Obamacare is affordable care!

[Wry Catcher]

5 Things to Know About the Cost of Obamacare Coverage | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance

Most of the hysteria around Obamacare is based on lies. Of course it will not be perfect, but what law ever passed by The Congress has ever pleased everyone?

 

[dblack]

5 Things to Know About the Cost of Obamacare Coverage | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance

Most of the hysteria around Obamacare is based on lies. Of course it will not be perfect, but what law ever passed by The Congress has ever pleased everyone?

No, most of the hysteria around Obamacare is based on government taking over our personal decisions regarding health insurance.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. Personal decision concerning healthcare.

You are 70, your wife is 60, with health issues. Your SS and pension amount to 30K. If you can get basic insurance for your wife, it will cost about 10K. Now, what do you do, not eat, live in a tent, or let the wife go without health insurance?

Under the ACA, in that scenerio, the health care will cost less than 1700 dollars for that couple after 1Jan2014. Sounds like a winner for a lot of people to me.

 

[dblack]

OK. Personal decision concerning healthcare.

You are 70, your wife is 60, with health issues. Your SS and pension amount to 30K. If you can get basic insurance for your wife, it will cost about 10K. Now, what do you do, not eat, live in a tent, or let the wife go without health insurance?

Under the ACA, in that scenerio, the health care will cost less than 1700 dollars for that couple after 1Jan2014. Sounds like a winner for a lot of people to me.

It will be a 'winner' for a lot of people. Mostly it will be the minority taking one for the team. That's the nature of this kind of law, and why it's so insidious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

5 Things to Know About the Cost of Obamacare Coverage | The Exchange - Yahoo! Finance

Most of the hysteria around Obamacare is based on lies. Of course it will not be perfect, but what law ever passed by The Congress has ever pleased everyone?

No, most of the hysteria around Obamacare is based on government taking over our personal decisions regarding health insurance.

I get it, you hate the people we elect to govern our nation and would prefer some CEO of an Insurance Company set the rules instead.

I think that's stupid. We can toss the elected officials out but we would be stuck with the CEO. We would then allow an unregulated for profit business to spend our premium payments on increasing the wealth of the executive management and the company and less on providing payments to the injured and ill.

Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims, they are in business to make money.

 

[Wry Catcher]

OK. Personal decision concerning healthcare.

You are 70, your wife is 60, with health issues. Your SS and pension amount to 30K. If you can get basic insurance for your wife, it will cost about 10K. Now, what do you do, not eat, live in a tent, or let the wife go without health insurance?

Under the ACA, in that scenerio, the health care will cost less than 1700 dollars for that couple after 1Jan2014. Sounds like a winner for a lot of people to me.

It will be a 'winner' for a lot of people. Mostly it will be the minority taking one for the team. That's the nature of this kind of law, and why it's so insidious.

So you would prefer allowing minorities to go without health insurance because they're ________ fill in the blank, please. And yet, minorities, foreign visitors to our country and the working poor will receive treatment at public/county emergency rooms which all of us will pay for via local taxes and fees.

I really don't believe you've thought through the issue of health care in America and/or your a member of the "let him die" crowd.

 

[dblack]

I get it, you hate the people we elect to govern our nation and would prefer some CEO of an Insurance Company set the rules instead.

No - you very much DON'T get it. The people we elect to govern our nation have the power to coerce me to their will. The insurance companies don't. Or rather didn't, until the idiocy of PPACA made it so. This is the blatant ******* insanity of your position I can't get past.

I think that's stupid. We can toss the elected officials out but we would be stuck with the CEO. We would then allow an unregulated for profit business to spend our premium payments on increasing the wealth of the executive management and the company and less on providing payments to the injured and ill.

This is utterly inside-out wrong. If you are in the minority (as I almost always am) you can't do a damned thing about what our elected officials decide to force on you. If you defy them, you go to jail. On the other hand, in a free market, I can tell the CEO to go **** himself.

PPACA denies us that freedom - it forces us to take whatever the insurance industry (in collusion with government) decides to ram down our throats.

Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims, they are in business to make money.

Exactly. And they can't make any money if we don't give it to them. That's the most fundamental right we, as consumers, have: the right to refuse to do business with anyone we don't feel is providing us with value. I can't believe so many of you are willing to submit to this.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why do some Americans want to continue to let insurance companies and drug companies control their health care?

Those who choose not to learn what ACA will do still insist on saying the government is going to have a say and yet, they never ever have any evidence or proof of that claim.

Thanks for the excellent link.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I get it, you hate the people we elect to govern our nation and would prefer some CEO of an Insurance Company set the rules instead.

No - you very much DON'T get it. The people we elect to govern our nation have the power to coerce me to their will. The insurance companies don't. Or rather didn't, until the idiocy of PPACA made it so. This is the blatant ******* insanity of your position I can't get past.

I think that's stupid. We can toss the elected officials out but we would be stuck with the CEO. We would then allow an unregulated for profit business to spend our premium payments on increasing the wealth of the executive management and the company and less on providing payments to the injured and ill.

This is utterly inside-out wrong. If you are in the minority (as I almost always am) you can't do a damned thing about what our elected officials decide to force on you. If you defy them, you go to jail. On the other hand, in a free market, I can tell the CEO to go **** himself.

PPACA denies us that freedom - it forces us to take whatever the insurance industry (in collusion with government) decides to ram down our throats.

Insurance companies are not in business to pay claims, they are in business to make money.

Exactly. And they can't make any money if we don't give it to them. That's the most fundamental right we, as consumers, have: the right to refuse to do business with anyone we don't feel is providing us with value. I can't believe so many of you are willing to submit to this.

Your arguments are all emotional and not based on reality. Yes you can tell the CEO to go **** himself and s/he will laugh at you.

You're correct in one thing, the vast majority of our citizens believe in "taking on for the team" and understand there but for the grace of God go I. As a callous conservative you obviously are one who agreed with the "let him die" crowd.

I'd really enjoy hearing about your life as a single island but my dog expects a walk to the dog park. So I'll take one for my team.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[dblack]

Your arguments are all emotional and not based on reality. Yes you can tell the CEO to go **** himself and s/he will laugh at you.

You're missing the point (deliberately?). What I can do is stopping giving him my money. More and more people have been making that choice, which is why your corporate sponsors have lobbied government to force us to bend to their will.