Health care cost to exceed 25k in 2016

[emilynghiem]

From the index:

Anyone see Obamacare spiking healthcare costs?

Dear antontoo Me and several friends of mine can't afford health insurance. My salary goes toward paying off debts from nonprofits that don't count as exemptions. My other friends have such serious medical conditions, the cost of deductibles and premiums is beyond their means.

You may have a good plan through your employer (which I also used to have through last year).

But what about people who don't have that?
Why are we punished for something we can't afford?

Where does anyone get the idea that the govt has any authority to force you to JOIN a charity program you don't choose, at rates you can't afford and NEVER agreed to, or else pay a fine you didn't agree to either?

Bullshit.

Obamacare very specifically helps those that could not afford insurance.

It guarantees that your insurance costs would not exceed 10% of income.

it expands Medicaid to cover those making less than 130% of poverty level. And perhaps you are in one of those states where your Republican governor rejected the expansion, but dont blame that on Obamacare.

And finally, it very specifically makes the provisions for waiving of any penalty if somehow, someway, your insurance still ends up being unaffordable.

Dear antontoo
I didn't agree to any of these terms.
Spiritual healing is FREE and nonprofit services are VOLUNTARY.
Why can't I choose freely to invest in charitable and cooperative programs for providing services without being fined by govt?

I didn't agree to requirements to go with these health programs through govt, any more than I would require YOU or OTHERS to quit things like doing drugs, having abortions instead of abstaining, or other things that ending up COSTING MORE MONEY.

If I don't impose my beliefs and standards about "cutting costs of health care" on YOU, why should YOU or anyone else have the right to dictate or fine people's RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to invest in health care programs WE BELIEVE in. What makes YOUR belief system "LEGAL" to impose through govt under penalty of law? Do you understand this is govt regulating religion and discriminating by creed?

antontoo if you want to save money on health care, why not CHARGE the people who COMMIT CRIMES and INCUR costs to the public. Why are you trying to impose penalties on people like me who have COMMITTED NO CRIMES and NOT INCURRED DEBTS.

Can you explain what crime or abuse I have committed to justify "losing liberty" and my freedom of to pay for health care through charity programs that are either cheaper or FREE?

YOU may believe in govt regulated health insurance, but that doesn't give YOU or ANYBODY the right to impose your BELIEFS on me. Wouldn't you protest if people who believed in "prolife" programs saving lives and costs IMPOSING THAT ON YOU? or FINING you if you didn't pay into it?

Do you understand you are imposing beliefs?
If you don't get it, why not? I haven't been able to get anyone to explain to me how this is justified. Since there are charitable means and programs that are still needed to serve the greater demand for health care, why are those choices penalized? Can you explain? Thanks antontoo!

 

[AntonToo]

From the index:

Anyone see Obamacare spiking healthcare costs?

Dear antontoo Me and several friends of mine can't afford health insurance. My salary goes toward paying off debts from nonprofits that don't count as exemptions. My other friends have such serious medical conditions, the cost of deductibles and premiums is beyond their means.

You may have a good plan through your employer (which I also used to have through last year).

But what about people who don't have that?
Why are we punished for something we can't afford?

Where does anyone get the idea that the govt has any authority to force you to JOIN a charity program you don't choose, at rates you can't afford and NEVER agreed to, or else pay a fine you didn't agree to either?

Bullshit.

Obamacare very specifically helps those that could not afford insurance.

It guarantees that your insurance costs would not exceed 10% of income.

it expands Medicaid to cover those making less than 130% of poverty level. And perhaps you are in one of those states where your Republican governor rejected the expansion, but dont blame that on Obamacare.

And finally, it very specifically makes the provisions for waiving of any penalty if somehow, someway, your insurance still ends up being unaffordable.

Dear antontoo
I didn't agree to any of these terms.
Spiritual healing

"Spiritual healing" is RELIGION, not healthcare. And you certainly can do whatever you want as far as your religion goes, but getting properly insured, or at least paying a fine tax is still on you, so when your "low cost or free" jesus insurance falters it does not become on ME to bail you.

 

[emilynghiem]

From the index:

Anyone see Obamacare spiking healthcare costs?

Dear antontoo Me and several friends of mine can't afford health insurance. My salary goes toward paying off debts from nonprofits that don't count as exemptions. My other friends have such serious medical conditions, the cost of deductibles and premiums is beyond their means.

You may have a good plan through your employer (which I also used to have through last year).

But what about people who don't have that?
Why are we punished for something we can't afford?

Where does anyone get the idea that the govt has any authority to force you to JOIN a charity program you don't choose, at rates you can't afford and NEVER agreed to, or else pay a fine you didn't agree to either?

Bullshit.

Obamacare very specifically helps those that could not afford insurance.

It guarantees that your insurance costs would not exceed 10% of income.

it expands Medicaid to cover those making less than 130% of poverty level. And perhaps you are in one of those states where your Republican governor rejected the expansion, but dont blame that on Obamacare.

And finally, it very specifically makes the provisions for waiving of any penalty if somehow, someway, your insurance still ends up being unaffordable.

Dear antontoo
I didn't agree to any of these terms.
Spiritual healing

"Spiritual healing" is RELIGION, not healthcare. And you certainly can do whatever you want as far as your religion goes, but getting properly insured, or at least paying a fine tax is still on you, so when your "low cost or free" jesus insurance falters it does not become on ME to bail you.

Aha antontoo !
1. spiritual healing can be proven by science
yet it remains VOLUNTARY in order to work.
So if it cannot be regulated by govt, how can it be fined and punished as not an equal choice of health care? Isn't that a form of govt "regulating on the basis of religion" to exempt your beliefs on health care but penalize mine?

2. your beliefs about health care aren't proven, so they too are faith based. These mandates aren't chosen freely, yet you "believe" in imposing them as regulations and fines on other people AGAINST Constitutional beliefs and principles

This is exactly why it is contradictory to impose restrictions and fines on choices of health care, because BELIEFS are involved, and govt is not authorized to regulate or impose BELIEFS, much less discriminate and penalize them with FINES.

Can you explain why your beliefs about govt health care aren't treated equally as beliefs in free market and free choice
of charitable and spiritually based health care that works more cost-effectively?

 

[AntonToo]

Aha antontoo !
1. spiritual healing can be proven by science

So can placebo pills and tennis clubs, so it's not saying much.

 

[AntonToo]

Can you explain why your beliefs about govt health care aren't treated equally as beliefs in free market and free choice
of charitable and spiritually based health care that works more cost-effectively?

Government healthcare?

You mean the healthcare provided by private providers and paid for via private insurance? That government healthcare?

Given free choice and market people will select very cheap plans with a lot of fine print that will often fail to cover expensive treatments, leaving the patient, provider and indirectly other people on the hook.

Given free choice and market those with existing medical conditions will get dumped from plans and wouldn't be able to get new ones, or at least get it at reasonable prices.

Given free choice and market a lot of people will go without healthcare coverage which means when they get sick provider and/or public has to eat the cost. We are not barbarians that can just refuse medical help to someone are we?


These is not a hypotheticals, these are the outcomes of system prior to Obamacare. I don't see how a Christian in good conscience can support that system.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can you explain why your beliefs about govt health care aren't treated equally as beliefs in free market and free choice
of charitable and spiritually based health care that works more cost-effectively?

Government healthcare?

You mean the healthcare provided by private providers and paid for via private insurance? That government healthcare?

Given free choice and market people will select very cheap plans with a lot of fine print that will often fail to cover expensive treatments, leaving the patient, provider and indirectly other people on the hook.

Given free choice and market those with existing medical conditions will get dumped from plans and wouldn't be able to get new ones, or at least get it at reasonable prices.

Given free choice and market a lot of people will go without healthcare coverage which means when they get sick provider and/or public has to eat the cost. We are not barbarians that can just refuse medical help to someone are we?


These is not a hypotheticals, these are the outcomes of system prior to Obamacare. I don't see how a Christian in good conscience can support that system.

Dear antontoo
Given free choice people have abortions and some have legalized pot.
If people lobby to keep THOSE choices free of penalty and regulation,
what is wrong with the free choice of paying and providing for health
care through nonprofit medical schools and charities? How is charity causing harm?

Why does this HAVE to be through govt?
Why can't it be a choice?

Are people FINED if they don't use govt food stamps or govt housing?
That's an option if people need it, but aren't FORCED to use it as their only option!
People get TAX BREAKS for investing in real estate investment rental property.
Why not REWARD investors for creating more medical programs for education
training and services; why punish people for not depending on govt? Really?

Can you explain why the free choice of abortion isn't penalized or fined,
but the free choice of health care is? Why is one belief banned from being imposed by govt, but the other is railroaded through and people are fined for not complying where it violates beliefs?

Where are you getting that govt has the right to determine how people pay for health care?

Are you going to use govt to dictate that we all live in SMALLER cost-effective housing
so more people can access housing?

To make sure people pay for their kids, are you going to put govt in charge of collecting money from all people to go into a fund to pay for everyone's kids?

People already disagree on paying for schools. If we haven't solved that problem of conflicting policies, why add health care to the mix and have even more conflicts to resolve? When we haven't even solved the issues of public housing, schools and prisons where we don't agree on funding getting wasted.

What is wrong with believing in free choice, as in religion,
to choose which system fits our beliefs?

Do you understand this is like taking a charity like Red Cross or
the Catholic Church that believes in paying for prolife programs to prevent abortion,
and using govt to force everyone to fund those instead of having free choice of
what religious or nonprofit charity we want to donate or invest in to provide services?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you explain why your beliefs about govt health care aren't treated equally as beliefs in free market and free choice
of charitable and spiritually based health care that works more cost-effectively?

Government healthcare?

You mean the healthcare provided by private providers and paid for via private insurance? That government healthcare?

Given free choice and market people will select very cheap plans with a lot of fine print that will often fail to cover expensive treatments, leaving the patient, provider and indirectly other people on the hook.

Given free choice and market those with existing medical conditions will get dumped from plans and wouldn't be able to get new ones, or at least get it at reasonable prices.

Given free choice and market a lot of people will go without healthcare coverage which means when they get sick provider and/or public has to eat the cost. We are not barbarians that can just refuse medical help to someone are we?


These is not a hypotheticals, these are the outcomes of system prior to Obamacare. I don't see how a Christian in good conscience can support that system.

The outcomes have not changes.

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

 

[dblack]

Can you explain why your beliefs about govt health care aren't treated equally as beliefs in free market and free choice
of charitable and spiritually based health care that works more cost-effectively?

Government healthcare?

You mean the healthcare provided by private providers and paid for via private insurance? That government healthcare?

She means healthcare that's controlled by government. The federal government now forces us to buy insurance from government-approved insurance companies - insurance that only pays for healthcare provided by government-approved healthcare providers. That's what we mean by 'government healthcare'.

 

[AntonToo]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

 

[AntonToo]

She means healthcare that's controlled by government. The federal government now forces us to buy insurance from government-approved insurance companies - insurance that only pays for healthcare provided by government-approved healthcare providers. That's what we mean by 'government healthcare'.

by such loose definition we've always had "government healthcare"

 

[dblack]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

 

[dblack]

She means healthcare that's controlled by government. The federal government now forces us to buy insurance from government-approved insurance companies - insurance that only pays for healthcare provided by government-approved healthcare providers. That's what we mean by 'government healthcare'.

by such loose definition we've always had "government healthcare"

Well, 'always' is pushing it, but yeah - government has been encroaching on healthcare for along time. How's that been working out?

 

[AntonToo]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

Insurance is more expensive but not more expensive than it otherwise would have been according to historical trend.

And less coverage? Can you support such a claim?

 

[dblack]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

Insurance is more expensive but not more expensive than it otherwise would have been according to historical trend.

And less coverage? Can you support such a claim?

Yeah. Polices are more expensive with higher deductibles. I'm not going to google it for you, if that's what you're after.

 

[AntonToo]

Well, 'always' is pushing it, but yeah - government has been encroaching on healthcare for along time. How's that been working out?

I'm saying it's not a useful definition.

No, we don't have government healthcare unless we are talking about VA system.

 

[AntonToo]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

Insurance is more expensive but not more expensive than it otherwise would have been according to historical trend.

And less coverage? Can you support such a claim?

Yeah. Polices are more expensive with higher deductibles. I'm not going to google it for you, if that's what you're after.

You made two claims

1. Policies are more expensive. To which I said that they are not more expensive then their normal projected growth. No further response from you.

2. Policies provide less coverage - I'm asking you to support that statement, you refuse. Which to me says it's a statement really not based on anything.

 

[dblack]

Well, 'always' is pushing it, but yeah - government has been encroaching on healthcare for along time. How's that been working out?

I'm saying it's not a useful definition.

And dodging the fact that the more government intervenes, the worse things get. The spiraling costs of healthcare are a direct result of too much government interference in the health care market. That's why more of the same seems kind of insane.

 

[dblack]

The outcomes have not changes.

That's a clearly counter-factual statement.

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/styles/embedded_image/public/7.10.15.jpg?itok=KqCRF0x6

But let's go somewhere else.

If you are saying you want to use government to push Christian Values, please be man enough to say so.

Ridiculous nonsense.

And the insurance companies are very pleased by this outcome. But insurance is more expensive, and provides less coverage, than ever before.

Insurance is more expensive but not more expensive than it otherwise would have been according to historical trend.

And less coverage? Can you support such a claim?

Yeah. Polices are more expensive with higher deductibles. I'm not going to google it for you, if that's what you're after.

You made two claims

1. Policies are more expensive. To which I said that they are not more expensive then their normal projected growth. No further response from you.

2. Policies provide less coverage - I'm asking you to support that statement, you refuse. Which to me says it's a statement really not based on anything.

dance....

 

[AntonToo]

And dodging the fact that the more government intervenes, the worse things get. The spiraling costs of healthcare are a direct result of too much government interference in the health care market. That's why more of the same seems kind of insane.

Parroting same thing over and over without account for responses you get will not impress anyone.

Spiraling costs of healthcare is somehow not a thing in other countries with single payer systems is it? How can that be if government intervention causes higher prices? It would seem our healthcare spending should be way down compared to other, more government intervention heavy countries, but that's not what has been happening.

Government intervened to reform the system to slow down healthcare spending growth, establish standards for quality of coverage and make sure more people can get insured.

Facts show that the reform has so far been more or less successful in achieving those goals and has moved us in the right direction.

 

[AntonToo]

dance....

Hmm I didn't consider that. Thanks for your enlightening reply.