Republican: "Thank God For Obamacare!"

[billyerock1991]

,308 perperson

Of course he thinks it's great, someone else is footing the majority of his costs. Duh.

Interesting that you choose to see it that way as opposed to the possibility that he was being way overcharged with COBRA.

Is that because corporations can do no wrong in your eyes?

And where do you get the certainty that he is getting subsidized?

Of course he was being over charged for COBRA. And?

wtf?

"the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both." is cheap cheap, they are being subsidized.

. I do realize that by "subsidize" you probably are referring to the use of government funds to offset losses by the insurance companies. I am not certain if that is true or not. However, If only half of the new enrollees are paying premiums averaging 70 bucks a month each, that's no chump change.

It is chump change when you consider we are spending 8,500 per person per year. 70/month gets you 840/year, which means others are making up 90% of the difference.

Whoa. The cost of subsidies was projected to be around 4,308 per person in 2016. I agree that is still too damn much. I am beginning to think socialized medicine would be far better for our teeming masses!

again the tax payer isn't pay that cost .. there were taxes passed to companies that would cover the cost of these subsidies ... no more then 2.2% to that company

 

[billyerock1991]

Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM. Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.

They must believe that Obamacare doesn't cross party lines----

Sure Obamacare is great for those who get it for free under the expanded Medicaid programs--and it's great for lower incomes. There is no disagreement there.

But in reality--Obamacare is nothing more than a sucker punch to working middle class Americans. It's nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care. Only this time it's not the rich that is paying for all of the new Medicaid enrollees or all of the subsidized policies, it's working middle class Americans whom are seeing their premiums double to sometimes even triple to what they were paying to pay for all the rest.

Obama has frantically delayed extensions--and postponed the employer mandate until after this coming mid-term election cycle. Because they know that millions more in the nation will see their employer/employee based policies cancelled due to all of the mandates within Obamacare. Such as everyone--without exception--is required to have maternity--drug and alcohol abuse coverage, which has spiked insurance rates across this country. If your current employer policy does not meet these requirements--be assured your policy will be cancelled. IOW--it's not if Obamacare will affect you, it's when.

Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?

And here is what small business employees are looking at in blue state PA.

You've got to stop posting bullshit from the Heritage Foundation. Don't you know that organisation doesn't care about the middle class? They have been caught in so many lies they are constantly scrubbing their website.

And yet you dicks want to credit them with starting Obamacare.

what have you been smoking ...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Does the radical left actually search every state to find a provocative statement by a republican? I guess they have the resources courtesy of Soros' MM. Wouldn't you think a state elected official would have decent health insurance without going into the ironically named ACA and hoping for a decent price in a gigantic pool that hasn't even been fully implemented? Something ain't right about the Huffington editorial.

They must believe that Obamacare doesn't cross party lines----

Sure Obamacare is great for those who get it for free under the expanded Medicaid programs--and it's great for lower incomes. There is no disagreement there.

But in reality--Obamacare is nothing more than a sucker punch to working middle class Americans. It's nothing more than wealth redistribution via health care. Only this time it's not the rich that is paying for all of the new Medicaid enrollees or all of the subsidized policies, it's working middle class Americans whom are seeing their premiums double to sometimes even triple to what they were paying to pay for all the rest.

Obama has frantically delayed extensions--and postponed the employer mandate until after this coming mid-term election cycle. Because they know that millions more in the nation will see their employer/employee based policies cancelled due to all of the mandates within Obamacare. Such as everyone--without exception--is required to have maternity--drug and alcohol abuse coverage, which has spiked insurance rates across this country. If your current employer policy does not meet these requirements--be assured your policy will be cancelled. IOW--it's not if Obamacare will affect you, it's when.

Enrollment in Obamacare Exchanges: How Will Your Health Insurance Fare?

And here is what small business employees are looking at in blue state PA.

You've got to stop posting bullshit from the Heritage Foundation. Don't you know that organisation doesn't care about the middle class? They have been caught in so many lies they are constantly scrubbing their website.

And yet you dicks want to credit them with starting Obamacare.

what have you been smoking ...

You are telling me that the left does not constantly crow that the individual mandate didn't come from some dork at Heritage.

I think you need to be looking at your own cigarettes....you are from Colorado....right ?

 

[billyerock1991]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

then you pick the wrong plan ..

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

then you pick the wrong plan ..

I don't have it.

My employer pays my insurance.

I know plenty of people who have been hurt by it.

Your little quip is meaningless.

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Dear billyerock1991

How about this analogy

A. if we didn't rely on Chinese slave labor, we couldn't afford the cell phones, and other electronics, clothing etc. that rely on Asian and also South/Central American slave labor

B. But since we still have these markets and outsourcing to rely on, we are able to afford the goods, even at the expense of other people who can't afford to buy their own goods they are producing.
People in Africa and other third-world countries have been starving to death for centuries
though their continent is wealthy in resources. Other people benefit, and are happy with the set up, but the people paying the cost are complaining and this isn't "social justice."

So does this justify keeping the system as it is, because it benefits US on the receiving end?

Or is it still necessary for humanity's sake to make sure the people PAYING the cost
also receive the benefits of their labor. That it should be PROPORTIONATE and fair.

Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?

You are correct.

Right now, it is just cost shifting.

 

[billyerock1991]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Dear billyerock1991

How about this analogy

A. if we didn't rely on Chinese slave labor, we couldn't afford the cell phones, and other electronics, clothing etc. that rely on Asian and also South/Central American slave labor

B. But since we still have these markets and outsourcing to rely on, we are able to afford the goods, even at the expense of other people who can't afford to buy their own goods they are producing.
People in Africa and other third-world countries have been starving to death for centuries
though their continent is wealthy in resources. Other people benefit, and are happy with the set up, but the people paying the cost are complaining and this isn't "social justice."

So does this justify keeping the system as it is, because it benefits US on the receiving end?

Or is it still necessary for humanity's sake to make sure the people PAYING the cost
also receive the benefits of their labor. That it should be PROPORTIONATE and fair.

Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?

I understand what you are saying here ... but you're comparing apples to oranges ... you're saying income for americans is the problem ... I understand this ... it all started with Nixon then with nafta ...a plan created by Ronald reagan Administration ... it was going to be passed by George H.W. Bush in january 1992 but he lost the election ... where we Dems felt it was a good Idea back then along with the republicans too ... we did have some benefit at first as time went on not so much ... when they started allowing companies to move out of country for tax reason, then sell their product back here in the US dodging all the taxes that they use to pay ..that was the biggest mistake the congress ever made you know this and so do I...

finally under Nixon he was the one that decided to have supported national health insurance with privater companies to insure you ... along with copays, that we never had a copay of any kind prior to his plan... Nixon felt it was a good Idea to have you pay a little money extra for your health care this was supposed to bring down the cost of health care it didn't it went up .. again copays another republican Idea... that went south on us all... were all know through the congress as time went on they allow health care companies to pass laws that allowed them to deny you health care ... they allow them to say what they covered ... that was done so they could make a profit ... before this new health care all health care was non-profit ... so along with passing Nafta type bills and allowing health care companies to refuse you health care, we all got **** ... we should charge these companies leaving the country just to get a better tax rate on their product, then coming back into this country to sell it at a higher price... to imply our health care problem in this country was created by Obama care . Just don't buy it

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Dear billyerock1991

How about this analogy

A. if we didn't rely on Chinese slave labor, we couldn't afford the cell phones, and other electronics, clothing etc. that rely on Asian and also South/Central American slave labor

B. But since we still have these markets and outsourcing to rely on, we are able to afford the goods, even at the expense of other people who can't afford to buy their own goods they are producing.
People in Africa and other third-world countries have been starving to death for centuries
though their continent is wealthy in resources. Other people benefit, and are happy with the set up, but the people paying the cost are complaining and this isn't "social justice."

So does this justify keeping the system as it is, because it benefits US on the receiving end?

Or is it still necessary for humanity's sake to make sure the people PAYING the cost
also receive the benefits of their labor. That it should be PROPORTIONATE and fair.

Can you understand this analogy, and why both scenarios need to change to something
MORE SUSTAINABLE and not just shortcuts benefiting one side of the equation?

I understand what you are saying here ... but you're comparing apples to oranges ... you're saying income for americans is the problem ... I understand this ... it all started with Nixon then with nafta ...a plan created by Ronald reagan Administration ... it was going to be passed by George H.W. Bush in january 1992 but he lost the election ... where we Dems felt it was a good Idea back then along with the republicans too ... we did have some benefit at first as time went on not so much ... when they started allowing companies to move out of country for tax reason, then sell their product back here in the US dodging all the taxes that they use to pay ..that was the biggest mistake the congress ever made you know this and so do I...

finally under Nixon he was the one that decided to have supported national health insurance with privater companies to insure you ... along with copays, that we never had a copay of any kind prior to his plan... Nixon felt it was a good Idea to have you pay a little money extra for your health care this was supposed to bring down the cost of health care it didn't it went up .. again copays another republican Idea... that went south on us all... were all know through the congress as time went on they allow health care companies to pass laws that allowed them to deny you health care ... they allow them to say what they covered ... that was done so they could make a profit ... before this new health care all health care was non-profit ... so along with passing Nafta type bills and allowing health care companies to refuse you health care, we all got **** ... we should charge these companies leaving the country just to get a better tax rate on their product, then coming back into this country to sell it at a higher price... to imply our health care problem in this country was created by Obama care . Just don't buy it

Dear billyerock1991:


I think you are thinking as long as some "bigger corporation" is paying the difference, then it isn't on the taxpayers.
Well, then why aren't the "bigger corporations" AGREEING to carry that cost if it is "saving money" to be "making money" WITHOUT FORCING customers to pay and buy from them?

The issue is FREE WILL -- if the mandates didn't rely on FORCING people to buy, then you could say it is all "voluntary" and the money paid out is covered by the money coming in by FREE MARKET choices. Like how McDonald's will make enough profit to pay enough to workers to CHOOSE to work there. Nobody is FORCED to buy or work at McDonald's in order for them to cover costs, and people CHOOSE to go there and PAY to get good service at affordable rates. So because that works, other restaurants have to compete to be as cost-effective with what they provide in order to draw business by FREE CHOICE.

And there ARE examples of health and medical services that run VERY efficiently serving those in need by VOLUNTARY participation and funding.
(See below for comparison to Doctors Without Borders. If you want to talk about insurance companies, USAA testified before Congress and was assessed as "already providing equitable services WITHOUT any need for legislation" -- so that should have been the model instead of trying to FORCE anyone to buy services unless they committed a crime and owed debts or restitution for costs they incurred to the public.)

A. For taxpayers who HAVEN'T committed crimes, haven't incurred medical or health care debts they haven't paid for, and don't owe any compensation they don't agree to pay VOLUNTARILY without being FORCED through govt.

The comparison that avatar made to "servitude" may put it in perspective for you, as it did for me:
* as long as health care/medical services RELY on material resources and human labor,
then TRYING TO MANDATE THAT THIS BE PROVIDED FOR FREE, with no obligation by the recipient to cover the costs,
is forcing SOMEONE to give up their labor to cover the services and labor.

* compare to FREE MARKET and CHARITY by CHOICE such as Doctors Without Borders:
NOBODY is forced to give to the Red Cross, to the Jude's Childrens Hospital, to MSF/Doctors without Borders.
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, do you get it?

If a group like McDonald's or Red Cross does a GOOD JOB providing economical and efficient services, people VOLUNTARILY give them their money to get that.
NOBODY is forced to fund McDonald's and McDonald's is not FORCED to provide services to people.
It runs because it meets the demands and answers to the public.

So if you want economical health services that is RESPONSIBLE to the public,
I would look at CORPORATIONS THAT WORK and use that model.

B. Now, if you want to talk about people who CAN'T afford their care, such as mentally ill, disabled or criminally ill or convicted people,
AGAIN, why can't the funding be VOLUNTARY where the MOST EFFECTIVE service providers COMPETE to get that business such as the
well-managed nonprofits like AmeriCares that has higher than 86% of its resources going into services or Doctors without Borders as a MODEL.

If communities have to COMPETE to reduce their CRIME RATE and health care problems in order NOT to strain their services and resources,
this STILL puts responsibility on PEOPLE to IMPROVE their behavior in order to AFFORD HEALTH CARE.

There has to be CONSEQUENCES based on BEHAVIOR.

So it is still taking shortcuts and taking the burden off the people incurring the costs, if this is FORCED ONTO TAXPAYERS.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRISON/Health care/Mental Health system is in SHAMBLES and bankrupting the states.
They are having to cut costs by releasing dangerous criminals, and can't keep people medicated in the mental hospitals that have no room, so they release them to "halfway houses" (without curing them, just medicating them enough to justify releasing them) to take in new crises every day! So the same sick people rotate in and out.

billyerock1991 This is a very deep issue that I intend to address with my Congresswoman who sent out an update on both prison reform and health care reform.
I'm saying the two are directly connected, because
A. that's where the resources are that could be SAVED to cover health care
B. that's where we CAN MAKE A DISTINCTION between people who HAVEN'T been convicted of a crime (and don't owe the govt a reduction or restriction on liberties)
and those who HAVE incurred debts or damages for which they owe penalties, or loss of liberty under DUE PROCESS before being deprived of such.

This is VERY important to understand the difference.

The rightwing Constitutionalists and Christians tend to get that the responsibility lies with PEOPLE first, not with govt to take care of people without condition.
But the leftwing that uses the Govt as their "church" tend to push things onto Govt that others have been using churches and charities for.

Because the liberals tend to represent the people unable to manage or access resources, this has shifted to the Democrats and to the Govt to take care of the charity cases where the resources are divided, wasted or otherwise poorly managed.

But that is not an excuse to PUNISH taxpayers and take liberty away from people who support WELL MANAGED nonprofits that COULD handle the demand if Govt is modeled
after WORKING programs that are SUSTAINABLE.

C. another big issue is that the ability to serve the greater population depends on spiritual healing and health, that is based on FREE CHOICE
and cannot be dictated or regulated by govt.

So people should have a choice:
A. if you want the FREE MARKET approach, using free choice of business, charities, schools, nonprofits,
then these PRIVATE groups CAN require Spiritual Healing to remove and cure any and all causes of abuse, addiction or other mentally or physically ill behavior that is running up costs and taking up resources that could help people who can't help their situations. If you are drinking, smoking, into crime or doing other unsafe, addictive or sick behaviors, then the private groups can choose not to waste resources unless people are willing to help themselves.

B. if you want to force govt to cover you regardless of your behavior, then each group that wants certain conditions should set up their own programs and restrictions through govt and require anyone who CHOOSES to participate in that program (or commits a crime and owes restitution for debts or damages) can be regulated under that. But not FORCE anyone.

People must be given a FREE CHOICE, just like CHOOSING whether to follow Christian or Muslim or Buddhist rules of living. Health care involves HEALTH and LIFE choices, so that's why we keep running into problems with govt regulating that. People don't all agree on lifestyle choices, so that's why we need programs that OFFER and RESPECT free choice!

Then there will be accountability for costs
on both the receiving side, where people AGREE to meet the terms of the program and aren't FORCED to join or pay in,
and on the providing side, where people who AGREE to provide help can choose the terms and not be forced to pay for conditions that were the fault of someone's willful behavior that person should be held accountable for.

Thank you billyerock1991 if you have faith in govt providing health care, that's fine, but people like you should pay for that and set up the rules.
AND NOT force your system of conditions on people who believe in the churches and charities providing cost-effective health care for low to no cost because
spiritual healing is used to cure the cause of illness. People should have a CHOICE and that is what is missing here.

NOTE: I have NO PROBLEM with people believing in Govt providing health care under conditions YOU agree to set if YOU agree to pay for that program; where we are ALL running into conflicts is NOT AGREEING on the terms of paying in or out -- so there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY just like the failed govt mental health care programs because there is NO requirement to cure people, only to medicate them and re-release them in a revolving door system. As long as the costs aren't based on cutting them by CURING and PREVENTING relapse, there is NO incentive and the cost just keep getting dumped on the public forced to pay for prisons and mental health systems that are backlogged and can't meet demand.

Avatar4321 if you're still around, can you help me write up this to be shorter, so I can present it to my local Congress and Senate officials and Texas Governor.
I'd like Texas to be the model for dividing the systems by Party so both approaches can be used, developed and perfected to work for those populations.
Instead of forcing one on the other where we waste energy, time and other resources fighting for control; why not offer both tracks and let people choose
what works and make that plan work cost effectively. Thank you !

People who believe in spiritual healing and prolife, and holding people accountable for costs of abuse, addictions and crime in order to pay for their health care should have a track for that.
And people who want to use govt to help anyone regardless of condition like the prison system pays for convicts, should be in charge of funding and setting up conditions they believe are inclusive and affordable. And let people CHOOSE if they want the spiritual healing to cure the causes of addiction, abuse, crime, mentally and physical illness, depending which program they want to subscribe to and also which to fund. This can't be forced onto people by govt, but our "free choices of both tracks" can be PROTECTED by govt where nobody should be mandated to fund any such program against their beliefs (such as anti-abortion or anti-death penalty people who believe in funding cures correction and prevention instead of terminating life as a religious or spiritual issue of belief for them.).

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...

Dear billyerock1991
What you are saying is like "let govt force people to go through spiritual healing so they can find out it cuts costs of cancer, crime, abuse and addiction where everyone can afford health care"

Sorry billyerock1991 but no matter how good Spiritual Healing is at saving lives and cutting costs
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE IT TO COVER HEALTH CARE FOR THE PUBLIC.

Spiritual healing has saved people's lives from cancer, drug addiction, etc DIRECTLY and it has helped medical doctors and nurses serve more patients
cost-effectively to improve response rate and reduce the recovery time and costs. But insurance doesn't cure any disease, correct or prevent the causes.

So billyerock1991 if the issue is paying for health care, if you were FULLY informed and educated instead of being ignorant and excluding Spiritual Healing and its effects, then you would be pushing for Spiritual Healing instead of insurance as the key to universal health care coverage and sustainable resources/education/training for service providers and recipients.

But this is like forcing Christianity on people through govt because if EVERYONE WERE A MEMBER THEN WE'D CUT THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ABUSE
and provide HOUSING and HEALTH CARE for the MASSES.

No. Sorry, even if that is the solution and it would work to save lives and costs,
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO REQUIRE PEOPLE AND DICTATE THAT CHOICE.

A. ^ Do you understand this point ^
B. Even if you don't agree, do you understand it is the BELIEF of conservatives/Christians/half the nation that have THIS BELIEF that govt is NOT the authority for charity and that health care i involves personal choices and beliefs that are OUTSIDE GOVT AUTHORITY
C. you don't have to agree with Christianity to respect that people have that choice of belief and can't be forced into it or out of it. So can you understand the same with health care beliefs? That nobody should be forced by govt to change their beliefs, about health care or right to life or right to choice. Do you get that this is the issue with Govt getting involved in the first place?

Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between
* a program that would save lives and cut costs
* FORCING PEOPLE THROUGH GOVT INTO SUCH A PROGRAM WITHOUT FREE CHOICE AND CONSENT

If not, we need to focus on that point regardless what the program is that you believe in so much.
Even if it is the best program in the world, if it involves PERSONAL free choice and beliefs
then Govt has not the authority to FORCE or regulate people that way.
Not unless they commit a crime and are convicted so they are deprived of LIBERTY by due process of LAW.

Do you understand the difference between people who have and have not committed a violation yet?
And you do not have the right through Govt to deprive people of liberty if no crime has been committed by THAT PERSON.

Do you understand you are committing the equivalent of Collective Punishment,
and because SOME people cannot pay for their health care and don't believe in working with churches or nonprofits that could have helped them,
you are trying to force this through govt in ways that DEPRIVE LAW ABIDING citizens of liberty and FREE CHOICE what to fund
WHEN THOSE PEOPLE losing their free choice DID NOT COMMIT crimes or incur costs, and have no consent in the matter?

Do you understand this point?

 

[emilynghiem]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...

1 Part ONE

Dear billyerock1991

This still isn't addressing the real conflict, but skirting it completely.

This is like two people arguing
Person A: Govt should not be in charge of banning abortion and punishing people for making that choice.
Person B: Well, then don't have an abortion. If you look into the process, you'd see you don't want to go that route anyway.

^ So this is completely denying the whole concept and objection Person A has that govt should not be regulating people's free choice anyway.

billyerock1991 you sound just as unsympathetic and in denial as someone who thinks there wouldn't be an argument about defending prochoice if people did the right thing, made the right choices, so they don't end with abortion as a bad choice.

Do you get this:
Why is govt in charge of regulating those choices anyway? That's the issue. Quit trying to justify it, like the prolife people saying "abortion isn't really a choice anyway, it's a bad idea, so giving up that choices isn't a loss."

CONT'D see 2 Part TWO next

 

[emilynghiem]

2 Part TWO
billyerock1991

If this affordable health care coverage has reduced costs for people as you said, and isn't costing taxpayers,

A. Then WHERE did the trillions of dollars come from that Obama doled out to the corporate insurance interests so they would agree to the plan that was passed?

B. If taxpayers paid for the cost of corporate insurance to transition to the new rules, where is the RECIPROCAL side where insurance companies pay the cost of covering everyone's health care and medical costs?

C. Why is this relationship one sided where taxpayers pay for
1. the trillions paid to corporate insurance
2. the federal govt officials to have top health insurance and medical coverage

But
3. neither of these recipients of tax paid benefits is paying for our side of the deal -- ie what WE would have asked to have covered in order to AGREE to the terms and conditions?

If we are parties to the contract, where did WE get to lobby and make sure OUR interests and what WE wanted in the deal WAS MET?

it wasn't.

Because we weren't represented in the deal. Only the corporate interests who lobbied Congress and the President, and the federal officials made sure they got themselves covered. And later certain unions that backed out of mandated requirements got what THEY wanted which was out of the deal. But what about everyone else.

How come when we ask for singlepayer, or free market choice to participate or not, or to delay the individual mandate since the employer mandate was delayed,
none of those conditions was met.

Only the corporate insurance lobby that wrote into the deal with Obama that they get paid Trillions of dollars up front.

Where's OUR trillion dollars to pay for our cost of participating?

Do you see the point of my question
in PART TWO?

1. Do you agree it ISN'T free to taxpayers, but the trillions paid up front to corporate insurance companies was put on the taxpayers. But we aren't getting health care for what we paid, that money went to corporate insurance interests who lobbied for their own costs and profits.

Do you agree we are paying, but it isn't going to health care but to corporate insurance companies benefiting off the deal regardless if it works or fails, they covered themselves.

2. The contract was ONE SIDE
the business interests lobbied and got what they wanted written into the deal
or they would REFUSE to comply.

But when citizens make demands, we get stuck with whatever the other side came up with.

Who does that, billyerock1991

Would you really agree to follow a BUSINESS contract
requiring you to pay and buy services that you had no say in.
And only the insurance companies are getting paid on terms they lobbied for and got passed.

What kind of deal is that?

Like a prearranged marriage where only the husband has a say in the terms of marriage
but the wife is coerced into complying in whatever terms the husband and families come up with?

Do you get this concept or not?

Just because YOU are happy with a prearranged marriage
and don't mind the terms because of the benefits you are getting,
doesn't mean it's right to impose these terms on OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T CONSENT.

That's what I don't get billyerock1991

Why is it that just because YOU consent to the deal
you think you have the right to abuse govt to
force OTHER PEOPLE to comply with the deal under penalty of fines and seized wages.

Even if you don't agree with this viewpoint billyerock1991
can you see that there is something WRONG with not giving people
the choice of REPRESENTATION and CONSENT to a contract?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Christianitty, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism etc.
to UNDERSTAND that it is a BAD IDEA to force these on anyone
against their free will, much less THROUGH GOVT.

Why aren't other liberal prochoice Democrats arguing for this?
How is this NOT a similar principle to
* prochoice and not giving up personal private decisions and autonomy over to govt to control
* separation of church and state, and not imposing beliefs through govt in conflict
with people's beliefs who are facing fines and penalties for believing in free choice?

 

[billyerock1991]

Scott Brown Awkwardly Finds Out That Obamacare Is Also Helping Republicans



*snip*



Brown found that out on Saturday, when he stopped by the home of Herb Richardson, a Republican state representative. Sitting in Richardson's home, Brown called Obamacare a "monstrosity" that members of Congress didn't even bother to read before they passed. At that point, according to the Coos County Democrat, Richardson chimed in to explain that the law had been a "financial lifesaver" for him and his wife. From the the piece (page 14):


.

Richardson was injured on the job and was forced to live on his workers' comp payments for an extended period of time, which ultimately cost the couple their house on Williams Street. The couple had to pay $1,100 a month if they wanted to maintain their health insurance coverage under the federal COBRA law.


Richardson said he only received some $2,000 a month in workers' comp. payments, however, leaving little for them to live on.


"Thank God for Obamacare!" his wife exclaimed.

Now, thanks to the subsidy for which they qualify, the Richardsons only pay $136 a month for health insurance that covers them both.
​

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...

Dear billyerock1991
What you are saying is like "let govt force people to go through spiritual healing so they can find out it cuts costs of cancer, crime, abuse and addiction where everyone can afford health care"

Sorry billyerock1991 but no matter how good Spiritual Healing is at saving lives and cutting costs
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE IT TO COVER HEALTH CARE FOR THE PUBLIC.

Spiritual healing has saved people's lives from cancer, drug addiction, etc DIRECTLY and it has helped medical doctors and nurses serve more patients
cost-effectively to improve response rate and reduce the recovery time and costs. But insurance doesn't cure any disease, correct or prevent the causes.

So billyerock1991 if the issue is paying for health care, if you were FULLY informed and educated instead of being ignorant and excluding Spiritual Healing and its effects, then you would be pushing for Spiritual Healing instead of insurance as the key to universal health care coverage and sustainable resources/education/training for service providers and recipients.

But this is like forcing Christianity on people through govt because if EVERYONE WERE A MEMBER THEN WE'D CUT THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ABUSE
and provide HOUSING and HEALTH CARE for the MASSES.

No. Sorry, even if that is the solution and it would work to save lives and costs,
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO REQUIRE PEOPLE AND DICTATE THAT CHOICE.

A. ^ Do you understand this point ^
B. Even if you don't agree, do you understand it is the BELIEF of conservatives/Christians/half the nation that have THIS BELIEF that govt is NOT the authority for charity and that health care i involves personal choices and beliefs that are OUTSIDE GOVT AUTHORITY
C. you don't have to agree with Christianity to respect that people have that choice of belief and can't be forced into it or out of it. So can you understand the same with health care beliefs? That nobody should be forced by govt to change their beliefs, about health care or right to life or right to choice. Do you get that this is the issue with Govt getting involved in the first place?

Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between
* a program that would save lives and cut costs
* FORCING PEOPLE THROUGH GOVT INTO SUCH A PROGRAM WITHOUT FREE CHOICE AND CONSENT

If not, we need to focus on that point regardless what the program is that you believe in so much.
Even if it is the best program in the world, if it involves PERSONAL free choice and beliefs
then Govt has not the authority to FORCE or regulate people that way.
Not unless they commit a crime and are convicted so they are deprived of LIBERTY by due process of LAW.

Do you understand the difference between people who have and have not committed a violation yet?
And you do not have the right through Govt to deprive people of liberty if no crime has been committed by THAT PERSON.

Do you understand you are committing the equivalent of Collective Punishment,
and because SOME people cannot pay for their health care and don't believe in working with churches or nonprofits that could have helped them,
you are trying to force this through govt in ways that DEPRIVE LAW ABIDING citizens of liberty and FREE CHOICE what to fund
WHEN THOSE PEOPLE losing their free choice DID NOT COMMIT crimes or incur costs, and have no consent in the matter?

Do you understand this point?

you have lost your mind ... what I was trying to do was to help the person to pick a good health care plan... by telling him/her emily cincola to get a broker... to many people try to do it themselves a health care broker will not cost you a dime ... thats all I was trying to do ... the rest of your bull shit 1 and 2 is what it iS totally out their lost your mind bull shit...

 

[billyerock1991]

2 Part TWO
billyerock1991

If this affordable health care coverage has reduced costs for people as you said, and isn't costing taxpayers,

A. Then WHERE did the trillions of dollars come from that Obama doled out to the corporate insurance interests so they would agree to the plan that was passed?

B. If taxpayers paid for the cost of corporate insurance to transition to the new rules, where is the RECIPROCAL side where insurance companies pay the cost of covering everyone's health care and medical costs?

C. Why is this relationship one sided where taxpayers pay for
1. the trillions paid to corporate insurance
2. the federal govt officials to have top health insurance and medical coverage

But
3. neither of these recipients of tax paid benefits is paying for our side of the deal -- ie what WE would have asked to have covered in order to AGREE to the terms and conditions?

If we are parties to the contract, where did WE get to lobby and make sure OUR interests and what WE wanted in the deal WAS MET?

it wasn't.

Because we weren't represented in the deal. Only the corporate interests who lobbied Congress and the President, and the federal officials made sure they got themselves covered. And later certain unions that backed out of mandated requirements got what THEY wanted which was out of the deal. But what about everyone else.

How come when we ask for singlepayer, or free market choice to participate or not, or to delay the individual mandate since the employer mandate was delayed,
none of those conditions was met.

Only the corporate insurance lobby that wrote into the deal with Obama that they get paid Trillions of dollars up front.

Where's OUR trillion dollars to pay for our cost of participating?

Do you see the point of my question
in PART TWO?

1. Do you agree it ISN'T free to taxpayers, but the trillions paid up front to corporate insurance companies was put on the taxpayers. But we aren't getting health care for what we paid, that money went to corporate insurance interests who lobbied for their own costs and profits.

Do you agree we are paying, but it isn't going to health care but to corporate insurance companies benefiting off the deal regardless if it works or fails, they covered themselves.

2. The contract was ONE SIDE
the business interests lobbied and got what they wanted written into the deal
or they would REFUSE to comply.

But when citizens make demands, we get stuck with whatever the other side came up with.

Who does that, billyerock1991

Would you really agree to follow a BUSINESS contract
requiring you to pay and buy services that you had no say in.
And only the insurance companies are getting paid on terms they lobbied for and got passed.

What kind of deal is that?

Like a prearranged marriage where only the husband has a say in the terms of marriage
but the wife is coerced into complying in whatever terms the husband and families come up with?

Do you get this concept or not?

Just because YOU are happy with a prearranged marriage
and don't mind the terms because of the benefits you are getting,
doesn't mean it's right to impose these terms on OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T CONSENT.

That's what I don't get billyerock1991

Why is it that just because YOU consent to the deal
you think you have the right to abuse govt to
force OTHER PEOPLE to comply with the deal under penalty of fines and seized wages.

Even if you don't agree with this viewpoint billyerock1991
can you see that there is something WRONG with not giving people
the choice of REPRESENTATION and CONSENT to a contract?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Christianitty, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism etc.
to UNDERSTAND that it is a BAD IDEA to force these on anyone
against their free will, much less THROUGH GOVT.

Why aren't other liberal prochoice Democrats arguing for this?
How is this NOT a similar principle to
* prochoice and not giving up personal private decisions and autonomy over to govt to control
* separation of church and state, and not imposing beliefs through govt in conflict
with people's beliefs who are facing fines and penalties for believing in free choice?

you're still as nutty as you always been ... we aren't talking about abortion we aren't talking about family we aren't talking about religion ... we are talking about the best bang for the buck in the health care system ... like always you go off the deep end

 

[emilynghiem]

And once again, we see a social safety net at work.

That Obamacare has some successes is inevitable....it's a law of percentages.

Overall, it sucks.

in only sucks in states that didn't accept it ... in my state Colorado, one the state that Trump needs to win, that he won't get ... why ??? people are getting health care at a great cost... people are benefiting from its cost ... thats why you don't get it ...

example: just had several herniated disc repaired ... my cost ??? big fat goose egg ... prior to OBAMA care I got just a MRI it cost me 5000 dollars and I had health care ... they said they would cover it ... after obama care, my MRI cost me nothing .... the insurance covered it it ... Plus it was a pre-existing condition to boot ...now I walk a lot easer without pain and you're trying to tell me Obama care sucks ??? you must live in a state that doesn't accept it ...

Yes it does.

It sounds like you got the health care you needed. That is great. But the truth is that a lot of other people paid for it who were not paying into your insurance.

My state does accept it.

It still sucks.

get yourself a health care broker ... to many people go on line they see a package and they buy that package without really knowing what they are buying ...I've even seen people who bought their health care and didn't look up their subsidiary ... you have to apply for that too ... that's why I say get a health care broker they know all the in's and outs ...

Dear billyerock1991
What you are saying is like "let govt force people to go through spiritual healing so they can find out it cuts costs of cancer, crime, abuse and addiction where everyone can afford health care"

Sorry billyerock1991 but no matter how good Spiritual Healing is at saving lives and cutting costs
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO FORCE PEOPLE TO USE IT TO COVER HEALTH CARE FOR THE PUBLIC.

Spiritual healing has saved people's lives from cancer, drug addiction, etc DIRECTLY and it has helped medical doctors and nurses serve more patients
cost-effectively to improve response rate and reduce the recovery time and costs. But insurance doesn't cure any disease, correct or prevent the causes.

So billyerock1991 if the issue is paying for health care, if you were FULLY informed and educated instead of being ignorant and excluding Spiritual Healing and its effects, then you would be pushing for Spiritual Healing instead of insurance as the key to universal health care coverage and sustainable resources/education/training for service providers and recipients.

But this is like forcing Christianity on people through govt because if EVERYONE WERE A MEMBER THEN WE'D CUT THE COSTS OF CRIME AND ABUSE
and provide HOUSING and HEALTH CARE for the MASSES.

No. Sorry, even if that is the solution and it would work to save lives and costs,
IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVT TO REQUIRE PEOPLE AND DICTATE THAT CHOICE.

A. ^ Do you understand this point ^
B. Even if you don't agree, do you understand it is the BELIEF of conservatives/Christians/half the nation that have THIS BELIEF that govt is NOT the authority for charity and that health care i involves personal choices and beliefs that are OUTSIDE GOVT AUTHORITY
C. you don't have to agree with Christianity to respect that people have that choice of belief and can't be forced into it or out of it. So can you understand the same with health care beliefs? That nobody should be forced by govt to change their beliefs, about health care or right to life or right to choice. Do you get that this is the issue with Govt getting involved in the first place?

Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between
* a program that would save lives and cut costs
* FORCING PEOPLE THROUGH GOVT INTO SUCH A PROGRAM WITHOUT FREE CHOICE AND CONSENT

If not, we need to focus on that point regardless what the program is that you believe in so much.
Even if it is the best program in the world, if it involves PERSONAL free choice and beliefs
then Govt has not the authority to FORCE or regulate people that way.
Not unless they commit a crime and are convicted so they are deprived of LIBERTY by due process of LAW.

Do you understand the difference between people who have and have not committed a violation yet?
And you do not have the right through Govt to deprive people of liberty if no crime has been committed by THAT PERSON.

Do you understand you are committing the equivalent of Collective Punishment,
and because SOME people cannot pay for their health care and don't believe in working with churches or nonprofits that could have helped them,
you are trying to force this through govt in ways that DEPRIVE LAW ABIDING citizens of liberty and FREE CHOICE what to fund
WHEN THOSE PEOPLE losing their free choice DID NOT COMMIT crimes or incur costs, and have no consent in the matter?

Do you understand this point?

you have lost your mind ... what I was trying to do was to help the person to pick a good health care plan... by telling him/her emily cincola to get a broker... to many people try to do it themselves a health care broker will not cost you a dime ... thats all I was trying to do ... the rest of your bull shit 1 and 2 is what it iS totally out their lost your mind bull shit...

You miss my point again.

Why can't people pick a good plan by free will free choice free market.

You are the one claiming there is no charge to taxpayers.

So who pays for the trillion dollar handouts to corporate insurance.

Why do we pay for them but still have to pay for deductibles and plans that go way past our budgets.

Can you answer that billyerock1991

Who's out of their minds here:
The people saying this isn't free choice if we are forced to buy insurance or pay fines to govt?

Or ppl saying it's the only choice?

 

[emilynghiem]

2 Part TWO
billyerock1991

If this affordable health care coverage has reduced costs for people as you said, and isn't costing taxpayers,

A. Then WHERE did the trillions of dollars come from that Obama doled out to the corporate insurance interests so they would agree to the plan that was passed?

B. If taxpayers paid for the cost of corporate insurance to transition to the new rules, where is the RECIPROCAL side where insurance companies pay the cost of covering everyone's health care and medical costs?

C. Why is this relationship one sided where taxpayers pay for
1. the trillions paid to corporate insurance
2. the federal govt officials to have top health insurance and medical coverage

But
3. neither of these recipients of tax paid benefits is paying for our side of the deal -- ie what WE would have asked to have covered in order to AGREE to the terms and conditions?

If we are parties to the contract, where did WE get to lobby and make sure OUR interests and what WE wanted in the deal WAS MET?

it wasn't.

Because we weren't represented in the deal. Only the corporate interests who lobbied Congress and the President, and the federal officials made sure they got themselves covered. And later certain unions that backed out of mandated requirements got what THEY wanted which was out of the deal. But what about everyone else.

How come when we ask for singlepayer, or free market choice to participate or not, or to delay the individual mandate since the employer mandate was delayed,
none of those conditions was met.

Only the corporate insurance lobby that wrote into the deal with Obama that they get paid Trillions of dollars up front.

Where's OUR trillion dollars to pay for our cost of participating?

Do you see the point of my question
in PART TWO?

1. Do you agree it ISN'T free to taxpayers, but the trillions paid up front to corporate insurance companies was put on the taxpayers. But we aren't getting health care for what we paid, that money went to corporate insurance interests who lobbied for their own costs and profits.

Do you agree we are paying, but it isn't going to health care but to corporate insurance companies benefiting off the deal regardless if it works or fails, they covered themselves.

2. The contract was ONE SIDE
the business interests lobbied and got what they wanted written into the deal
or they would REFUSE to comply.

But when citizens make demands, we get stuck with whatever the other side came up with.

Who does that, billyerock1991

Would you really agree to follow a BUSINESS contract
requiring you to pay and buy services that you had no say in.
And only the insurance companies are getting paid on terms they lobbied for and got passed.

What kind of deal is that?

Like a prearranged marriage where only the husband has a say in the terms of marriage
but the wife is coerced into complying in whatever terms the husband and families come up with?

Do you get this concept or not?

Just because YOU are happy with a prearranged marriage
and don't mind the terms because of the benefits you are getting,
doesn't mean it's right to impose these terms on OTHER PEOPLE WHO DON'T CONSENT.

That's what I don't get billyerock1991

Why is it that just because YOU consent to the deal
you think you have the right to abuse govt to
force OTHER PEOPLE to comply with the deal under penalty of fines and seized wages.

Even if you don't agree with this viewpoint billyerock1991
can you see that there is something WRONG with not giving people
the choice of REPRESENTATION and CONSENT to a contract?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Christianitty, Buddhism, Islam, Atheism etc.
to UNDERSTAND that it is a BAD IDEA to force these on anyone
against their free will, much less THROUGH GOVT.

Why aren't other liberal prochoice Democrats arguing for this?
How is this NOT a similar principle to
* prochoice and not giving up personal private decisions and autonomy over to govt to control
* separation of church and state, and not imposing beliefs through govt in conflict
with people's beliefs who are facing fines and penalties for believing in free choice?

you're still as nutty as you always been ... we aren't talking about abortion we aren't talking about family we aren't talking about religion ... we are talking about the best bang for the buck in the health care system ... like always you go off the deep end

If it's the best bang for the buck
Then why aren't we getting our costs covered for the trillions we paid up front.

Why isn't there a free choice like whether to shop to get the best deal?

Do you seriously not see the conflict with "freedom of choice" here?

Really, are you that dense or biased by agenda, that you see NO parallel with the political control of health care choices and reproductive health care choices. Why is free choice of abortion protected from penalty by govt, but not free choice of paying for health care?

billyerock1991 of course these choices are not the "same". In fact it's backwards: the choice of abortion has greater risk of irreversible harm yet it's not penalized by govt. The choice of paying for health care yourself can still be done that way, and still avoid causing any risk to life or health, yet this is penalized by govt. So (a) those choices are NOT the same (b) that's my point, because health care choices pose less risk of harm than choice to have abortion WHY penalize the harmless choice but fight to defend the other choice.

These don't have to be the same, to compare the conflict in penalizing people for a harmless choice of wanting to pay for and provide health care through free market choices.

Why is that penalized more than the choice of abortion????

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Bang for the buck" ?

Isn't that illegal ?

 

[emilynghiem]

"Bang for the buck" ?

Isn't that illegal ?

Apparently it's not illegal to get screwed for money
as long as Govt is doing the screwing? What???