A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

I have a serious question about health insurance mandate...

Posted: Jul 6, 2012

I've read people railing against the mandate that we Americans should all get health insurance. Some people say, "The nerve of Obama, requiring that we buy health insurance!"

What I wonder is....why would a person cling to the right NOT to buy health insurance? I mean, what is the advantage of not having health insurance? I understand that for some, it's the expense of carrying a policy...but if you don't want to carry ANY health insurance, what do you foresee happening if you suddenly find out you have a debilitating disease, life-threatening cancer, or are injured in a serious accident. What would you want to happen, then, regarding the care you would receive....and who would cover the costs of that care?

I'm not trying to be snotty here. I just don't honestly see what could be GOOD about not carrying at least some basic health insurance. Yes, the current costs for health insurance have skyrocketed and are terribly hard to afford for some of us, but I've been told that that's not because of Obamacare, per se (although some blame that)....that it's because health insurance providers raised their rates so high to make as much money as they can BEFORE they have to bring the cost down later. Don't insurance companies actually stand to do better when the risk factor is more balanced out by including healthier, younger people in the pool?

I guess I just don't fully understand why some people hate the healthcare mandate so much. What I've hated is that I was trapped in a job I couldn't stand, which was actually making my health worse (losing sleep, losing hair, stressed to the max, worried about having enough work all the time)...but I was totally trapped there because I couldn't afford to lose our health insurance through that job.

I'm not trying to attack any individuals. Please don't attack me, either. We're all entitled to our points of view. I'm just hoping to get some understanding of what people don't like about having to carry health insurance.

;

See message - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
I don't have time to address this entirety of this subjective, but personally I still feel it is unconstitutional. Secondly, if Obama had included that all job creation from Obamacare stay in the US and not be outsourced at a time when he is running for reelection and promised job creation, then I might be more pro. India is going to have a huge economic boost from the outsourcing from insurance companies, data collection, medical records, et cetera. As a matter of fact, there are articles on the internet right now from India basically saying that they have already started working to obtain US contracts for outsourcing of Obamacare because they think US business firms won't understand the complexity of Obamacare and will outsource to the Indians.

Now, isn't that a travesty of justice in itself?

In one hand Obama has an offer to indebt generations to come to provide health care now, but on the other hand he is allowing the job creation to slip out of our hands to other countries. Double-edged sword.

Obama is not responsible for offshoring - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
In fact, an initiative proposed by Obama to provide tax incentives to companies that keep jobs in the U.S. has been stalled by house republicans. Go figure.

Magic - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If the supreme court worked their 5 to 4 MAGIC vote to unconstitutionally force us to buy insurance or pay a tax, then I guess they can have another MAGIC vote and include in Obamacare to not outsource any job creation from it while they're making things up out of thin air...

Uh, no. SCOTUS does not MAKE law. - Congress does. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
Wanna try that again?

Do your have health insurance? If you don't - feel you should be SM

[ In Reply To ..]
"forced" to buy it (with help from the government if you need it) then who do you think should pay for you if you end up in the hospital? The people who have health insurance? That is what is going on now, that is one of the reasons why premiums go up. That does not seem very fair to me, especially now that there is this alternative. I think it is a good idea.

back to civics class - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

That's right. They also stalled his jobs bill. - Go figure. NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

another falsehood "Yeah, go figure" - OBAMA job czar

[ In Reply To ..]
sents hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas while cutting almost the exact same number in the US. Obama pushing for GMC to set up plants in China...yeah, none of that will hurt American taxpayers. That's just 2 examples and plenty more. Obama speaks like a silver-tongued devil and his lies always catch up to him. Too bad so many are so blind to facts....P.S. ALL PROPOSED BY THE DEMS....Forgot those little facts on purpose did ya...Yeah, "go figure".

job czar did not send GE overseas (!) - lol

[ In Reply To ..]
As a corporation, GE has the right to move its jobs wherever it wants. America does not prevent companies from exercising their own will. That would be communism.

So why scream when the ones that do not worship - Obama do it-And yeah, GE job czar Imelt

[ In Reply To ..]
did send jobs overseas. Here's another clue for you...go look up the meaning of communism, 'cos by your post you're totally clueless.

Why the outrage for the libs on this board when other companys, including MT companies, send jobs overseas? Can't have it both ways and talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Here's another new flash for you since you don't seem to be able to get any news programs or information or have any history knowledge - Obama has SUED American companies, regulated them to the point of bankruptcy, and taken over industries (that's communism) to run as Obama saw fit. Pretty sure your post was more for humor than fact, since no a fact in any portion of your post.

my experience - anon2

[ In Reply To ..]
I went w/o health insurance for about 2 years due to different circumstances, not working for places that offered it, etc. Then I had my ribs broken, had to go to the ER. At checkout time, I was astonished to learn that if you are UNINSURED, they automatically reduced your bill by 40%! Over the course of the next 18 months or so, I was unable to pay off this bill. I was ENCOURAGED by the hospital to apply for "hardship financial assistance." To my once again astonishment, I received a letter from the hospital saying "we have written off your bill as a charity case." Now I can't say that all hospitals do this, it was just my experience, but it was almost sending me the message that "why waste my money when they'll just give me the medical care." No, I don't think it's fair and please don't bash me because I'm just telling you what happened. I'm certainly not advocating for people to give this a try! Up until that 2-year period, I had always had insurance, so who knew they would do this for you. The thing that burns me up at this time is that now that I have insurance, and yes it is expensive, why don't they pay for anything? I'm not really paying them to cover my medical expenses, because mostly they don't, and I know because I just had to have emergency surgery 1 month ago. After looking at what I have paid them so far this year and then looking at the hospital bill, the part that is "my responsibility," I realized that I am not paying an insurance company to insure me. I am paying for a CARD to carry in my wallet. If I go to the doctor, I get to show them my CARD. I will end up paying more in insurance premiums and deductibles and copays than the insurance company will pay, so why do I have them? oh yeah, so I get to have a CARD. thanks.

Anon2, I appreciate hearing your story... - (see message)

[ In Reply To ..]
Your experience is interesting, and I agree it certainly makes one mad that you almost seem to end up paying more with your current insurance than when you had none at all! It's a crazy system.

I did notice when I worked as an MT at an acute care hospital that it seemed like the patients who didn't have health insurance, while they were given the care they needed to be able to be released from the hospital, sometimes seemed like they were given the bare minimum of care to be able to "fix them up," so to speak. I think a human is a human, no matter how much money they have, and all humans should be treated equally when it comes to healthcare....not treated better if you have money to pay for the coverage.

Still, I understand that this care is expensive, and SOMEONE has to pay for it. The situations that I would dread if I had no insurance is something like the exorbitant cost of long-term cancer treatment or an organ transplant that needed lifelong anti-rejection drug therapy.....unknown huge expenses that we can't always predict.

I do understand where some people are coming from about not wanting government to tell us we HAVE TO buy something. I hate that our society has come to the lack of personal responsibility, though, that if something isn't made mandatory, too many people will just slide by and let the rest of us pick up the tab. That seems to violate my rights to use my hard-earned money for things that I enjoy--not to pay more for my healthcare to cover those who have no coverage.

As for whether the Affordable Care Act (or whatever it's called) is constitutional or not, I don't think it matters much what you or I think--the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional.

I was mostly just curious to know why a person would want to NOT have health insurance coverage. I sure hope that coverage gets more affordable for all of us....it's almost out of reach for me, at this point, and I, for one, do NOT prefer to be without it.

Do you think Americans are too uneducated to understand the complexity? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe Americans are just not smart enough due to poor prenatal health care, or lack of education. I do have faith that the good ol' American greed from firms like Bain Capital will indeed take advantage of the cheap labor in India. I wonder why the Republicans have not put forth any legislation to stop them?

Also, could you explain what it would take for you to believe that Obamacare is constitutional? It was a bill passed by the elected House and Senate, signed by the president, and now upheld by the Supreme Court. I just do not understand your belief.

No, i don't think we are too uneducated, but - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I do think too many, by reading posts here, all they care about is what party passes it. Anything the other party proposes they will cut down.

We Americans are college educated. While we may not understand every incy bincy line, we understand it as a whole.

Curious why you singled out Bain Capital as taking advantage when there are plenty of other firms like Hewlett-Packard, JP Morgan, or even Hilton. Under this administration jobs are continuing to flow overseas. I wonder why democrats have not done anything to stop them. No fines, no nothing.

As for Obamacare. It is not constitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government can force the people of the country to buy a certain product. That is not and never will be constitutional. You cannot dictate to people what they can and cannot buy.

It doesn't matter whether it was signed by The O. Of course he signed it, he wants it passed. That does not mean it's constitutional. I don't understand people incapability to understand the constitution. It's pretty clear. So they over rode the constitution and did whatever they wanted to do. Doesn't mean it was right and people don't care about the constitution if democrats break it.

I've got health insurance. This does not affect me, but it affects a lot of people to prefer to not buy something they don't want.

We Americans are not uneducated. Just because over half the country does not agree with you does not mean they are uneducated. Maybe it's the ones who don't understand the constitution that are uneducated.

Agreeing with Obamacare shows the lack - of education and ability to

[ In Reply To ..]
understand the Constitution. What is so glaring in the Yeah Obamacare posts is the complete ignorance of the fact that every socialist regime went after control of health care. They knew if they controlled the health care, they controlled the entire population. Sad to say, posters on here are so lacking in any fact or knowledge of HISTORY OR POLITICS. They just yammer on about their party and spew their opinion, which is ALWAYS lacking in facts.

God forbid they would actually pick up a history book (that the libs have not rewritten) to learn what happens in the socialist process and especially what happens to the masses. New Flash for them...they are not coming out on the top of the socialist heap like the delusional, misinformed, factless posts state.

Apparently the question was misunderstood - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Restated: Why do you think the Indians will be successful in a "takeover" of everything to do with Obamacare because they understand the complexity. I used Bain Capital as an example of a business that outsources jobs to other countries for profit because Romney still profits from Bain Capital. Obviously, Obama cannot arbritrarily "fine" any business anymore than he could just fine people who did not comply with health insurance regulations. It would have to come from the congress, then be signed and then have to fight off every corporate interest that would bring suit (many in congress elected with money from those same businesses).

Also, do you not think that the Supreme Court has any knowledge of the Constitution and why would a predominantly right-wing conservative court uphold Obamacare?

Not predominantly right - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
4 (D) to 5 (R) does not equal predominantly right, especially when one of the right leaning judges votes liberal. I would consider it a pretty even spread.

Yes, the SC has knowledge of the Constitution. But their decisions do not always uphold it. The interpret it they way they want to. Doesn't mean they follow it, as in this case.

And I can't understand your complete lack - of knowledge on this subject

[ In Reply To ..]
"Maybe...just not ***. I do have faith that the good ol' American greed from firms like" GE and GMC, Solyndra "will indeed take advantage of the cheap labor in India. I wonder why the" Democrats "have not put forth any legislation to stop them?"

After all, the Dems had complete total control of both House and Senate for 2 years under Bush and 2 years under Obama.

Sorry, but I do not seriously reply to any message - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
That is rude, parrot-like, and tries to misrepresent the truth.

I don't even read those anymore - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Sorry, but I do not seriously reply to any message - and yet you continue to do post below me

[ In Reply To ..]
If you can't stand your own lib words, then change them. Just shows how ridiculous the libs/Dems are and what little substance they have.

I'm not against having health insurance. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
The part I'm against is the government telling me I have to buy something (anything). What if the government tells us next that we all have to buy hybrid cars - it's a good idea, right? Good for the environment? Then they say that if you choose to keep your "gas guzzler," you'll pay a tax. Then the government says that you have to buy a membership to a gym. If you don't buy that membership, you'll pay a tax. The possibilities are endless for what the government could mandate you to buy and then charge you a tax when you don't. It's the proverbial slippery slope.

So true - we're losing our freedoms - that America was founded upon.

[ In Reply To ..]
Health care has needed an overhaul for a long time, but Obamacare's mandate is unconstitutional. Americans are free. We can choose health care coverage or not. At least, we used to be able to do that. The federal government is overreaching. Health care should be a states right, and on a personal level, it should be optional.

Here's a little reality of the costs of care. - s/m

[ In Reply To ..]
My mother-in-law, who is old enough to be on Medicare, has been treated for breast cancer for quite a few years now...at least 4 years. She goes for outpatient chemo treatments that started out weekly, and now, after a couple of years, have been decreased to "only" every 3 weeks. She found out that these treatments cost $4,000 each time she goes. That would be $16,000+ a month at the beginning of the treatment! If someone without a job and without health insurance is faced with that kind of cost for treatment, would they say, "Nope. Too much. I guess I'll just let nature take its course." ...or would they get the treatment, and the cost would be passed on to the rest of us.

And this is ONE individual whose story and costs I know about firsthand. Imagine how much money is being spent in this country on healthcare every year.

...and when you get sick, who pays for you if you - don't have insurance? nm

[ In Reply To ..]
.

That's sort of a tired, moot argument - cy

[ In Reply To ..]
. . . because no one is denied health care in the US. You could ask that same question of those who currently have no health insurance and treat emergency rooms as their personal doctor's office.

The insured pay, that's who. The goal is for - people to not have to SM

[ In Reply To ..]
use the ER as their personal physician, so I don't understand why this is a moot point? It's one of the reasons for the ACA in the first place, to stop this kind of thing.

Another tired old argument here - What do you think

[ In Reply To ..]
is going to happen when the millions more added to Medicaid can't get into see their doctor or their doctor no longer takes Medicaid? You think they won't use the ER then? Keep dreaming!

A new and improved argument - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
If you quit discussing it, it does not make it less legitimate or make it go away.

Supply and demand. There will be the doctors to fill the demand for care. There are already PAs and Nurse practitioners out there ready to fill any void. Being a doc pays better than most jobs, so there will always be doctors.

Fine then..when you are hospitalized you be - responsible for your SM

[ In Reply To ..]
own bill, the whole thing. After all, you want your freedom, right? Don't expect those of us who have insurance to cover you because you are "free".

That's the whole point - I don't expect anyone else - to pay for me!

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm responsible for myself and my family. No one else pays for my car or my house or my college education or anything else, why should I expect them to pay for my health care? The problem is too many people thing everyone else should pay for them - no one takes responsibility for themselves anymore.

Do you even realize how fast the medical bills... - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
can mount? If you have no insurance and are paying cash, do you have enough cash on hand to pay for a serious illness? My friend was diagnosed with breast cancer one year ago and her medical bills over that year have amounted to over 1 million dollars. Luckily, she has very good insurance. Getting health insurance is the responsible thing to do.

Yes it is the responsible - thing to do.

[ In Reply To ..]
But the government shouldn't mandate personal responsibility - can you imagine the laws if that were the case? There are so many things that are the responsible things to do, but there shouldn't have to be a law for it.

I'll tell you why... - MTFISH

[ In Reply To ..]
Because people with means are the ones mostly abusing the system. It's these small business owners and their entitled attitudes who refuse to buy insurance (because they are free and they know they will get treated anyway and NEVER have to pay)have tax breaks that people working on W2s don't have, they don't declare all of their income, they make it look on paper that they don't make much money, they get free lunches at school when they can more than afford it and I'm sick of paying for THEM. I'll gladly pay all day long for truly poor people--you know them, they are the villians of EVERYTHING in this country--but I'm routinely paying for people who QUITE PROUDLY tell me how clever they are to be able to beat the system.

Last year, my friend, whose husband is a contractor and who lives in a 6000 sq ft house and has 5 children, but no insurance, told me about how they make it look like they earn less than I do when they earn over $100,000/year, THEIR kids are going to college 100% on grants, while I, who has a need for additional college funds, have to take out loans for my kids. Well, her husband fell off a roof and shattered his leg. He was in the hospital the first time for 18 days. When he became infected and septic the second time he was in for 8 days. They have not paid one dime for that care, yet they earn $100,000+/year---just not on paper. Oh, and they are "christians" of the worst kind as well---all that theft and the balls to call themselves "christian"...it truly boggles the mind and it's infuriating that I have to work so hard to pay for them simply because they are "small business owners" who decided their personal responsibility included NOT insuring a 7 person household "because it costs too much."

Oh come on. Do you mean to tell me that - if you have to be SM

[ In Reply To ..]
hospitalized, have surgery, or are in an accident, you are going to pay the thousands and thousands it will cost? Please don't tell me you will get on a payment plan. This idea of yours is unrealistic. If you don't have the money, the hospital will absorb the costs by charging those with health insurance more, thus causing the insurance companies to increase premiums.

Well stated - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
On top of that, with the ability for them to sweep your financial accounts (also through Dodd-Frank/DEMS), your financial status will constantly be at risk. That has NOTHING to do with healthcare. I hope they are both repealed.

Heritage Foundation, GOP reps, Romney all - enthusiastically endorsed the mandate

[ In Reply To ..]
back in the early and mid 90s. Did you think it a slippery slope then? Did people in Massachusetts lose their freedoms when it was enacted? Did their governors since that time take that ball and run with it?

Mandating hybrid cars and gym memberships would do nothing to address the trajectory of health care costs, which 2006 projections predicted would consume 20% of the GDP by 2020. These slippery slope fears of what might happen do not seem terribly realistic.

Wrong focus. - ia

[ In Reply To ..]
"Mandating hybrid cars and gym memberships would do nothing to address the trajectory of health care cost..."

The point is, mandating that you either purchase health care or pay a tax is unconstitutional. Mandating hybrid cars or paying a penalty tax is a logical extension of that, as with mandating anything. Don't discount that slippery slope. Losing our freedom to choose is a huge deal and should not be overlooked.

What freedom are you losing with this? - The choice to have SM

[ In Reply To ..]
health insurance or not? I said earlier, if you read the bill you will see that this penalty is not enforceable as written in the bill. If you don't want to lose your freedom, don't have insurance then. But I would then expect YOU to be responsible for YOUR health care bill, not me and others who have insurance. I want to have the freedom to not be responsible because you want to be free. This freedom argument is ridiculous IMO.

Civil liberties are never "ridiculous." - CivicsTeacher

[ In Reply To ..]
Civil liberties are precious so are never "ridiculous." However, it IS a circular argument being held here.

*IF* we were "free" (try not paying your taxes, and you will soon find out how "free" you and the rest of us SLAVES [yes, we are] really are!), you would NOT be assuming the burden for those who do not pay. PERIOD.

Likewise, anytime some motorcycle rider starts yakking about his right not to wear a helmet, my counterargument is, "Fine, then you should sign a waiver stating that you will NOT hold taxpayers liable for your hospital bill after your brains are scraped up off the pavement." But that does NOI occur, does it?

Making OTHERS assume responsibilities that WE ourselves should be responsible for was the FIRST STEP in setting the stage for socialized medicine. Everything has been so corrupted that this is where we find ourselves: with a FORCED MANDATE on EVERYONE. There is nothing "FREE" about ANY of this, INCLUDING the COST of the "healthcare." Mussolini and Mao would be VERY proud!

Fantastic post! - :)

[ In Reply To ..]
Clear and undeniable logic, yet still there will be those who will dislike (and not understand).

Continuing your argument then, I guess those - who can't afford SM

[ In Reply To ..]
health insurance on their own should be turned away, yes? Those that can afford it but want the freedom not to have should do what? You poo-pood the waiver idea, rightly so. I really don't understand your logic at all. If you want to be free not to have insurance, what is the answer then if you get sick? Who pays for your care?

New Flash - those that "can't afford it" - Have Medicaid

[ In Reply To ..]
That was the purpose of Medicaid. If they get sick, hospitals here actually have reps go to where the patient is to fill out the paperwork...FREE. Unerstand? Can't make it any easier than that.

Civics Teacher - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
This was a great post. Unfortunately, they are some on here that are so lacking in any historical education, they cannot possibly begin to understand the problems looming. There are others that are so into "free" stuff that they are completely blind as to the true cost of them. I have asked this question many times on this board, but no one has ever posted a sensible answer, just attacks...Since every single socialist government has failed along with their programs, at great cost to the average citizen (including loss of life at the hands of these governments), what makes you think Obama's ideas are going to work?

I suspect some will wake up when it affects them personally and they lose something dear, and others will never get it because they cannot reason through and are so married to their ideology.

Yes I did think it was a slippery slope then. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I really don't care which side is endorsing it, I think it's a bad idea. And if you look closely at Obamacare, I think you'll see that it does nothing to address the trajectory of health care costs either. That's where the focus should be - making health care more affordable to more people.

The difference in enacting this kind of thing in a state is that if the people don't like it, they have recourse - they can organize to get it on a ballot and vote for it or against it. When the government enacts something like this, we just have to shut up and take it.

You may not think the slippery slope fear is realistic, but if you would ask anyone alive and working 50 years ago if they thought the government could force them to buy something, I'd bet most of them would tell you that was crazy. Maybe it won't happen tomorrow or next year, but if they can do this, they can do anything.

Great point - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Sad to say, but everything you posted is 100% right now. Too many people never think through any situation long term, especially if they think they are getting immediate gratification.

Our tax dollars pay for things we don't like all the time. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
My taxes went to go pay for a couple of wars recently that I thought accomplished nothing. But the government forced me to help pay for it via my federal tax payment. They never asked me if I liked the idea, that's for sure. I don't think this is any different except it's on a more individual level. And at least it keeps the dollars in our county. No ridiculous nation-building of countries that we broke.

Have you read the bill? There are 2 places - in the bill that state SM

[ In Reply To ..]
that this tax/penalty has no force at all. If you don't pay it, it is written in 2 places that nothing will be done to you. The IRS cannot come after you, etc. It is really a mute point. The part that the SC changed in really important regarding the medicare part of this. In the original bill, all states were required to participate but the SC changed that to mandatory. Already, some of this "out of control" repub governors are stating they will opt out, basically letting the poorest in their state not be able to have coverage. They are doing this just because that is what they do..anything Obama proposes they are against. There is no hardship on them, the government will pay 100% of this for the first several years and then 90%. They are hurting their constituents because of their own selfish agenda. Very sad really.

Tax - Oldie

[ In Reply To ..]
There is a 3.8% tax on anyone who sells a house to pay for this healthcare bill. It is on top of the usual capital gains.

Not anyone who sells a house. - see link

[ In Reply To ..]
Only on high earners, top 3%. Very few people will pay this tax. This link explains it more clearly.

Oldie: Did you see the link that disproves your - post? Where do you SM

[ In Reply To ..]
get your (mis)information if I may ask? I hope now that you know the real facts about this tax only affecting the top wage earners, you won't perpetuate untruths to people who might blindly believe them (mostly Fox viewers IMO).

Another poster with Faux Derangement syndrome - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
You got plenty of misformation youself...coming from Media Matters, CNN, CBS, MSBNC...Come on, you can tell us where your bias starts.

BTW - Some of the same exact stories on Fox News are on your liberal carriers. Only difference is, the liberal channels give far less info, and it is twisted to fit Liberal Derangrement Syndrome. Pretty clear you are also lacking knowledge in the number of libs that appear on Fox. Lists of names have been provided in the past; can do so again. WE ALL KNOW HOW YOU LIBS HATE ANY TRUTH.

That is your opinion. Not fact - The facts are - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
The fact is 16,000 new IRS agents are being hired to enforce Obamacare.

Google it and you can have your choice of what links you prefer. There are many links.

It is not my opinion. Have you read the bill? - It;s in there. NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Have you Googled it - sm - I have some additional thoughts

[ In Reply To ..]
My only comment was on the point you wrote "The IRS cannot come after you, etc.". That is your opinion. Yes they can come after you. Did you Google it? Over 16,000 agents being hired just to enforce Obamacare.

Okay here are my thoughts on the health care bill.

Because I don't know all the details of it and nobody really does, I will say this:

I hope it's a good bill. I really do. If it means more people can get insured, people with preexisting conditions can be insured I hope it does and I hope it's good. I have catastrophe insurance because that's all I can afford. I pay for any doctors visits, meds, dentist, etc. out of my pocket. I have heard (and I'm going to tell you right now I don't know if this is true or not AND I didn't hear it on Fox because I don't watch them), but I heard my rates will go up. I heard there will not be enough doctors. I've heard you will have to wait longer for appointments.

I don't believe people should be forced to buy a product they don't want to own. I don't believe the government should tell us we have to buy something. If they start with this, what's next. They could use the argument of everyone needs health insurance into anything they want. Like everyone needs to eat vegetable to stay healthy so we are going to mandate that you buy vegetables. Or everyone needs to wear sunscreen for their health so everyone has to buy sunscreen. All I say is where does it stop. They can now force you to buy anything just by saying everyone needs it. I just don't think it's right.

I would have preferred a bill to be passed that everyone who wants health insurance will not be refused, but you don't have to buy something you don't want to own. If they made it more affordable for a lot of people then more people would buy it. Forcing someone to buy something they don't want is just wrong.

I read all the posts and there are two main issues I see.

First - more posters here are only concerned that it passed because a democrat passed it. The same plan by republicans they are against. All they care about is whether or not their party passed it.

Second - a lot of posters here are treating it like, if I have to pay then you have to pay attitude. Doesn't matter if someone can afford it or needs it, but its more like, well I'm spending money on it so you have to too. For some reason they think that their costs will go down if everyone is paying, but it won't. Our cost will remain the same and even go up (from what I've heard). I will try and look into this more from some independent sites.

Saddest of all is Dems desire to hurt - the poorest of the poor

[ In Reply To ..]
Poorest in my state, as most others were already covered by insurance. Your posts lacks facts all over the place.

With forced OBAMACARE, states cannot sustain the massive addition to Medicaid.

Unlike the Commie Obammie, states are required by law to have a balanced budget - COMMIE OBAMMIE still without a budget proposal in over 3-1/2 years.

Due to massive increase in Medicaid enrollments (many docs refuse to see Medicaid patients already due nonexistent reimbursements - does even cover expenses) now even more limited medical care available. Yeah - removing the health care altogether really helped the poor. WAY TO GO DEMS.

Due to Dems NOT properly balanciung budgets, STATE taxes are through the roof. THANKS TO THE DEMS LACK OF INSIGHT AND INTELLIGENCE, destined to go even higher with Obamacare.

GO REPUBLICANS....ONLY SOLUTON TO THE DEMOCRATIC TYRANNY.

Zville - Consersative

[ In Reply To ..]
That is the slippery slope this whole Obama regime started, which I am sure was his intent. People use the tired old argument "I'm tired of paying for those without insurance". Well, what makes them think that is going to stop? There are always those that are going to refuse to pay, and we will be forced to pick up their care, as well as our own. I have yet to see a coherent outline of why those in support of Obamacare think that others that want it are still not going to get a free ride. As I stated, I am now forced to pay for abortions, which is in violation of my right. I am forced to pay for illegals, who have no legal right to be here. On top of that, my employer dropped my insurance already in "anticipation" of the savings by just paying the fine. You also have business that are letting people go so they are well below 50 employees. Due to our recent Democrat governor, our state taxes are through the roof and adding millions more to Medicaid is a freaking nightmare - All because our good ole' gov never met a tax, entitlement and raise for himself, he did not like. He left a blessed holy mess for the Repbulican that took over, who is actually balancing the budget by using some common sense.

This is how I would try to answer your - questions> First of SM

[ In Reply To ..]
all, this "mandate" idea first came from the Heritage Foundation, a right leaning thing tank as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's attempt to reform health care. The repubs thought it was a great idea then, and Romney structured his plan for his state using this mandate. Romney's was stronger actually, he would take the tax refunds from people who refused to participate (those who could afford it but refused to buy it). The ACA does not do that BTW. It was only when it became a democratic idea that the repubs decided to be against it. IMO, this is the only reason why. I don't believe premiums going up have anything to do with the ACA. As it is, those who already have a policy they like can keep it, don't believe it when you hear otherwise. I would prefer actually to have a policy not tied to my job for the reason you stated in your post. I'm sure you will get many different views on this, though. I prefer to know the true facts about the ACA, not spin. It is spin that everyone's taxes will go up as well, FYI.

common - MTFISH

[ In Reply To ..]
Common and factual knowledge, yet 3 dislikes! Tea, anyone?

: ) - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Serious question - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Your viewpoint was nicely stated. I think it is more about the "force" than anything else. In America, at any given point in time, approximately 85% had insurance, leaving 15% approximately and out of that, estimates for illegals was anywhere between 2-5%. So, Obama threw over our entire health system for about 10% of the uninsured. On top of that, I am now forced to pay for abortions and illegals, people that refuse to work, all of which I am opposed to. I watched the photo op that Obama had on CSPAN where Obama stated he wanted an exchange of ideas. There were EXCELLENT ideas proposed. However, Obama flat out stated NOTHING they proposed would be used. He said he won and basically, whatever Obama wanted was all that was going to happen. Then, Obama forced this through Congress with lies and dirty deals. I think that is the essence of the Obama regime. This law DOES NOT provide health care as so many on here erroneously state. It is an exercise in complete, total control of all Americans. The more probing question is, why would you violate someone's personal religious beliefs and up end a system for 10%, when gradual tweaking and changing of the tort laws, removal of fraud and abuse from all systems, especially Medicare/Medicaid done far more and actually would save the taxpayers money?

What is so amazing on this board, is the fact that Obama's own people, the CBO and independent economnists ALL state that this program is going to cost a minimum of double what Obama said it would, there will be taxes on medical equipment, over the counter meds, prescription required for vitamins, forced coverage on people here already spitting on our laws (to name a few), yet people seem to think they are going to fair well. The numbers do not support any reduction in the cost of medical care, and DOES support massive increases in taxes for the middle class, unsustainable premium increases, copays and deductibles. I did accounting for large medical facilities and private practices in a previous life and Obama's statements DO NOT support what he is spewing.

It would make much more sense to decrease the massive debt and spending, decrease the government and federal benefits, restructure Medicare which is doomed to go bankrupt completely in less than 10 years if nothing is done whereby no one will be covered at all, and get rid of the waste and freeloaders on Medicaid. Yet people will villify Ryan (Medicare would only change for those 55 and UNDER, not for anyone 55 or older), saying Ryan wants to kill granny. HOWEVER, Obama cut $550,000,000,0000 from the Medicare program, which puts granny in far more jeopardy.

Similar Messages:

Jan 31, 2011
be unconstitutional. The decision also states that because this part is unconstitutional, the whole Act is null and void; i.e., they have to start over. Nothing on line yet. Keep looking. "Congress exceeded its authority" when it required mandatory health coverage. "Because there is no severability clause in the law"; the whole law is unconstitutional. ...

Sep 14, 2011
On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released its annual report on health insurance coverage in the United States. News media widely misconstrued the data and presented the problems facing the nation's health care system through a distorted lens. Many major news outlets made a basic error when reporting on the Census Bureau study. The Los Angeles Times wrote that "the number of Americans with no health insurance rose in 2010 to 49.9 million from 49 million the year before." But the figure c ...

Feb 18, 2012
Wondered if anyone has any good ideas on health coverage outside of employers. Cannot do enough time/lines to earn with employer and getting older although no major health problems? Anybody else with some problems? Do you just do without coverage and pray nothing happens? ...

Dec 13, 2011
Does anyone know of any type of group insurance for medical transcriptionistsm or any reasonable health insurance plan for individual contractors? ...

May 31, 2013
Hello, Can anyone recommend an affordable health insurance plan (if there is such a thing) as I subcontract and insurance is not offered at my present job. I am just looking for a single plan for myself. I'm having gallbladder issues and need to get this checked out, but can't afford the cost of surgery on my own. Any help is very much appreciated! ...

Jan 12, 2012
For the past year and a half I have been sans health insurance. Fortunately, I only have a couple of prescriptions that I take on an intermittent basis, and even those are generics. Walgreen's has a "Savings Club" for those without insurance. Normally enrollment costs $15 for a year, but this month only they have reduced it to $5 so I signed up. The club saved me $2 on today's Rx (meaning that the net enrollment cost for me was $3), and ...

Mar 31, 2010
I wrote to my congressman here in Pennsylvania asking how HCR is going to help me with my specific situation. My premium through work is high, but I need it because my husband is self-employed. I received a response a few days later this morning and wanted to share with you all in case you were also curious (in the same situation). "Two things will happen if your employer-provided coverage is deemed unaffordable (your insurance would be considered unaffordable if your premium payments total mor ...

Jul 28, 2010
Health and Life insurance quotes and information 1-800-933-2907 Only available in Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. ...

Jul 20, 2010
May need private health insurance in the near future. Does anyone have a private contract that includes preexisting conditions that wouldn't cost my whole paycheck - company I'm with doesn't have insurance. Tx ...

Jul 03, 2012
Health care law saves consumers over $1 billion Health care law provides rebates to more than 12 million consumers Today, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that 12.8 million Americans will benefit from $1.1 billion in rebates from insurance companies this summer, because of the Affordable Care Act’s 80/20 rule. These rebates will be an average of $151 for each family covered by a policy. The health care law generally requires insurance companies to s ...

Dec 04, 2012
I'm a small business owner, so I write off my medical insurance, but I didn't realize everyone could do it. ...

May 11, 2016
Anyone have supplemental health insurance because primary health insurance has too high deductible? If so, do you like it? Which company? Is it expensive? Thanks. ...

Jan 16, 2016
that was cheaper than the one you have now, with no deductible, including dental, lower drug prices, with little or no copays? Impossible you say? Maybe not! ...

Dec 03, 2009
So....a friend is for our US health care reform (already retired and on Medicare) because he had no trouble going to Canada to get laser surgery on his eyes so he wouldn't have to wear glasses and states there is nothing wrong with the Canadian system....but, and I'm asking a serious question here, how long do people really wait for emergent surgery if they belong to the Canadian system versus the American system as we have it now? How did Canada get their health care system up and ru ...

Apr 14, 2011
I added up my federal, state, and property taxes. If I was paying the full cost of my health insurance (employer shares cost), my taxes would be about $3,000 LESS than the cost of my health insurance. I get a of a lot more for my tax dollars than I do from my health iinsurance. But, I am so glad I am paying all that so the insurance CEOs can afford gas, car payments, and nice vacations. ...

Feb 03, 2010
Virginia's Democratic-controlled state Senate passed measures Monday that would make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a direct challenge to the party's efforts in Washington to reform health care. But the action in Virginia, a state that backed Obama in 2008, could indicate that the president is failing to reassure members of his own party that current reform efforts remain worthwhile. The votes also suggest that Democrats on the state level fear ...

Jun 19, 2010
I have been moving and working my butt off and I haven't even had the chance to pop on the news or surf the web! I am so lost in the world of politics.... BUT... I was wondering where that whole health insurance issue is standing. I figured here would be a good place to ask as how you guys are very knowledgeable on these things! Thanks! ...

Sep 24, 2012
So, don't bother to get health insurance. Don't worry if your insurance company dropped you because of pre-existing conditions. Just go to the ER and the rest of America will pay your bills for you. Problem solved. He's living on another planet. ...

Dec 10, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Your medical plan is facing an unexpected new fee. It's to help cover people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The $63-per-head fee — buried in a recent regulation —will hit health plans serving an estimated 190 million Americans, mostly workers and their families. It's payable starting in 2014. Employers are not happy. The cost of compliance works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest com ...

Nov 03, 2016
and its ban on pre-existing condition (“pre-ex”) exclusions means we don’t have health insurance any more. The ACA mandates that health plans enroll people with pre-existing conditions. That’s not insurance against a risk. That’s third-party financing of a known condition. The law also equalizes premiums for healthy enrollees and unhealthy enrollees. Both must be charged the same, regardless of health status. That’s not insurance either. Skyrocketing costs are the result. Peopl ...

Jun 16, 2013
for a 21 year old making $25000 a year in California will be $144 per month. Get the facts before falling for the lies about ObamaCare. ...

Nov 09, 2016
What will that do to the health care industry and our jobs? ...

Jul 23, 2017
Seriously? Does he know the difference between life insurance and health insurance? It seems not. This guy is running the country? OMG. ...

Aug 12, 2011
Posted: Aug 12, 2011 10:45 AM PDT Friday, August 12, 2011 1:45 PM EST Updated: Aug 12, 2011 11:56 AM PDT Friday, August 12, 2011 2:56 PM EST By GREG BLUESTEINAssociated Press ATLANTA (AP) - A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties. The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so- ...

Jan 07, 2013
January 5, 2013 Health Insurers Raise Some Rates by Double Digits By REED ABELSON ¶Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers. ¶Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small business ...

Feb 17, 2011
I am horrified at what is happening in Wisconsin and many other states. There has been a systemic effort to take away our rights and this is just the latest. If you are a working medical transcriptionist you know only too well about the cuts to wages and benefits. The corporate policies (using political influence) have offshored work, cut wages and benefits, driven workers into unemployment, so that the remaining workers will grasp at any reduced wages and benefits that might ...

Mar 20, 2010
For the first time in my life, I am without health insurance and it is a terrible feeling. In the past, I paid attention to the health care debate as a speechwriter who prepared speeches, talking points, op-eds, and debate prep material on the topic at different times for John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others. Now, I'm paying attention because I'm a citizen up the creek without a paddle. // Get the newPD toolbar! Throughout my life, I have been very luc ...

Sep 25, 2012
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/factchecking-health-insurance-premiums/ From Factcheck.org: "Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due ...

Jan 20, 2015
At a time when Republicans are trying to roll back certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (if not the entire law), a liberal advocacy group is looking ahead to the next round of taxpayer-subsidized health care "reform." Families USA says the ACA was a good start, but it has now outlined 19 specific proposals "to improve health care for everyone in our nation." The plan, called Health Reform 2.0, would "improve coverage and extend care." That means making dental coverage universall ...

Jan 26, 2014
Hi, I don't know exactly how to Google this question and was wondering if anyone just knew the answer? When I have renewed my insurance in the past online, it pops up my two vehicles, asking me if I own these vehicles and I say yes. Back six months ago when I got my insurance it popped up a third vehicle and I didn't check that vehicle, just the two I own and didn't think too much about it. Now, today, I just renewed insurance and AGAIN it popped up the same thir ...