Religion, Science, and Government

[+Sherapy]

With all due respect, eb, I don't think you have realised the point I am trying to make with my argument that the debate is an ideological one, rather than a practical one - but perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough.

What is under debate in the US is essentially the survival of not only the healthcare system that was introduced - because the opposition to PPACA will take any ruling negative to the payment of penalties and use that to try to undermine the whole system - but the survival of those people to whom PPACA provides a lifeline.

It's all very well people playing lawyer with "the rules" - and this is directed at the suit against PPACA, not against anyone posting here - and making a fuss about a bit of cash, but there has obviously been no thought given to those people whom any decision would impact. It would not be pathos to argue that there are some people whose lives depend on the healthcare provision they receive through PPACA, that they would not be able to get otherwise.

I understand that modern society involves compromises, but that should never include any compromises with people's lives.

Leo, to be fair to 8ty, I do not see what he is saying as taking away from anything, least of all human lives, but more of a shedding of a viable light on some really good points, ones I had not considered from an exclusive practical point of view that I tend to be biased to. He is saying that the objective of the constitution is to find a win win not to do this by eliminating one or creating one side versus the other. I think it is a brilliant point and I do think that there is a way to see issues without drawing blood. For me, I come away with a much broader perspective thanks to everyone who contributed.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

Are your taxes paying for social programs for the 'indigents'?

Then surely this is as unconstitutional as using a 'tax' (if that is what it is) to pay for a social program for others?

So, if as you say, no-one has 'noticed' the unconstitutionality of other social programs before, why are people making a fuss about PPACA? Could it be politically motivated?

As I asked previously, and everyone appeared to skip around the question. Is the debate surrounding the 'legality' of PPACA and it's constituent parts about the practicality of the program, or is it a conflict of ideologies? Because if it is the latter, then why is "constitutionality" even being raised as part of the argument? The Constitution doesn't protect any ideology (at least, not in the sense being made by the arguments against PPACA), instead it suggests that law and the actions of government should not be ideologically based.

I agree with this, but don't you mean 'religiously based" in your last sentence? Every law ever made has an ideological base. Ie it is based on a belief system such as "all men are created equal"' or, "greed is good"

[Leonardo]

Leo, to be fair to 8ty, I do not see what he is saying as taking away from anything, least of all human lives, but more of a shedding of a viable light on some really good points, ones I had not considered from an exclusive practical point of view that I tend to be biased to. He is saying that the objective of the constitution is to find a win win not to do this by eliminating one or creating one side versus the other. I think it is a brilliant point and I do think that there is a way to see issues without drawing blood. For me, I come away with a much broader perspective thanks to everyone who contributed.

Is the argument surrounding the PPACA penalties "unconstitutionality" based on practicality?

Surely the most basic premise set out, enshrined and protected by the Constitution is that life is the highest priority in any consideration?

Given that, the 'practical argument' would be to suggest anything that protects the life of those covered by the laws set out in the Constitution, is not only 'constitutional' but essential to the values set out in that document.

There is no "win-win" in any compromise regarding that, because it would be asking some people to surrender either their lives or any reasonable quality of life.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Leonardo

[+Sherapy]

Is the argument surrounding the PPACA penalties "unconstitutionality" based on practicality?

Surely the most basic premise set out, enshrined and protected by the Constitution is that life is the highest priority in any consideration?

Given that, the 'practical argument' would be to suggest anything that protects the life of those covered by the laws set out in the Constitution, is not only 'constitutional' but essential to the values set out in that document.

There is no "win-win" in any compromise regarding that, because it would be asking some people to surrender either their lives or any reasonable quality of life.

The practicality has been addressed, we have Obamacare. It's new, it's not perfect, it has some bugs to be worked out. I say fair enough. Practically speaking for me (cause that's where my concern ends, life is my first consideration). Then, in enters a fine for those who do not have medical, to be paid in conjunction with filing their taxes. Is it constitutional or not (in implication) matters at this point to some, (I am not one of them; I would pay the fine or get insurance). Should the courts look into this and make sure that the laws are being implicated fairly as we have outlined in our constitution? I say of course, we can find a way to do Obamacare that is a win win for all sides. This is what I think and I think Paul is saying something similar. I could be in error, and if I am he will correct me.

I think the healthcare fight has gone beyond the right to healthcare, we have Obamacare, now it is a matter of working out the bugs. Some people are crying wolf, some are not and that is why we have the courts to sort this out.

My thoughts are personally similar to yours and Sharon's. Everyone has the right to healthcare,(what is there to argue, we are talking lives here). What can I do to do my part, is my concern. I hope this helps.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Sherapy

[eight bits]

Sheri has done a better job of arguing my position than I have. So, I am just going to stay with that as far as directly answering Leo is concerned.

I don't think the results of any of the constitutional challenges "in the pipeline" would be to end universal coverage, even if constitutional flaws were found in the specific provisions being challenged. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to strike the OVERALL law in 2012, and didn't, so I doubt the Supreme Court would take that up ever again. However, it is unrealistic that there won't be changes in the programs over time, even if no constituional flaws are found.

From a purely "policy wonk" perspective, what's huge here is that the regulation of health insurance has largely passed from the state level to the federal level. That change is probably irreversible, and its constituitonality had been thought through for a very long time. It would be astonishing if the change were turned back by the courts.

With that piece in place, we're dickering about the price, as an old joke has it. In my personal opinion, the only way "community rating" (pricing of coverage based on sharing total healthcare costs, rather than according to each purchaser's risks, like age, medical history, etc.) can work long-term is something like Canada's single payer system (the government "simply" becomes the health insurer for everybody). Since, as a practical matter, the United States government is already the primary health insurer for almost everybody 65 and older, and has been for about 50 years now, I think a Canadian-style system would be constitutional.

Constitutional is not a synonym for Solomonic, and being constitutional doesn't mean free from legal and political wrangling. Not everybody in Canada likes the Canadian system, and I doubt the United States expereince would be more pacific if such a system were adopted here. On the other hand, "politics is the art of the possible." People generally want universal coverage, including coverage of pre-existing conditions, and they want it priced by community rating, usually tempered with means-tested subsidies. The Constitution erects no impediment to all of that, but reality offers only a small number of ways to get it done.

[Leonardo]

The practicality has been addressed, we have Obamacare. It's new, it's not perfect, it has some bugs to be worked out. I say fair enough. Practically speaking for me (cause that's where my concern ends, life is my first consideration). Then, in enters a fine for those who do not have medical, to be paid in conjunction with filing their taxes. Is it constitutional or not (in implication) matters at this point to some, (I am not one of them; I would pay the fine or get insurance). Should the courts look into this and make sure that the laws are being implicated fairly as we have outlined in our constitution? I say of course, we can find a way to do Obamacare that is a win win for all sides. This is what I think and I think Paul is saying something similar. I could be in error, and if I am he will correct me.

I think the healthcare fight has gone beyond the right to healthcare, we have Obamacare, now it is a matter of working out the bugs. Some people are crying wolf, some are not and that is why we have the courts to sort this out.

My thoughts are personally similar to yours and Sharon's. Everyone has the right to healthcare,(what is there to argue, we are talking lives here). What can I do to do my part, is my concern. I hope this helps.

PPACA needs to be funded - that is the practicality of the situation. How does any Federal program for social welfare get funded?

Taxes.

As I said before, those (not here, but in court) who are arguing about a bit of cash being used to save lives are ignoring those lives being saved - and why?

Ideology, not practicality. The suit is being brought because some people do not want socialised healthcare and care nothing for the lives such a system will cause to flourish, let alone save - not because of the practicalities of such a system. And I doubt they really care whether certain details of the system are 'constitutional'.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Leonardo

[Stubbly_Dooright]

This is the experience I am having and know of in the South Bay Area of California, I apologize in advance for the length of this response.

The article does a good job of differentiating the two, our charter only hires accredited teachers and we are considered part to the public system. We have similar things a public school has scholarships etc. What is different is we do not teach to Common Core curriculum or any NCLB mandates. We do have to test though and the school offers resources to help prepare our kids, but the kids are not taught to a test. In public school, a lot of information is left out due to testing constraints and time, where as in a charter you get all the data. For instance, most kids do not get much in the way of science Kindergarten through 8th. Generally, just the concepts that demonstrate the main points of the science in question, until High school and many schools integrate science, meaning they expose the kids to the general ideas. Not so for our kids, they get science in its entirety starting early. (Same with all of our subjects). You couldn't have a class room of 30 kids and cover as much as we do.

Our math program is truly one of the best, we follow the findings of the huge MIT study that was done some years back. The study concluded that rote ( while you can learn math real quick this way, you can get by in the moment, pass a test) long term strong problem solving strategies, (which is the by product of math) were missing in the kids that were considered the best and brightest. Our teachers are here to help and support the kids that is the top priority, we have rules in place a teacher must respond back to a student within a day. In 8 years and I call all the time, my kids are helped within an hour, if not immediately. My son asked for more in depth help from his honors Chemistry teacher( very tough standards). He had an A, but he was unclear about a few things, mainly applying theory in real time. She set up a private classroom via online for them and over a few meetings she helped him. This happens as a rule all the time. Our AP/Honor classes are by invite only, a kid cannot test into them like you can in public school. They think a child must demonstrate the discipline, maturity, and intelligence over and beyond a test. Our honours programs also assign research projects,( they expect to be blown away) this is to be completed by the end of the semester. Few schools do this and like I said I tutor for one of the best. The caveat is to truly get a great education in our school, the child must have a committed parent, a college degree is a plus, one who is willing to go over and beyond the curriculum.

In the early years, I took a lot of outside courses to go over and beyond and be able to offer viable help. I am really fortunate I have an insatiable curiousity, otherwise I would of not been able to do this. I truly empathize with those who just cannot, the reasons are immaterial, I get it. It is a lot of work and a lot of time. I literally had to learn Math, I came in with basic arithmetic skills, myself. We only teach using Literature and as anyone knows this requires effort to get the meaning, a kid must have someone on board to read the material with them to mentor what it takes to read and understand literature. It just worked out I have been a reader my entire life. In otherwords, I learn the subjects in the event I need to help(the schools and a college level one) my summers and free time are allotted to this. Now adays I have covered most subjects, and I keep on top of the new stuff. Personally, it isn't so much the path, that one chooses, but the effort and willingness to pick up the slack that matters. Like WCF it's full time to be a good teacher or learning coach or tutor. If done right anything can reap benefits. It just depends on the amount of work one wants to and can invest. To be a great teacher it involves this type of effort., there are no short cuts. That is what I mean by being honest about the actual reality, the schools need to tell parents this. They don't becasue anyone reading this would say hell no I can't do this. Well neither can our school systems the way they are currently designed. The model no longer serves the reality of a technological age. There is too much to know to put it on the kid to make up for the difference, it is unfair and unreasonable.

You know, I wish, on the certain things you are mentioning, was there when I was growing up and going to school. But I digress on that............ Anyways, I agree with you and see too much not done, and some things being done, that I don't understand as to why. I feel that the school system that my kids went to here, despite some of the rumors, I think did a good job with them. I will always be forever grateful to the vice principal of one school who was understanding and made sure he was one on one with me, and doing what was proper for my son when he was going through a tough time. Yeah, my son was causing some of the trouble, but it was more of handling the struggle and doing what was necessary, but with understanding. The vice principal made sure of that, and I hoped I thanked profusely. My son today, is gracious and he is now in his first year at college majoring in his dream subject. I wish that happened everywhere.

I always heard on how NJ schools were pretty good in that area, and my kids started out their education through schools which were part of that which was also connected through the Air Force base there. I am glad they got that start there. I saw a lot of parent/teacher teamwork there. In fact, they pretty much encouraged it very strongly. I think more funding and more of those examples should be in all schools.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Stubbly_Dooright

[White Crane Feather]

PPACA needs to be funded - that is the practicality of the situation. How does any Federal program for social welfare get funded?

Taxes.

As I said before, those (not here, but in court) who are arguing about a bit of cash being used to save lives are ignoring those lives being saved - and why?

Ideology, not practicality. The suit is being brought because some people do not want socialised healthcare and care nothing for the lives such a system will cause to flourish, let alone save - not because of the practicalities of such a system. And I doubt they really care whether certain details of the system are 'constitutional'.

I call foul LEO. People are oposed to it because they realize it for the disaster it is and always was going to be, not because they don't care but becuse they actually want a better system for all. The difference in idealogy is that the left thinks it can force soemthing like this while most of the right recognize how real economics works, how quality arises, and what is the most efficient way to distribute something. Do you think that it's an a accident that we have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, are responsible for most of the greatest innovations, and any one can get healthcare if they want it: yeah, they might have to forgo Haveing a smart phone and a large television, hell if they are really struggling they might have to give up cable television, weekends at the bar and Starbucks everyday.

Obamacare dosnt really help anyone. We have always had socialized medacine what it does do is force somone to buy something. Government holding our hands and telling us what's good for us. The government dosn't want to be stuck with medical bills of the inbetweeners so it forces people to buy insurance and it forces insurers to accept those that are not good business decisions with s bigger goal of expanding it's power over people. It's a power play Founded on the worst kind of idealistic economics. Not only that it's a terrible deception..... A lie. Do remeber that little scandal where a certain economist spilled his beans about how Obamacare was sold to the ignorant voteres?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

With all due respect, eb, I don't think you have realised the point I am trying to make with my argument that the debate is an ideological one, rather than a practical one - but perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough.

What is under debate in the US is essentially the survival of not only the healthcare system that was introduced - because the opposition to PPACA will take any ruling negative to the payment of penalties and use that to try to undermine the whole system - but the survival of those people to whom PPACA provides a lifeline.

I could be wrong in assuming this, but I think your point is matching the point I was trying to make earlier.

PPACA needs to be funded - that is the practicality of the situation. How does any Federal program for social welfare get funded?

Taxes.

As I said before, those (not here, but in court) who are arguing about a bit of cash being used to save lives are ignoring those lives being saved - and why?

Ideology, not practicality. The suit is being brought because some people do not want socialised healthcare and care nothing for the lives such a system will cause to flourish, let alone save - not because of the practicalities of such a system. And I doubt they really care whether certain details of the system are 'constitutional'.

I think I see that you are talking about the same thing I did. I do nod my head to Sheri and 8bits in their knowledge of their points, but I see you bringing forth the thought that I had.

I might be wrong in assuming this of your posts, and I could be wrong in my knowledge of this, but much less of the thought, (which I think should be ideologically thought) should be in play here, the goals are different individually. In a perfect world I think of, but no........................

I don't know, maybe it's good to 'work out the kinks' *shrugs*

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I call foul LEO. People are oposed to it because they realize it for the disaster it is and always was going to be, not because they don't care but becuse they actually want a better system for all. The difference in idealogy is that the left thinks it can force soemthing like this while most of the right recognize how real economics works, how quality arises, and what is the most efficient way to distribute something. Do you think that it's an a accident that we have some of the finest medical facilities in the world, are responsible for most of the greatest innovations, and any one can get healthcare if they want it: yeah, they might have to forgo Haveing a smart phone and a large television, hell if they are really struggling they might have to give up cable television, weekends at the bar and Starbucks everyday.

I do some in my observations do see it that way, the oppose see it as something that could be a disaster and those for it, you mention the left, think they could force it. (Although, I really don't think that the majority of them feel they just want to 'force it' on everyone) It could be argued that, but on the other side, I could see it as those opposed to it are opposing it for selfish reasons, and the ones for it are actually thinking of the overall good it would do for all. This way of thinking and observations debate could also go on until the cows come home. Not going to get us anywhere. And I think it's a broad jump to assume so many have that reasoning of I want my iphone and video games over living an extra few more years. There are some, I'll grant you that cause I have seen it, but is there evidence that all do that?

Obamacare dosnt really help anyone. We have always had socialized medacine what it does do is force somone to buy something. Government holding our hands and telling us what's good for us. The government dosn't want to be stuck with medical bills of the inbetweeners so it forces people to buy insurance and it forces insurers to accept those that are not good business decisions with s bigger goal of expanding it's power over people. It's a power play Founded on the worst kind of idealistic economics. Not only that it's a terrible deception..... A lie. Do remeber that little scandal where a certain economist spilled his beans about how Obamacare was sold to the ignorant voteres?

I always felt that there are some that Obamacare is helping them, so I don't think I am going to believe that it doesn't really help anyone. I am also curious, do you have a link about that scandal?

[Leonardo]

I could be wrong in assuming this, but I think your point is matching the point I was trying to make earlier.

I think I see that you are talking about the same thing I did. I do nod my head to Sheri and 8bits in their knowledge of their points, but I see you bringing forth the thought that I had.

I might be wrong in assuming this of your posts, and I could be wrong in my knowledge of this, but much less of the thought, (which I think should be ideologically thought) should be in play here, the goals are different individually. In a perfect world I think of, but no........................

I don't know, maybe it's good to 'work out the kinks' *shrugs*

And I too think we are making the same arguments using different words.

The point Frank made a while back about the Constitution assuming the mantle of a "holy writ" springs back to mind when I read some of the arguments, and think of the lawsuit being brought. It seems the words written on the paper have assumed a greater importance than the values those words are supposed to represent, and people are arguing about the words while forgetting (or ignoring) those values.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

And I too think we are making the same arguments using different words.

The point Frank made a while back about the Constitution assuming the mantle of a "holy writ" springs back to mind when I read some of the arguments, and think of the lawsuit being brought. It seems the words written on the paper have assumed a greater importance than the values those words are supposed to represent, and people are arguing about the words while forgetting (or ignoring) those values.

And I see that. Thank you for your response. I like you viewpoint here, and can see that.

[+Sherapy]

PPACA needs to be funded - that is the practicality of the situation. How does any Federal program for social welfare get funded?

Taxes.

As I said before, those (not here, but in court) who are arguing about a bit of cash being used to save lives are ignoring those lives being saved - and why?

Ideology, not practicality. The suit is being brought because some people do not want socialised healthcare and care nothing for the lives such a system will cause to flourish, let alone save - not because of the practicalities of such a system. And I doubt they really care whether certain details of the system are 'constitutional'.

I am sure that out of all people that don't want Universal Healthcare, there are some whose reasons are they really do not care about human lives. I just don't think this is the only reason across the board though. I think Paul did a fantastic job of illustrating that, and WCF offers a perspective as to why some do not want it and it isn't because they don't care. I will mention that my dad is a staunch republican and opposed to universal healthcare, until his youngest daughter needed it and benefitted from it. Suddenly, it's not so bad. Sometimes the benefits are not obvious until someone has personal experience/need for/ with it. I think that those that struggle with making peace with it can find a way to see something of value in it.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Sherapy

[White Crane Feather]

I am sure that out of all people that don't want Universal Healthcare, there are some whose reasons are they really do not care about human lives. I just don't think this is the only reason across the board though. I think Paul did a fantastic job of illustrating that, and WCF offers a perspective as to why some do not want it and it isn't because they don't care. I will mention that my dad is a staunch republican and opposed to universal healthcare, until his youngest daughter needed it and benefitted from it. Suddenly, it's not so bad. Sometimes the benefits are not obvious until someone has personal experience/need for/ with it. I think that those that struggle with making peace with it can find a way to see something of value in it.

If it were purely helping people I would agree. But it's not. As I have mentioned time and time again, we already had free health care for those that needed it. Obama care has nothing to do with that. It's mostly about forceing the inbetweeers that go without it by choice because it is exspensive. They must start to pay or be penalized. It also forces insurance companies to take on people with prior conditions that the government would have had to take care of and a bunch of other pork Berril stuff that none of us probably are aware of. It's about transferring the responsibility of care to the corporations and people ( people hold shares in coporations remember) to make it cheaper for the governemnt.

Make no mistake healthcare is now more exspensive for everyone except for the government. The name "affordable care act" is an utter lie, to pull in the people that are not paying attention which is most of them. That's why the huge scandal of the "architect" of Obama care was such a big deal because he opened his mouth about this fact. The next step is to get all our young people succored into government health care and used to it. Then the next generation will simply be in the system and transitioning to a single payer system is the last roll on the slope. It's what it's been about the entire time. Not giving people the facts or the intentions but playing off of their ignorance and manipulating them.

Being less expensive for the government with costs shifted to the people and businesses, I would expect a tax break right? No... It will go to other illfated ideological and logically unsound programs. There is absolutely nothing affordable about the affordable care act, and as I have mentioned before it's more like something I would expect from a hard nose conservative trying to force people to pay more for their care and releve the draw on the government, but only then I would expect him to find a way to lower taxes to pass the savings on to the people or at least a croni corporate tax break. Even So the system before that was fine. I seriously doubt any government savings has any chance passing to my family via a tax break that makes up for the loss of our full coverage. Yes we had a great plan that covered all of us 100%. I had a very expensive knee surgery and I paid a $50 co pay. After the "affordable" care act our premiums for my family of five was sky rocketing. Luckily my wife's employer is very intelligent and came up with a tolerable solution with an HSA. Now our money stays in our hands and if something bad happens in a year our huge co pay is covered as long as enough time has gone by to amass the money in savings. But now, I have another looming surgery on the same knee and I'm worried about takeing funds away from my wife and kids health care.

I'm sorry I rarely cuss on um but **** the "afordable" care act. It's a giant lie and cannot respect anyone behind the conceiving of it... They knew exactly what they were doing. Rest assured I will be voteing for leaders not woooood by emotion, idealogy, and deciet that will repeal it. Isn't democracy grand? Somone can get into office and royally screw us over, but we simply fire them and hire somone better.

Edited March 24, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[+Sherapy]

If it were purely helping people I would agree. But it's not. As I have mentioned time and time again, we already had free health care for those that needed it. Obama care has nothing to do with that. It's mostly about forceing the inbetweeers that go without it by choice because it is exspensive. They must start to pay or be penalized. It also forces insurance companies to take on people with prior conditions that the government would have had to take care of and a bunch of other pork Berril stuff that none of us probably are aware of. It's about transferring the responsibility of care to the corporations and people ( people hold shares in coporations remember) to make it cheaper for the governemnt.

Make no mistake healthcare is now more exspensive for everyone except for the government. The name "affordable care act" is an utter lie, to pull in the people that are not paying attention which is most of them. That's why the huge scandal of the "architect" of Obama care was such a big deal because he opened his mouth about this fact. The next step is to get all our young people succored into government health care and used to it. Then the next generation will simply be in the system and transitioning to a single payer system is the last roll on the slope. It's what it's been about the entire time. Not giving people the facts or the intentions but playing off of their ignorance and manipulating them.

Being less expensive for the government with costs shifted to the people and businesses, I would expect a tax break right? No... It will go to other illfated ideological and logically unsound programs. There is absolutely nothing affordable about the affordable care act, and as I have mentioned before it's more like something I would expect from a hard nose conservative trying to force people to pay more for their care and releve the draw on the government, but only then I would expect him to find a way to lower taxes to pass the savings on to the people or at least a croni corporate tax break. Even So the system before that was fine. I seriously doubt any government savings has any chance passing to my family via a tax break that makes up for the loss of our full coverage. Yes we had a great plan that covered all of us 100%. I had a very expensive knee surgery and I paid a $50 co pay. After the "affordable" care act our premiums for my family of five was sky rocketing. Luckily my wife's employer is very intelligent and came up with a tolerable solution with an HSA. Now our money stays in our hands and if something bad happens in a year our huge co pay is covered as long as enough time has gone by to amass the money in savings. But now, I have another looming surgery on the same knee and I'm worried about takeing funds away from my wife and kids health care.

I'm sorry I rarely cuss on um but **** the "afordable" care act. It's a giant lie and cannot respect anyone behind the conceiving of it... They knew exactly what they were doing. Rest assured I will be voteing for leaders not woooood by emotion, idealogy, and deciet that will repeal it. Isn't democracy grand? Somone can get into office and royally screw us over, but we simply fire them and hire somone better.

Are your saying that after Obamacare your insurance premiums skyrocketed?

[White Crane Feather]

Are your saying that after Obamacare your insurance premiums skyrocketed?

Yes. To keep our situation it jumped nearly 1/3. It was much cheaper to simply put into an HSA. My wife's employer has excellent coverage for us, but even the requirements of what has to be spent out of the HSA jumped 10% from what people had before. Granted becuse Her employer has such great benefis, it was still lower than if we went it alone. I'm very greatful. But still. I liked my PPO before and not worrying that anything that I use up will take away from funds available to the kids. Granted we uped the HSA payment to push it passed the requirement. As soon as it's passed $5,500 we could essentially stop paying for health care and still be totally covered until we use it up in Littke things I don't like doingvkittlenthings now becuse inwant to keep the account full and I feel like I'm takeing funds available for my kids ( kinda of irrational because she is always putting in more.... But I use a lot of it becuse I have numerous trainig injuries and cronic injuries from everything from snow boarding to cage fighting. Don't get me wrong we have excellent ppo coverage, but this is a result of an excellent company looking after its employees inspite of Obama care. Everyone I talked to says their health care went up also. Obama called it affordable, and he also said we could keep our plans. He is either a dumbass or had his fingers crossed. Nothing about the plan could possibly lead to healthcare being more afordable.

Edited March 26, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[+Sherapy]

Yes. To keep our situation it jumped nearly 1/3. It was much cheaper to simply put into an HSA. My wife's employer has excellent coverage for us, but even the requirements of what has to be spent out of the HSA jumped 10% from what people had before. Granted becuse Her employer has such great benefis, it was still lower than if we went it alone. I'm very greatful. But still. I liked my PPO before and not worrying that anything that I use up will take away from funds available to the kids. Granted we uped the HSA payment to push it passed the requirement. As soon as it's passed $5,500 we could essentially stop paying for health care and still be totally covered until we use it up in Littke things I don't like doingvkittlenthings now becuse inwant to keep the account full and I feel like I'm takeing funds available for my kids ( kinda of irrational because she is always putting in more.... But I use a lot of it becuse I have numerous trainig injuries and cronic injuries from everything from snow boarding to cage fighting. Don't get me wrong we have excellent ppo coverage, but this is a result of an excellent company looking after its employees inspite of Obama care. Everyone I talked to says their health care went up also. Obama called it affordable, and he also said we could keep our plans. He is either a dumbass or had his fingers crossed. Nothing about the plan could possibly lead to healthcare being more afordable.

Wow, my healthcare didn't go up and no one I know has said this. We are in the same state, too. Interesting, thank you for sharing.

[Grandpa Greenman]

ACA is really all privatized, so the cost of your health care depends on which insurance company you end up with. It is really not setup for people it is setup for insurance corporations. It is what happens when corporations own your government. By the time they build the wall to stop Mexicans from coming in, they will be using it to keep us in. Welcome to the Corporate States of America.

[White Crane Feather]

Wow, my healthcare didn't go up and no one I know has said this. We are in the same state, too. Interesting, thank you for sharing.

Partly because you are probably Union. Insurance companies don't want to mess with them. But if Obama care comes to full fruit there is no possible way you can't see a rise. Imagin somone with no health coverage finds out they have cancer are just about any other exspensive long term condition. The insurance company now MUST insure them even though it's a completely loosing business relationship. Where do you think those costs are recooped? In the past things like Medicaid and medical would pick those things up, but now it's being forced back onto business and people through higher premiums.

I don't like the idea of a sickness ruining somone financially either, but it was indeed their choice not to purchase health insurance. Certainly the health insurance should not be allowed to drop them nor drop them because they can no longer work and get their employers benefits. Like I said if they couldnt aford it, there are programs that are already in place, and I'd they just didn't want to aford it becuse of cable television, a good data plan, Starbucks every day and beer every weeken..... Well I'm not really intersted in paying for those things. Medicare and Medicaid worked just fine. I think tax dollars are well spent there.

[White Crane Feather]

ACA is really all privatized, so the cost of your health care depends on which insurance company you end up with. It is really not setup for people it is setup for insurance corporations. It is what happens when corporations own your government. By the time they build the wall to stop Mexicans from coming in, they will be using it to keep us in. Welcome to the Corporate States of America.

It's not. Insurance companies hate the mandates they have been given. They may like forcing everyone to sign up, but they also employ decent business people and know it wont work. Every doctor and nurse I know thinks it's all a horrible idea. They know that it's the first stage of government run health care.

Edited March 26, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[Grandpa Greenman]

It's not. Insurance companies hate the mandates they have been given. They may like forcing everyone to sign up, but they also employ decent business people and know it wont work. Every doctor and nurse I know thinks it's all a horrible idea. They know that it's the first stage of government run health care.

I am disabled, so I am on government run healthcare, it is better than the private insurance I had when I was working. The only time I have any trouble with it is from the privatized part of it. The doctors and nurses I know like people coming to their office rather than going to emergency rooms for care. They have also quit running Fox News in the waiting rooms.

[White Crane Feather]

I am disabled, so I am on government run healthcare, it is better than the private insurance I had when I was working. The only time I have any trouble with it is from the privatized part of it. The doctors and nurses I know like people coming to their office rather than going to emergency rooms for care. They have also quit running Fox News in the waiting rooms.

You are exactly what I have been talking about. You are already on government run health care. There is no problem with governemnt run health care to those that need it. as I have been trying to tell everyone we already have it for those that need it. You know we do. My good friend has Aspergers and simply cannot fit into any normal work place. He is also considered disabled and his life style is paid for. Granted it's not a rich one. Enough to have a car, apartment, food, cable tv, and a cell phone and some oth.

Mandating it to everyone, forceing insurance companies to take on all previous conditions, and a number of other things including a larger plot to force the country who a very large chunk of dosnt want it into a single payer system is a bad. Move.

My mother is also on Medicad/Medicare. I take her to her appointments and and see the red tape she has to go through to get things done. Inefficiencies run rampant. My wife and I do not deal with any of those problems. We live our healthcare and we can choose our own medical group and doctors. Just almost four years ago I blew my knee out. My medical group was dragging their feet about getting me into a specialist it was well over a few months before they could get me in, and boom I went to a private specialist nearly the next day.

My wife followed her OBYGN when she left the group also. We make these choices because we have freedom to. Our care is dictated by us and who we trust or can provide the best care based on our evaluation. From second opinions to who we trust and evaluate as pediatricians. Non of this is really possible under more and more government interference. I don't want anyone in between me and our care. I don't want a government forcing things on people. I already pay to keep the quality of people struggling in our society above a line that frankly is higher than most of the rest of the world and I don't mind that, why should we now pay it again through higher premiums because the government wants to mess with our relationships with health care and doctors. it dosn't make it better for the poor, it dossnt make it better for the middle class, the upper class have enough money to do whatever the want anyway. What it does is mess with markets throwing them out of equilibriums. Forces everybody and I do mean every body except for the poorest people to pay more even if the majority already had sufficient healthcare.

My one question to anyone supporting this is how exactly is the afordable healthcare act Afordable? Under what principals and causality do they think will actually make if more affordable?

Take a good look.

[+Sherapy]

I am disabled, so I am on government run healthcare, it is better than the private insurance I had when I was working. The only time I have any trouble with it is from the privatized part of it. The doctors and nurses I know like people coming to their office rather than going to emergency rooms for care. They have also quit running Fox News in the waiting rooms.

My sister is experiencing this too, and so much more is covered. I am glad to hear it's working for you.