Opt Out of Obamacare with Health Shares (3 companies referred to me)

[emilynghiem]

Christ on a cracker, Emily, there's no insurance plan in North America called Obamacare, so opting out is not an issue.

If you're talking about the ACA, then it too is not a single plan. It is instead an Act of Congress that forces health insurance companies to actually insure their customers.

Why would anyone not want their insurance company to insure them????

It's the propaganda. It's eroded their brains as sure as the water in Flint eroded the pipes.

Dear rdean Grandma

So Constitutional beliefs that an Amendment should be voted on by States/People
before handing over this much power to federal govt
to regulate health care and personal finances is due to "propaganda"?

And is it "propaganda" to point out that the prochoice arguments
that federal govt should not penalize free choice of *something as risky as abortion*,
because protecting free choice is more important than any risks or damage potentially caused by abortion,
is totally being denied here in this case;
where the federal govt IS penalizing free choice of *something as harmless as whether to buy insurance*
and where "protecting free choice" is suddenly NOT that important or not seen as being violated at all.

Is that from "propaganda"?

If so rdean Grandma
is the opposition to these arguments equally from "propaganda"?
is the inability to see how any free choice is being compromised "due to propaganda"

Are you fair minded enough to see that if
"propaganda" is to blame for the adamancy of one side,
it's only fair to assume propaganda is to blame for the other
if they are BOTH equally unwilling, unable or refusing to understand
where the other is coming from.

I don't think it's from propaganda,
I think the problem is people on both sides have such DEEP ROOTED BELIEFS
it is biasing our ability to even see or understand the other viewpoint coming from a different CONTEXT.

We might as well be speaking French and Sanskrit and talking past each other.
Language differences are not due to "propaganda" but cultural conditioning.
The conditions on thinking from these different political beliefs are as deep or deeper
than for religious beliefs which at least people recognize and know to look out for.
With differences in political beliefs, there isn't that acceptance, but assumption
that the others are wrong, and the push to use govt and politics to attack and override the opposing
political beliefs. Much more hostile and a threat to equal rights, than religious beliefs that
more people understand should be kept out of govt so everyone can exercise those equally in private
without interfering with others. With political beliefs, we have outright religious wars going on to wipe out the other camp.

 

[Arianrhod]

what it does is forces people that work and earn their income to pay for those that don't.

No.

Medicaid provides coverage for people who are unemployed.

It also provides coverage for people in certain categories who are employed.

COBRA offers [often prohibitive] coverage to people who are between jobs.

The PPACA provides access to coverage for everyone else whose employer does not offer them coverage.

The reason so many of you are so angry is because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hi Arianrhod

What about the part where the FINES from people not buying into the mandates, regulations and requirements
go into the Federal Govt to pay for THAT program (which Constitutionalists like me don't agree with funding through INVOLUTARY federal mandates without first voting on a Constitutional Amendment so States and People have a say before giving up these PRIVATE decisions on health care and financial planning/"how to pay for it" to feds).

We DON'T have a choice in where our 'tax penalties' go;
so it currently goes into this same regime of managing MORE of our personal health care and financial decisions "through the Federal govt without the people/states voting on it first" which is EXACTLY what is being contested but is still being FORCED on us, even if against our beliefs.

What MIGHT be fair:
Each track has a system of exemptions where the fines/penalties go into a GENERAL FUND
under THAT system of paying/providing for health care NOT THE OTHER TRACK.

So if people are under the Free Market pool, then if they don't meet the requirements for exemptions under THAT system, their tax fines go into a pool that is managed under FREE MARKET principles (and/or prolife if these taxpayers also split off into a separate pool to avoid conflicting with prochoice taxpayers).

And if people are under the SinglePayer pool, then if they don't meet the requirements for exemptions under THAT system, their tax fines go into a pool managed under the current federal mandates, federal exchanges or whatever that administration comes up with.

So that way you DO have a choice what to opt into. You sign up and pay under the mandate for the track YOU believe in supporting, whether it's (for example):
* prolife and free market pool
* prochoice and singlepayer pool (can be managed by state or federal govt as long as people have VOLUNTARY CHOICE to opt in or out, currently we don't, because the fines go to federal govt to fund the current system that is DOES NOT include the Free Market track as an equal option)

Currently you don't have a choice, all citizens/taxpayers are under these federal mandates and if you don't comply the tax fines still go into THAT system. That's what the complain it, there is no free choice, so if we were going to give up our choice, that's where Constitutionalists are arguing there should have been a VOTE on a Constitutional Amendment agreeing to hand more of these private liberties/rights reserved to State/people over to federal govt (since the taxpayers affected are not proven to have committed any crime justifying depriving us of liberty, we are still owed some form of "due process" before depriving us of more of our natural rights / free choice).

Arianrhod how would the "prochoice crowd" like it if the federal govt decided to manage all health care under a prolife system, that fined anyone who wanted to pay under a prochoice system instead (since those were NOT approved exemptions). You are "still free" NOT to buy under the prolife plans, and TECHNICALLY can you can choose to fund and set up your own prochoice options, BUT YOU STILL GET FINED. And that penalty goes into the PROLIFE system that the federal govt is endorsing. So if you want to fund prochoice, by the tax fine you are still FORCED to fund the prolife IN ADDITION to whatever you pay for through your own prochoice systems, BUT NOT VICE VERSA because the federal govt wouldn't be forcing the prolife to fund the prochoice through the tax fines. Clearly that would NOT EQUAL but biased TOWARD prolife by forced funding and biased AGAINST prochoice by not exempting those options equally.

Wouldn't the prochoice crowd yell about having equal rights to fund programs through their prochoice system instead of being forced to either BUY into the prolife options or PAY FINES into the federal prolife system if they don't. Either way, they are being FORCED to pay a fine into the system that excludes what they believe in.

Emily, thank you for another thoughtful and detailed post. We all have to make moral choices, and I respect yours while I may not agree with them entirely.

My own moral dilemma comes from the knowledge that my tax dollars have been used to start wars in countries that have done us no harm, and support dictators in others.

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

 

[Grandma]

Emily, you're a doll, I like you, but please, I beg of you, be more concise.

Anyway, there truly is no specific "Obama Brand" insurance plan. Every state still has their own way of doing things, the difference being that the feds have set minimum standards in care level and fees.

Abortion is not open for discussion. At all.

Every woman has the Constitutional right to privacy, We The People don't need to crawl up anyone's vajayjay. Every woman and every doctor have the Constitutional right to freedom of religion, so if their god(s) doesn't/don't prohibit abortion, no xtian has the right to interfere.

Anyhoo, ultimately the USA will eventually go to a single-payer system. The increased taxes will actually be less that what we currently pay for private healthcare. Spouse and I pay about $2500 per year for insurance, plus his boss has to pony up some money as well. If we only had to pay $1250, that would be great. It doesn't matter to us if the insurance company or the taxman gets it, it's taken out of the paycheck before we see it anyway. And we'll get the same level of care.

Why do you have a problem with improving the country's standards?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Christ on a cracker, Emily, there's no insurance plan in North America called Obamacare, so opting out is not an issue.

If you're talking about the ACA, then it too is not a single plan. It is instead an Act of Congress that forces health insurance companies to actually insure their customers.

Why would anyone not want their insurance company to insure them????

It's the propaganda. It's eroded their brains as sure as the water in Flint eroded the pipes.

Can you be any more stupid ?

 

[dblack]

Emily, you're a doll, I like you, but please, I beg of you, be more concise.

Anyway, there truly is no specific "Obama Brand" insurance plan. Every state still has their own way of doing things, the difference being that the feds have set minimum standards in care level and fees.

Emily has, in no post I've read, conflated ACA ("Obamacare") with an insurance company. Yet you keep implying she is, which is a bit of a lie.

Anyhoo, ultimately the USA will eventually go to a single-payer system.

This is certainly an article of faith, and entirely unfounded in my view. ACA operates as a bulwark against single-payer - it was engineered as such quite explicitly.

Why do you have a problem with improving the country's standards?

Another implied accusation, unsubstantiated by emily's posts. She's opposed to Congress selling us out to the insurance lobby - as am I. This has nothing to do with standards, and everything to do with protecting the fundamental right of a consumer to say "No thanks" to a product or service if they don't feel it's worth the asking price. ACA strips us of that right and subjugates us all to the insurance industry as captive customers.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anyhoo, ultimately the USA will eventually go to a single-payer system.

This is certainly an article of faith, and entirely unfounded in my view. ACA operates as a bulwark against single-payer - it was engineered as such quite explicitly.

.

100 agreed.

It would be nice if we could evaluate single payer with other options.

The way things are going now...single payer will never get in the arena of serious consideration.

 

[dblack]

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Emily isn't expecting the insurance she's "buying" to provide any real value. It's just money thrown away - a hoop to jump through to get the feds off her back.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Emily isn't expecting the insurance she's "buying" to provide any real value. It's just money thrown away - a hoop to jump through to get the feds off her back.

Missing the point is her objective.

 

[Arianrhod]

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Emily isn't expecting the insurance she's "buying" to provide any real value. It's just money thrown away - a hoop to jump through to get the feds off her back.

Emily doesn't need you to interpret for her.

 

[dblack]

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Emily isn't expecting the insurance she's "buying" to provide any real value. It's just money thrown away - a hoop to jump through to get the feds off her back.

Emily doesn't need you to interpret for her.

But you do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My concern for you is that you at least consider Care4All's suggestion, because none of us can predict the future, and a catastrophic health situation can occur to any of us. I would hate for you to find out the hard way that your choice of an insurer cost you dearly in either financial or medical outcomes.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Emily isn't expecting the insurance she's "buying" to provide any real value. It's just money thrown away - a hoop to jump through to get the feds off her back.

Emily doesn't need you to interpret for her.

But you do.

Do you have an interpreter that turns English into Stupid ?

 

[emmalinesweets]

I thought this was a pretty good review of Liberty HealthShare: http://clubthrifty.com/liberty-healthshare-review/