how medicine is practiced. The insurance industry, not the government. In our model, the government simply does what the insurance industry demands.

That ain't socialized medicine. :no:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to claim at the same time that something will become cheaper by nationalizing is complete idiocy.

You would be wrong. Nothing has been "nationalized". Obamacare is not national healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok we have not nationalized and not socialized then just what the heck is it...oh my bad its a tax.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a tax, as discovered by Mr. Chief Justice.

Trouble is, of course, and one would think a Chief Justice would know this, all bills for taxes must originate in the House, and this one did not. Should he get an 'F' or just a 'D'?

Kinda like the blind mouse examining an elephant, Mr. Chief Justice discovered a tax! :clap:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be kept in mind that this number does not include how much you will have to pay if you need to utilize the plan. Medicine and treatement is not free just because you have insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just started Medicare, so it doesn't matter to me.

But it seems so obvious to me that the only group to benefit from the plan is the insurance industry, and the only group losing in the scheme are US workers. :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. Was just thinking that $20,000 is the minimum cost for a plan no matter what your income. What are people supposed to do? Oh yea, get government assistance.

It's worth noting that California, one of the states far along enough on its exchange (Covered California) to have a cost calculator available for its residents, is estimating that the average cost of a silver plan for a family of 4 is going to be around $12,300. Silver plans are ~10% more generous than bronze tier plans, the cheapest plans this thread is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok we have not nationalized and not socialized then just what the heck is it...oh my bad its a tax.

a little reading would help you out

PPACA is aimed primarily at decreasing the number of uninsured Americans and reducing the overall costs of health care. It provides a number of mechanisms—including mandates, subsidies, and tax credits—to employers and individuals in order to increase the coverage rate.[5][6] Additional reforms are aimed at improving healthcare outcomes and streamlining the delivery of health care. PPACA requires insurance companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or gender.[7][8] The Congressional Budget Office projected that PPACA will lower both future deficits[9] and Medicare spending.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a tax, as discovered by Mr. Chief Justice.

Only in the case where you stupidly refuse to get even the minimum insurance where you would most likely pay less and get more benefit than the penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be kept in mind that this number does not include how much you will have to pay if you need to utilize the plan.

which is the whole point of insurance. We all pay in for when some need a benefit thus lowering the overall cost of insurance and whatever you are providing insurance for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only in the case where you stupidly refuse to get even the minimum insurance where you would most likely pay less and get more benefit than the penalty.

Why did nobody in the legislative process refer to the bill as a sort of tax?

Which leads one to wonder how on earth a judge introduced the term instead of a legislator? Somehow reminds me of that term "activist judge", a term that I can actually support, but only in specific circumstances.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with American health care is that there is no one controlling costs. Patients who have insurance don't, those who don't have insurance either pay or get charity or die, the providers have no incentive to cut costs because the insurers pay and the insurers have no incentive because they just raise premiums and get even more money. In the meantime millions of lawyers make even more money when mistakes happen.

The US has a similar situation with education; especially higher education, where costs keep going up much faster than inflation because one does not dare enter the labor force without a degree, and most of the costs are born by others or deferred in some way.

So the US steadily falls behind in the level of both the health and the education of its population while paying more and more.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with American health care is that there is no one controlling costs. Patients who have insurance don't, those who don't have insurance either pay or get charity or die, the providers have no incentive to cut costs because the insurers pay and the insurers have no incentive because they just raise premiums and get even more money. In the meantime millions of lawyers make even more money when mistakes happen.

The US has a similar situation with education; especially higher education, where costs keep going up much faster than inflation because one does not dare enter the labor force without a degree, and most of the costs are born by others or deferred in some way.

So the US steadily falls behind in the level of both the health and the education of its population while paying more and more.

Exactly right. Assuming we had a truly free market--a relationship between healthcare providers and patients--costs would probably stay in line.

But instead, we have this bizarre situation in which between the providers and the consumers (patients) is forced a third party, a middleman, who produces absolutely nothing, and whose net effect is a gross distortion of the primary relationship between provider and consumer. One could not design a more inefficient method if one tried, but here in this country it is accepted as the only way. :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But conservatives screamed bloody murder when anyone had the temerity to whisper government Health Care, they became apoplectic over the public option of the ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right. Assuming we had a truly free market--a relationship between healthcare providers and patients--costs would probably stay in line.

But instead, we have this bizarre situation in which between the providers and the consumers (patients) is forced a third party, a middleman, who produces absolutely nothing, and whose net effect is a gross distortion of the primary relationship between provider and consumer. One could not design a more inefficient method if one tried, but here in this country it is accepted as the only way. :cry:

Don't forget that with health care and the hippocratic oath, uninsured people people can still get their product (Health Care Treatment) without having the ability to pay. It's not really a free market if consumers get their product for free. Imagine if the government took a different route- Instead of mandates forcing you to buy insurance, the government passed a law that made it illegal for doctors to treat patients without insurance or cash on hand to pay for treatment.

As for the insurance industry. I always got a kick out of the fact that you are required by law to pay this middleman a profit for driving a car, shipping cargo, etc. and now health care.

Edited by Gromdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But conservatives screamed bloody murder when anyone had the temerity to whisper government Health Care, they became apoplectic over the public option of the ACA.

Why did the President abandon the public option so quickly during the early stages of the negotiations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the President abandon the public option so quickly during the early stages of the negotiations?

Congress abandoned it. The PPACA started legislative discussions in Feb 2009, the vote on public option by november of 09 was not "early stages" (law passed in March 2010). You parrot the false lies of conservamedia. The conservatives would not allow the public option past their threat of filibuster. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/29/first-public-option-amend_n_303228.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not parroting false lies of conservatives. If you must use that terminology, I come down squarely with liberals on this question, namely Kucinich, Wendell Potter and Keith Olberman. I'm all for universal health care and single payer.

This was Obama's baby. It has his name, Obamacare. It finished that way and started that way. It was his program from the start, probably stemming from yet another lie that Candidate Obama told to get elected.

It was very early in the process that Obama abandoned the notion of single payer. He is a spineless coward, and in the end, his baby was written by the insurance industry, and greatly benefits the insurance industry.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am not parroting false lies of conservatives. I'm all for universal health care and single payer.

sorry. My mistake.

This was Obama's baby. It has his name, Obamacare.

Obamacare was a derisive name coined by republicans.

It was very early in the process that Obama abandoned the notion of single payer.

Single payer and the public option are two very different things. I've shown above that the public option was considered in November 2009 which was late in the process. Single payer was indeed not even considered because for conservative and republicans it was a non-starter and had no chance. Did you forget the demolition the the Clinton Health Care plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill just pay the fine. Thank You have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill just pay the fine. Thank You have a nice day.

You don't have insurance now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant afford it.

My average yearly healthcare costs fall well below any insurance policy before or after Obamacare can offer me.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant afford it.

My average yearly healthcare costs fall well below any insurance policy before or after Obamacare can offer me.

Having predictable health expenses that you know you won't be able to handle on your own (which you don't) is only one reason to have health insurance. The other would be to protect against the risk of unforeseen health expenses. You're protected from that somewhat under the new rules next year, but there will still be financial risks to going uninsured if an accident or illness occurs.

It might make sense for you to stay uninsured (especially if you're not particularly risk averse and are willing to keep chancing it). But it's worth at least exploring your options, for instance by figuring out what kind of assistance will be available to you: http://healthreform.kff.org/subsidycalculator.aspx.

Edited by Startraveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't either. A little over a year from now I'll have it by marriage. Until then I'll take my chances like always. Even if I weren't getting married I still wouldn't buy it out of defiance. I'll be damned if someone who works for me gets to tell me what I have to buy simply for being alive. You now have to pay an insurance company or corporation to be a law abiding American these days because the people you employ said so. I'm sure our employees aren't getting a kickback for this, right? Far as I'm concerned when the people you pay step out of line like this I call it insubordination.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.