What Is It About "Obamacare" That Is Going To "Ruin America"?

[martybegan]

I disagree. The people saying this is a bad thing are over analyzing it. This is not going to run every aspect of your life. You do have a choice. You can get insurance or you can pay the penalty. people are force to accept the will of the masses everyday. With that freedom comes responsibilities for people less fortunate. The government is there to provide for the common good. This is one of the few times I have really seen that in action recently.

"Pay this or Pay that" is not a choice and you know it.

And the government is not your own personal police force to make me do what you or anyone else wants me to do, unless you want to prosecute me for a crime.

And people are not SUPPOSED to be forced to do the will of the masses if what they want to do has NO IMPACT on other people, you keep forgetting that part.

 

[Asclepias]

"Pay this or Pay that" is not a choice and you know it.

And the government is not your own personal police force to make me do what you or anyone else wants me to do, unless you want to prosecute me for a crime.

And people are not SUPPOSED to be forced to do the will of the masses if what they want to do has NO IMPACT on other people, you keep forgetting that part.

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

Yes it is. i pay taxes that pay the wages of congress and the supreme court. Thats why they make laws in the legislative branch and enforce them in the judicial. Its a crime not to pay your taxes.

How can you miss the fact that not having insurance does have an impact on everyone? As a tax payer I have to pay for your visit to the hospital or emergency room visit if you don't have insurance. I'm tired of people that are sick not having medical coverage. One of my clients was so happy about this she was crying. She couldn't even get coverage before and now she can.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

Yes it is. i pay taxes that pay the wages of congress and the supreme court. Thats why they make laws in the legislative branch and enforce them in the judicial. Its a crime not to pay your taxes.

How can you miss the fact that not having insurance does have an impact on everyone? As a tax payer I have to pay for your visit to the hospital or emergency room visit if you don't have insurance. I'm tired of people that are sick not having medical coverage. One of my clients was so happy about this she was crying. She couldn't even get coverage before and now she can.

How about pay nothing and get no insurance? How about people who dont go to the doctor all year? Do I "Pay" for them?

If you care so much about your friend being able to afford insurance, why dont you help her pay it instead of using the governments gun at my head to make me do it?

Oh right, you are a progressive, you only like to play with OTHER people's money.

 

[dblack]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

I always get a chuckle out of people who can actually present this point of view with a straight face. It's stunning so many of you have no conception of what liberty is.

 

[MikeK]

This is so obvious George. All those poor people will now all start going to the doctor so the rest of us will never be able to get our fair share of healthcare. We'll be waiting 12 months just to see a doctor when we get sick. This is horrible George. And nobody will want to become a doctor because they will have to see too many patients. Who would want to see all those sick people anyway. We are in so much trouble George. Can't you see this?

That is a valid concern. But during the course of problem-solving once this AHC program gets under way it is possible government will be forced to consider an obvious solution, one which should have been considered long ago and which I will outline as follows.

I have a problem with fingertip infections. The slightest cut or deep scratch results in infection. Typically, when it happens I go to my GP, wait an hour or more, and get a prescription for an antibiotic. I believe that costs Medicare about $75 for the visit.

Some years ago I noticed an infection starting on a Friday afternoon, too late to go to my GP. So I went to a hospital emergency room where i waited for two hours, was interviewed for fifteen minutes by a social worker, waited another two hours, was taken to a ward, told to lie in a bed and even though fully clothed was covered with a sheet. I waited another hour there to finally be seen by a tired, clearly overworked intern who seemed annoyed with my relatively minor complaint (a swollen finger). And although I told him all I needed was an antibiotics prescription, the intern insisted it was necessary to open and drain the finger, which he did. That adventure occupied more than six hours and cost my insurance company (GHI) over five hundred dollars, (for "surgery") plus my $45 co-pay.

When I was in the military I had finger infections three times. Each time it happened I would stroll over to Sick Bay, where an enlisted Hospital Corpsman would take a look at my finger, ask me a few questions, hand me a little box of penicillin tablets and tell me how to take them. That's it. Ten minutes. No surgery. No need for an MDs attention. No waiting. No long interview. In and out!

Another time, during field maneuvers in the Philippines, a huge, wickedly painful boil arose on an inner thigh, effectively disabling me. A Field Corpsman in a squad tent applied a topical anesthetic, injected something, lanced and drained the boil, dressed it and gave me a little box of penicillin tablets. Next day I was back on full duty.

The question I have is inasmuch as the simple level of treatment I received for a relatively minor medical problem was (is?) good enough for our military personnel, why isn't the same level of treatment for minor medical problems dispensed to civilians by former military medics, EMTs, and Nurse Practicioners in place of the usual redundantly bureaucratic rigamarole, long waits, outrageous cost, and unnecessary need to be "seen" by an MD?

If there were some sort of walk-in clinic available to me when I have a minor infection, as well as to many millions of others with common, equally minor medical problems but who have no choice but to be "seen" by MDs and to endure the unnecessary and costly ordeal of an emergency room, the problem of insufficient medical services could be solved.

What it would take to accomplish this is legislation aimed at eliminating dominance of medical services by the legal profession -- which lies at the root of the problem.

 

[Asclepias]

How about pay nothing and get no insurance? How about people who dont go to the doctor all year? Do I "Pay" for them?

If you care so much about your friend being able to afford insurance, why dont you help her pay it instead of using the governments gun at my head to make me do it?

Oh right, you are a progressive, you only like to play with OTHER people's money.

Thats fine but you need to provide a fail safe in case you dont happen to plan for illnesses or injuries you don't see in your crystal ball. How can you protect against me having to pay for someone with the mentality of a teenager that believes nothing will ever happen to them?

I do help. I pay taxes. I'd much rather her having medical coverage she can afford on her own however. I cant pay financially for everyone so others need to pitch in and help.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

I always get a chuckle out of people who can actually present this point of view with a straight face. It's stunning so many of you have no conception of what liberty is.

Liberty is a philosophical notion that really has nothing to do with this. If you knew what it meant you would understand that the AHCA is the least of your worries.

 

[martybegan]

Thats fine but you need to provide a fail safe in case you dont happen to plan for illnesses or injuries you don't see in your crystal ball. How can you protect against me having to pay for someone with the mentality of a teenager that believes nothing will ever happen to them?

I do help. I pay taxes. I'd much rather her having medical coverage she can afford on her own however. I cant pay financially for everyone so others need to pitch in and help.

Why do you need assurance for this? Arent you happy to help your fellow man? After all you are the one trying to force me to do the same thing.

If you live in a community or state that wants to do this, fine. Just dont be suprised when the people who really end up paying for it start moving away. If this is such an awesome system, why doesnt it work at the state level?

 

[Asclepias]

Why do you need assurance for this? Arent you happy to help your fellow man? After all you are the one trying to force me to do the same thing.

If you live in a community or state that wants to do this, fine. Just dont be suprised when the people who really end up paying for it start moving away. If this is such an awesome system, why doesnt it work at the state level?

I need assurance the same reason I need to know that if you never get into an auto accident you have the ability to pay in the event you do. I'm all for helping my fellow man but it makes more sense to do it this way.

I dont think people are going to leave the country. You're reaching now. I dont know of any states that have had this system before. So the reason for its failures if it existed could be a variety of things. What does this have to do with something implemented at the federal level? That fact right there changes the ball game tremendously.

 

[martybegan]

I need assurance the same reason I need to know that if you never get into an auto accident you have the ability to pay in the event you do. I'm all for helping my fellow man but it makes more sense to do it this way.

I dont think people are going to leave the country. You're reaching now. I dont know of any states that have had this system before. So the reason for its failures if it existed could be a variety of things. What does this have to do with something implemented at the federal level? That fact right there changes the ball game tremendously.

All car insurance does is prevent you from having to go to court for every accident, it is far different from health insurance, which pays for services rendered. Plus you can opt out of car insurance by driving, driving is not a right.

I know most people will not leave the country, thats why they have to do it nationally. If they did it on a state level moochers would just mooch, and the working people would leave. They know it only works if the supporting taxpayers can't get out of it, which could happen at a state level.

 

[shikaki]

All car insurance does is prevent you from having to go to court for every accident, it is far different from health insurance, which pays for services rendered. Plus you can opt out of car insurance by driving, driving is not a right.

I know most people will not leave the country, thats why they have to do it nationally. If they did it on a state level moochers would just mooch, and the working people would leave. They know it only works if the supporting taxpayers can't get out of it, which could happen at a state level.

Your premise that everyone is a moocher but you is ridiculous. Every time I pay a tax that helps support our military fighting in other countries it really, really bothers me, but I have to rely on the fact that the government has made the right decision. Why do you feel unlike everyone else, you get to pick and choose what is worth supporting at a federal level? This is a law, why is this law so much worse than any other federal law that requires financial support? Why do you feel it is OK to live in a country and not care about your fellow countrymen? Why is it if someone needs help, they are moochers? What has made you so skeptical and angry?

There are laws we have that I completely disagree with, but I live and obey them for the greater good of the country and myself. How can anyone consider themselves a patriot and remain so dissident against the greater good?

Are all the elderly moochers, because they participate in SS and medicare? I'm sure when SS came alive in 1935, everyone was concerned about the moochers that just wanted a retirement, instead of having personal responsibility and saving for it.

 

[dblack]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

I always get a chuckle out of people who can actually present this point of view with a straight face. It's stunning so many of you have no conception of what liberty is.

Liberty is a philosophical notion that really has nothing to do with this. If you knew what it meant you would understand that the AHCA is the least of your worries.

Your conception of choice is nonsensical. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as coercion - anytime you're threatened with a negative consequence you have a choice: submit, or suffer.

Out of curiosity, would you also argue that you have a choice when confronted by a mugger? Give up your cash or get shot?

The fact that you can suggest that a choice between obeying and paying a fine in any way resembles political freedom is telling, and pretty much invalidates your entire argument. You might what to rethink that rhetoric.

 

[Asclepias]

All car insurance does is prevent you from having to go to court for every accident, it is far different from health insurance, which pays for services rendered. Plus you can opt out of car insurance by driving, driving is not a right.

I know most people will not leave the country, thats why they have to do it nationally. If they did it on a state level moochers would just mooch, and the working people would leave. They know it only works if the supporting taxpayers can't get out of it, which could happen at a state level.

I used it merely as a comparison to the requirement of having insurance and proving you are financially able to pay for accidents your crystal ball does not predict. Dont let that throw you off topic.

What state had this and it failed?

 

[Asclepias]

I always get a chuckle out of people who can actually present this point of view with a straight face. It's stunning so many of you have no conception of what liberty is.

Liberty is a philosophical notion that really has nothing to do with this. If you knew what it meant you would understand that the AHCA is the least of your worries.

Your conception of choice is nonsensical. By your reasoning, there is no such thing as coercion - anytime you're threatened with a negative consequence you have a choice: submit, or suffer.

Out of curiosity, would you also argue that you have a choice when confronted by a mugger? Give up your cash or get shot?

The fact that you can suggest that a choice between obeying and paying a fine in any way resembles political freedom is telling, and pretty much invalidates your entire argument. You might what to rethink that rhetoric.

Its not my concept. I looked it up in the dictionary. There is no prerequisite that your decision is not coerced.

From a dictionary

the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

If confronted by a mugger my choice would be to give up my cash. i can get that back later.

 

[Steven_R]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

The mob says the same thing everytime it shakes down a business owner for protection money. "You have a choice to pay the protection or get your knees broken. Which is it?"

 

[Asclepias]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

The mob says the same thing everytime it shakes down a business owner for protection money. "You have a choice to pay the protection or get your knees broken. Which is it?"

That was insightful. Whats your point?

 

[Steven_R]

A choice at the point of a gun is no choice. A choice between buying something you don't need or want OR paying a massive fine/tax is no choice.

 

[Pauli007001]

Those who always had insurance will lose out in this.
Another badly thought out way to stick it to the 90% who did the right thing whilst pampering the lazy 10% or less.
Show me one socialist policy ever, anywhere on earth that benefited the majority?

It's that REVENGE the racist obamessiah promised.

 

[Asclepias]

A choice at the point of a gun is no choice. A choice between buying something you don't need or want OR paying a massive fine/tax is no choice.

But it is a choice unless you are choosing to redefine the word. If so you need to give warning. I dont need or want homeowners dues but when i signed up to live in this community I agreed to pay them. If I dont then I have the choice to move somewhere else. You always have a choice. No one promised it would always be a pleasant one.

 

[Pauli007001]

Actually it a choice. You have a choice to pay the penalty or get insurance. How can you not see that is a choice?

The mob says the same thing everytime it shakes down a business owner for protection money. "You have a choice to pay the protection or get your knees broken. Which is it?"

That was insightful. Whats your point?

Wait till it goes full on socialized!!
The people who pay for it will be denied.
Those who use it without paying will be prioritized.

All the special interest groups for example.