Obamacare causes prices to skyrocket

[Mikeoxenormous]

I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance. I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy. My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%. The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).

And I'll bet you are so happy to be paying into this mess.

Dear Sun Devil 92
Why not require the people who support this plan to pay for it and provide for whoever they want to be covered under it; make it voluntary to opt into if it's so economical and sustainable.

Let the Green Democrats set up coops and singlepayer health care that those supporters opt into to pay for and provide health care for fellow members of that group.

Let the conservatives Republicans and Christians who believe in free market and prolife health care opt into that system and fund the solutions that group believes is most effective for covering for that population.

And let each group decide its own policies, terms and conditions, etc.

That way
* prochoice people can fund that policy and all its costs and consequences
* prolife people can support health care that doesn't involve abortion or abortifacient birth control
* whatever people believe in funding they can exercise freely without requiring the participation of others in opposition
* and other terms and conditions can also be
organized separately by party so people are grouped
by like beliefs:
- those who are for singlepayer and against the death penalty can redirect funding into preventative care, education and effective social services, and away from capital punishment or other abusive prison practices that waste taxpayer money destroying life and mental health instead of helping people with recovery and rehab

- those who believe in spiritual generational healing, as practiced in Christianity to eradicate the root cause of criminal abuse and addiction, can require this of their members in order to afford health care on a sustainable and cost effective basis.

My Christian Care

Choice: Members of Medi-Share have a God-honoring choice for their healthcare, and their dollars will never be used for procedures that go against their conscience.

Acceptable: Although not insurance, Medi-Share members are exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance or face financial penalties.

You know who wont use this service? Liberals, who are bigoted towards Christians. That is who. But you can bet, that they are trying to figure out how to destroy this system, just like they try to destroy the Christian community. Such hatred from the liberals, who can be compared to the Roman's persecution of the Christians.

 

[P@triot]

The worst legislation in U.S. history. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...

Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises

Dear P@triot
To be fair, I would say the equivalent argument
on the other side is to argue that the cost of
lives and resources on the War in Iraq was
equally if not more disastrous.

Both are argued as unconstitutional if you follow
traditional laws. Both required coloring outside the lines of
the Constitution in order to justify. And both involved
doling out trillions of dollars at taxpayers expense
without guarantee of achieving the goal, but in the
process imposing costs and damages onto people of
both nations. As many conservatives denounced Bush's actions
as unconstitutional as liberals denouncing Obama's; so the dissent
wasn't just partisan opposition, but within the respective parties as well,
criticizing the policies of their own party leaders and officials.

So in comparison of these two contested situations,
it isn't fair to criticize one and not the other.

That's simply not true emilynghiem. The Iraq War was the single most legal/constitutional war in U.S. history. The Bush Administration went before Congress as they are constitutionally required to do to declare war and received their approval. That was all they needed - but they didn't even stop there. They then went before the U.N. and ultimately received a UN Security Resolution which grnated them international approval for military action against Iraq.

 

[emilynghiem]

The worst legislation in U.S. history. From start to finish. From the illegal and unethical ways it was "passed" to the ignorant design, to the lies used to promote it - there has never been a bigger disaster than Obamacare...

Aetna Has Revealed Obamacare's Many Broken Promises

Dear P@triot
To be fair, I would say the equivalent argument
on the other side is to argue that the cost of
lives and resources on the War in Iraq was
equally if not more disastrous.

Both are argued as unconstitutional if you follow
traditional laws. Both required coloring outside the lines of
the Constitution in order to justify. And both involved
doling out trillions of dollars at taxpayers expense
without guarantee of achieving the goal, but in the
process imposing costs and damages onto people of
both nations. As many conservatives denounced Bush's actions
as unconstitutional as liberals denouncing Obama's; so the dissent
wasn't just partisan opposition, but within the respective parties as well,
criticizing the policies of their own party leaders and officials.

So in comparison of these two contested situations,
it isn't fair to criticize one and not the other.

That's simply not true emilynghiem. The Iraq War was the single most legal/constitutional war in U.S. history. The Bush Administration went before Congress as they are constitutionally required to do to declare war and received their approval. That was all they needed - but they didn't even stop there. They then went before the U.N. and ultimately received a UN Security Resolution which grnated them international approval for military action against Iraq.

Dear P@triot:
As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.

Yes, it can be argued that attacks on the pilots in the nofly zones count as attacks on the US.

But the major justification for military actions targeting Iraq were the UN policies on inspections, where going to war was not necessarily the next step of action in the process. So even by UN process, this leap to war was contested, and there was nothing that said it was necessarily the consequence.*

Now, I happen to agree with you and others that once the decision is made to go to war, the US should follow through until it is completely resolved, or it puts the troops, the nations and security at risk. So I don't believe it is safe to back out once that decision is made, the conflict and division compromises support and endangers the troops and enforcement of security and defense.

However, even though I believe the arguments about WMD were valid, and these chemical weapons were most likely moved into Syria and used later, this was not PROVEN as in due process before making a decision to act and deprive citizens of liberty.

So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully.

I tend to favor the decision of war once it is made. But I do recognize this decision and its justification as necessary wasn't proven to all citizens, and was faith-based.

So those people who disagree based on their faith in restorative justice to bring peace to avoid war can argue this wasn't fully Constitutional and restitution is owed for damages caused. I agree with that also, as part of the cost of war. I believe taxpayers are owed in the trillions of dollars of military spending on contracts that were contested.
And as much money should be invested as restitution to rebuild the health care systems in Iraq and reform the VA system for Vets who suffered intolerable damages from the war.

==========

* Note: this confusion over using either UN process or US policy to justify going to war, where people basically cite a mix of both policies together, is similar to arguments to justify passing ACA/Obamacare as Constitutional by first passing it through Congress as a public health bill, then approving it through Court as a tax. Had it been presented to Congress as a tax bill to begin with, it never would have passed; likewise, the argument against going to war with Iraq were that it would not have passed through Congress without the WMD claims later contested as faith based and thus rejected by people who required strong proof/confirmation before agreeing to go to war.

 

[emilynghiem]

I just got my rate increase letter from my health insurance. I have a grandfathered policy with no subsidy. My rate increase starting in a couple months will be 16%. The last few years it has been closer to 28% a year, so at least they are dialing it in some (or the numbers are getting so big that the percentages seem smaller as the actual dollar amounts rise of the rate increases).

And I'll bet you are so happy to be paying into this mess.

Dear Sun Devil 92
Why not require the people who support this plan to pay for it and provide for whoever they want to be covered under it; make it voluntary to opt into if it's so economical and sustainable.

Let the Green Democrats set up coops and singlepayer health care that those supporters opt into to pay for and provide health care for fellow members of that group.

Let the conservatives Republicans and Christians who believe in free market and prolife health care opt into that system and fund the solutions that group believes is most effective for covering for that population.

And let each group decide its own policies, terms and conditions, etc.

That way
* prochoice people can fund that policy and all its costs and consequences
* prolife people can support health care that doesn't involve abortion or abortifacient birth control
* whatever people believe in funding they can exercise freely without requiring the participation of others in opposition
* and other terms and conditions can also be
organized separately by party so people are grouped
by like beliefs:
- those who are for singlepayer and against the death penalty can redirect funding into preventative care, education and effective social services, and away from capital punishment or other abusive prison practices that waste taxpayer money destroying life and mental health instead of helping people with recovery and rehab

- those who believe in spiritual generational healing, as practiced in Christianity to eradicate the root cause of criminal abuse and addiction, can require this of their members in order to afford health care on a sustainable and cost effective basis.

My Christian Care

Choice: Members of Medi-Share have a God-honoring choice for their healthcare, and their dollars will never be used for procedures that go against their conscience.

Acceptable: Although not insurance, Medi-Share members are exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance or face financial penalties.

You know who wont use this service? Liberals, who are bigoted towards Christians. That is who. But you can bet, that they are trying to figure out how to destroy this system, just like they try to destroy the Christian community. Such hatred from the liberals, who can be compared to the Roman's persecution of the Christians.

Dear andaronjim
While there are SOME atheists who are proactively Anti-Theist and Anti-Christian, and are deliberately targeting Christians and churches, most people have their own problems to deal with and don't have time or energy to go after Christian churches and leaders.

Most people just want their rights protected, and don't want this religious interference with govt to mess up the laws.

There are lots of people who may personally hate and reject Christians and Christianity, but for the most part, they only care when it comes to govt and public policies, like abortion and schools. They will target those legal and legislative issues and attack Christians and Conservatives who propose challenges or reforms.

Where I might agree with you:
the secular liberals who reject Christianity to the point of DENYING the access and knowledge of spiritual healing is causing harm to people and running up costs of health care, disease, and crime especially abuse and addiction. These ills can be cured by spiritual healing, and save lives and resources to cover health care for the greater population.

so it is selfish to keep discrediting and rejecting Christianity, when it has the solution to health care by reforming prisons and mental health systems to save resources that could pay for medical education, services and housing on a sustainable basis instead of overfilling prisons and mental health facilities without curing anyone.

However, this is unintentional.
Both Christians and nonchristians who don't know that spiritual healing has been proven
effective and consistent with science and medicine are UNWITTINGLY blocking this knowledge and help from people whose lives, minds, health and relations could be saved from destruction.

So indirectly and unintentionally,
yes, the rejection of Christian practice
in terms of spiritual healing, is causing
death and destruction. And people don't even know it and that's why it is happening.

People lose their lives, minds and health every day to disease, crime, abuse and addiction,
homicide and suicide, that have been shown to be cured by applying Spiritual Healing to diagnose, remove and cure the generational sources of these ills.

Instead of investing millions into researching marijuana, which only placates symptoms and doesn't cure the disease, we should at least invest matching funds into spiritual healing that has been studied as curing a wide range of physical, mental and social ills.

 

[P@triot]

As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.

Emily - as I previously stated - Bush went before the United States Congress first and received their approval. You are conveniently omitting that in this instance.

 

[P@triot]

So people who don't BELIEVE war was necessary, but BELIEVE diplomatic solutions could be accomplished by connecting DIRECTLY with the Iraqi people and academic leaders and clergy deserved that chance, and are owed restitution for destruction caused by bypassing their right to petition to redress grievances peacefully.

Are you suffering from temporary insanity?!?

There is no "peacefully petitioning" a certified mad-man like Saddam Hussein. Don't you think the Iraqi people would have done that 35 years ago if that were even remotely an option? Do you even realize that Iraq was a full-fledged Democracy up until the late 1970's when Saddam assumed power through a military coup?

What you're doing here is rewriting the Iraqi history of the Saddam Hussein years (whether intentionally or unintentionally). There was no utopia Republic under Saddam Hussein. There weren't appellate courts, 1st Amendment rights, or a Senate to balance power. It was a vicious dictatorship and that was it. Nothing else. What Saddam said, when Saddam said it, or you died. Hell, even if you did exactly what Saddam said but he didn't like your performance, you were horrifically tortured. The torture that their Olympic athletes were subjected to for losing is legendary.

Nations whose Olympic athletes are tortured for losing are not afforded a "right to petition". Surely you know that already.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

As many Constitutionalists have argued that UN policies are NOT what the US/Congress/Military are sworn to uphold.

Emily - as I previously stated - Bush went before the United States Congress first and received their approval. You are conveniently omitting that in this instance.

Uh...this is about skyrocketting health care prices.

 

[P@triot]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And we have individual members saying that they are seeing 100% plus increases.