A healthcare dilema

[koshergrl]

So I know this person whose young adult son is disabled from the workforce. He can't afford health insurance so he just sits at home hoping one day his condition will get better. The father of this son believes that soon, under the new health care law, he'll be able to put his son on his policy and not have the pre-existing conditions effect it, and his son will get to see a doctor and have his conditioned cared for and hopefully fixed so he can return to the workforce. The father in this case votes Republican.

My question is - should I inform him that he is voting against his son's interests, or wait until Obamacare is repealed or struck down and have him find out the hard way?

"disabled from the workforce". What, exactly, does that mean? What sort of disability? What "treatment" is he unable to get now, that he will be able to get that will allow him to return to the workforce? Is he receiving disability? Why not, if he's disabled?

I think you're full of shit. And if you aren't, I'll bet the son is, and you're an idiot for believing him.

 

[Steelplate]

There are many ways to create a viable healthcare system. ObamaCare is not an either/or choice. If ObamaCare goes away, that does not mean we return to the status quo. It also does not mean the only viable alternative is UHC.

Never said uhc. I said a public option. If you are a low wage worker, it's a basic service. If you can afford a Cadillac plan, you get one. The folks in between can use the public option and still have the option of going with a variety of supplemental plans that would suit their needs.....at least that's the way I'd do it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You should inform him that Obama should have found a constitutional manner in which to pay for Obamacare. BTW September 23 of 2010 those with preexisting conditions became eligible for Obamacare and your friends son should have already been covered up to age 19 and...

How is the law unconstitutional? We're obliged to buy auto insurance. What's going to happen if someone calls an ambulance, but doesn't have insurance? Will the ambulance or emergency room be able to "opt out" of caring for them? If not, aren't you just enabling freeloaders?

Well I dont care for the insurance law, BUT you dont have to drive a car. How do I not buy health insurance under this plan without being penalized?

Because you won’t be penalized.

The ACA specifically states that those who refuse to buy insurance will be subject to neither a criminal nor civil penalty.

The worst-case scenario if you do refuse to buy health insurance is your income tax refund will be garnished. If you have no refund coming the IRS could take you to court, which won’t happen since the expense of the suit alone would exceed any funds you owe.

The IM is a bluff, the government is betting only a tiny percentage of Americans will call that bluff, such a small percentage that their lack of participation won’t adversely effect the program.

 

[francoHFW]

Against ACA? You're a brainwashed IDIOT.

 

[francoHFW]

Not to worry, that's 70% of the country.

 

[francoHFW]

There are many ways to create a viable healthcare system. ObamaCare is not an either/or choice. If ObamaCare goes away, that does not mean we return to the status quo. It also does not mean the only viable alternative is UHC.

Never said uhc. I said a public option. If you are a low wage worker, it's a basic service. If you can afford a Cadillac plan, you get one. The folks in between can use the public option and still have the option of going with a variety of supplemental plans that would suit their needs.....at least that's the way I'd do it.

Won't pass for years...commie. lol

 

[francoHFW]

Holland and Switzerland have a plan like ACA...

 

[dblack]

Because you won’t be penalized.

The ACA specifically states that those who refuse to buy insurance will be subject to neither a criminal nor civil penalty.

The worst-case scenario if you do refuse to buy health insurance is your income tax refund will be garnished. If you have no refund coming the IRS could take you to court, which won’t happen since the expense of the suit alone would exceed any funds you owe.

The IM is a bluff, the government is betting only a tiny percentage of Americans will call that bluff, such a small percentage that their lack of participation won’t adversely effect the program.

Only a small subset of the ACA apologists are slinging this line, and for a good reason: They know how stupid it sounds. No one really believes that the government would pass a law it doesn't intend to enforce. If and when a large portion of taxpayers revolt against the mandate, do you really think the feds will just give up? No, they'll find or legislate an exemption (assuming one isn't already tucked away in the law somewhere) and proceed to do what is necessary to ensure compliance.

 

[hortysir]

Holland and Switzerland have a plan like ACA...

Go there

 

[old navy]

A couple of thoughts:

-Requiring one to purchase health coverage is not providing health care.

-Comparing health care in the U.S. to most any other country in the world is about as useless as comparing education.

-Someone mentioned Obama selling out to Big Pharma. This is another example of his poor leadership and doing business as usual. One of the reasons for the explosion in HC costs in recent years is the cost of medication. The big driver in pharmaceutical costs is advertising. Most think research or big executive salaries push up the costs but the companies were allowed to advertise their prodects in the 90s and the result has been higher drug prices. I'm as big a believer in free market economics as the next guy but those two minute commercials on Cymbalta or Viagra are not needed. Not only does the ad cost a lot of money, but now the patient goes to the provider demanding the latest and greatest drug seen on TV. The doctor obliges and writes for a drug that might not have been necessary or could have been substituted by one cheaper.

-Another cost saver would be tort reform. The costs associated with litigation are not that much, but the costs with physicians practicing defensive medicine are very high.

 

[koshergrl]

Still waiting for the particulars on the make-believe *disabled but not disabled* yahoo that sparked the thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So I know this person whose young adult son is disabled from the workforce. He can't afford health insurance so he just sits at home hoping one day his condition will get better. The father of this son believes that soon, under the new health care law, he'll be able to put his son on his policy and not have the pre-existing conditions effect it, and his son will get to see a doctor and have his conditioned cared for and hopefully fixed so he can return to the workforce. The father in this case votes Republican.

My question is - should I inform him that he is voting against his son's interests, or wait until Obamacare is repealed or struck down and have him find out the hard way?

My question is, do you have a brain?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't the provision that allows 26 year olds on parents' insurance already go into effect?

Yes, so did the provision that prohibits insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. The real problem is that those policies are so expensive that the government already spent all the money they had set aside for them even though enrollment is a small fraction of what they expected.

 

[signelect]

It is a shame that we don't have health care for everyone but to mandate it is wrong.. I pay for mine you pay for yours. the real crime is that I have paid for mine in the form of Medicare and SS and now congress has stolen the trust fund and want to reduce MY benefits while passing a totally separate plan for the selves. What a bunch of frauds.

 

[KissMy]

So I know this person whose young adult son is disabled from the workforce. He can't afford health insurance so he just sits at home hoping one day his condition will get better. The father of this son believes that soon, under the new health care law, he'll be able to put his son on his policy and not have the pre-existing conditions effect it, and his son will get to see a doctor and have his conditioned cared for and hopefully fixed so he can return to the workforce. The father in this case votes Republican.

My question is - should I inform him that he is voting against his son's interests, or wait until Obamacare is repealed or struck down and have him find out the hard way?

Was he insured at the time he became disabled??? If not then screw them. They need to pay for his care out of pocket.

 

[konradv]

You should inform him that Obama should have found a constitutional manner in which to pay for Obamacare. BTW September 23 of 2010 those with preexisting conditions became eligible for Obamacare and your friends son should have already been covered up to age 19 and...

How is the law unconstitutional? We're obliged to buy auto insurance. What's going to happen if someone calls an ambulance, but doesn't have insurance? Will the ambulance or emergency room be able to "opt out" of caring for them? If not, aren't you just enabling freeloaders?

Well I dont care for the insurance law, BUT you dont have to drive a car. How do I not buy health insurance under this plan without being penalized?

How do you not need health care at some time in your life? Are you going to opt out of being treated, if you need an ambulance or emergency room?

 

[konradv]

You should inform him that Obama should have found a constitutional manner in which to pay for Obamacare. BTW September 23 of 2010 those with preexisting conditions became eligible for Obamacare and your friends son should have already been covered up to age 19 and...

How is the law unconstitutional? We're obliged to buy auto insurance. What's going to happen if someone calls an ambulance, but doesn't have insurance? Will the ambulance or emergency room be able to "opt out" of caring for them? If not, aren't you just enabling freeloaders?

Seriously?
This lame-ass argument again???

Auto insurance is on the condition of buying a car. No one is forced to buy a car.
Obamacare is on the condition of being fucking BORN!!!

OK, then why should an ambulance or emergency room be forced to treat those without insurance? Are you saying those without insurance will be left on the side of the road?

 

[konradv]

You should inform him that Obama should have found a constitutional manner in which to pay for Obamacare. BTW September 23 of 2010 those with preexisting conditions became eligible for Obamacare and your friends son should have already been covered up to age 19 and...

How is the law unconstitutional? We're obliged to buy auto insurance. What's going to happen if someone calls an ambulance, but doesn't have insurance? Will the ambulance or emergency room be able to "opt out" of caring for them? If not, aren't you just enabling freeloaders?

If I drive down the road in my car, everybody else on the road (or sidewalk) is at risk, thus I have auto insurance.
Now, how is my perfectly healthy body putting you at risk?

I'm at the risk of picking up your tab. Using your logic ambulances would leave people that didn't have insurance on the side of the road and emergency rooms would refuse service. Is that the country you want? if not, we've got to have to find a way where as many people as possible contribute.

 

[old navy]

Didn't the provision that allows 26 year olds on parents' insurance already go into effect?

Yes, so did the provision that prohibits insurers from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. The real problem is that those policies are so expensive that the government already spent all the money they had set aside for them even though enrollment is a small fraction of what they expected.

And that is always the question. Who will pay and how will it get paid for? VP Biden told Obama this is a BFD and the prez signed the PPACA into law in March 2010 with the black kid next to him with the set of 40 signing pens and the kid was dressed like Obama. If Obama had a son, he would look like... wait that's another thread.

Anyway, this was a piece of crap legislation to start with from the point of view of both sides of the aisle. o-poo-poo's story is BS posted just to stir up shit. His political knowledge is about as good as his ability to pick college football national champions.

 

[koshergrl]

When we established laws that required vehicle owners to maintain insurance, we started down this slippery slope.

My ex father in law said when automobile insurance became mandatory that it was the beginning of the end for the US. He said it was just a matter of time, that we had signed over our country to insurance companies and doomed it to statism.

And he was right.