The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[PMZ]

Sure. States have traditionally managed the health insurance in each state. The Federal government has not. We have many different states, each state has different issues, different rates, and different plans. Some states have a large population of illegal immigrants, other states do not. Some states have a higher cost of living than other states. Some states are more conservative than other states when it comes to government managed systems.

We have a republic of states. The reason it's a republic is that we have different views on how to get things done, such as this, in each state and also by historical basis and for efficiency reasons. Some states are rural, some are industrial. Some states have ports, some do not. Some states have a very high average income some do not.

In short, what's good for NYC is not necessarily good for a Small Town in Texas. Generally the states understand this. Federal programs treat individuals who live in small towns and unincorporated areas like they do in big cities. States understand the issues of their citizens and more importantly are responsible to their citizens. The feds are only responsible to the politicians in DC who are elected by the majority. Big difference.

Another example... would you want your fire department and police force run by the feds? Or do you prefer they report to your city?

Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small, independent countries of Europe, or the strong Union. So did Lincoln.

I personally think that they made the right choice.

I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did. You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.

Lincoln preserved what the founders founded. Just as Obama is now.

 

[RKMBrown]

Our Founders had a choice between emulating the small, independent countries of Europe, or the strong Union. So did Lincoln.

I personally think that they made the right choice.

I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did. You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.

Lincoln preserved what the founders founded. Just as Obama is now.

Preserved at the cost of how many lives? Yeah Lincoln preserved the union by starting a bloody civil war and using hundreds of thousands of European conscripts who killed Americans for $.

What is Obama preserving again? I thought he said he was gonna "CHANGE" everything about this country. Your idea of "preserving" and mine are on two completely different planets.

 

[PMZ]

I would not compare what the founders did, with what Lincoln did. You could compare the founders to the confederates if you like, but what Lincoln did was what the King of England tried to do and failed.

Lincoln preserved what the founders founded. Just as Obama is now.

Preserved at the cost of how many lives? Yeah Lincoln preserved the union by starting a bloody civil war and using hundreds of thousands of European conscripts who killed Americans for $.

What is Obama preserving again? I thought he said he was gonna "CHANGE" everything about this country. Your idea of "preserving" and mine are on two completely different planets.

The Confederacy started the war.

Just like Lincoln, Obama started with the hand that he was dealt and ended up with a much better country than what he inherited.

That's what we have to expect from politics. Progress. Stasis is not possible or desirable.

 

[dblack]

Nah... they're just not. Just because someone doesn't have as much insurance as you think they ought to doesn't mean they're doing you any harm, or that they will.

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

 

[PMZ]

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't be people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

One thing that we both would wholeheartedly agree on is that all of the world's problems stem from irresponsibility. If people were not so inclined to impose on others almost all of mankind would live happily ever after.

But there's no way around free will.
Government is mankind's invention to insist on a level of responsibility that allows progress even though halting.

Government standardizes responsibility through laws that impose consequences, in addition to natural consequences, for behavior deemed too irresponsible in terms of impact on others.

Despite all of that though there is still irresponsible behavior as well as mis- and good fortune.

Civilization has generally accepted that we are better off if we spread the consequences of mis- and good fortune across the population, just as insurance spreads the cost consequences of it.

Not a necessity but, arguably, supportive of the greatest good.

The problem, IMO, that you bring up is the overlap between the greater good of spreading good and mis- fortune across the population, and dealing with irresponsibility.

I, personally, don't see a magic bullet. We try to deal with irresponsibility by our laws that make it criminal and that certainly works to a degree. But it's silly to ever expect anything close to perfection.

I personally would not choose to live in a world that made no attempt to spread good and mis- fortune and let only natural consequences have their way. If you die on the streets, regardless of the cause or your situation, that's only your problem. The true law of the jungle that we chose to leave behind.

Nor would I chose a world wherein the law was the sole arbiter of responsibility.

We're in the middle of that road and that’s typically, IMO, the best place to be.

If half the people think that our laws are too lenient, and half too lax, that's probably about where we should be.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clearly your position is that if someone takes the risk of no insurance and lucks out, no harm no foul. Of course you have to ignore the others. If you want to voluntarily pay other people's health care bills, feel free. More power to you. You're reward will come in heaven.

Just don't complain about welfare out of one side of your mouth and deny Obamacare out of the other.

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

 

[RKMBrown]

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't be people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

One thing that we both would wholeheartedly agree on is that all of the world's problems stem from irresponsibility. If people were not so inclined to impose on others almost all of mankind would live happily ever after.

But there's no way around free will.
Government is mankind's invention to insist on a level of responsibility that allows progress even though halting.

Government standardizes responsibility through laws that impose consequences, in addition to natural consequences, for behavior deemed too irresponsible in terms of impact on others.

Despite all of that though there is still irresponsible behavior as well as mis- and good fortune.

Civilization has generally accepted that we are better off if we spread the consequences of mis- and good fortune across the population, just as insurance spreads the cost consequences of it.

Not a necessity but, arguably, supportive of the greatest good.

The problem, IMO, that you bring up is the overlap between the greater good of spreading good and mis- fortune across the population, and dealing with irresponsibility.

I, personally, don't see a magic bullet. We try to deal with irresponsibility by our laws that make it criminal and that certainly works to a degree. But it's silly to ever expect anything close to perfection.

I personally would not choose to live in a world that made no attempt to spread good and mis- fortune and let only natural consequences have their way. If you die on the streets, regardless of the cause or your situation, that's only your problem. The true law of the jungle that we chose to leave behind.

Nor would I chose a world wherein the law was the sole arbiter of responsibility.

We're in the middle of that road and that’s typically, IMO, the best place to be.

If half the people think that our laws are too lenient, and half too lax, that's probably about where we should be.

And you are an idiot because you believe that everyone that earns more than 4x the poverty level (or 90k or 150k or 250k or whatever other arbitrary number you socialists are using this week) does not deserve his income and only got it through ill gotten gains.

 

[dblack]

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

 

[RKMBrown]

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

Yeah, I simply pointed out that your argument, in the form of a question was moot.

His argument is circular... thus false by construction. Your argument that his argument might lead to other justifications, ignores the fact that all the other situations were already covered as well as the one he provided, and also ignored the circular issue in his argument.

"because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way"

Means the same as:

"Because we already have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care we can force other people to pay for these already existing safety nets."

This is the classic circular argument. He is defending what he's doing by saying he's already doing it.

Your argument by contrast is thus, asking him why if he thinks he can do what he's already doing he can't just keep doing what he's already doing.

The circular argument is what feeds socialism until it snowballs into unsustainable socialism. The socialist will argue the only way to fix socialism is to try harder with more socialism. This works right up till you run out of people that like to work for pennies on the dollar while others sit on their fat asses laughing at them.

 

[PMZ]

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

I say, let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.

 

[PMZ]

Going without insurance presents no risk to anyone else. The risk is that you might get ill and not be able to afford health care. It only becomes a problem for others if they are forced to pay your bills. The problem is the policies that force others to pay your bills. We need to address those instead of going down this road of mandated insurance.

Once again, I'd like to hear what prevents the logic you're using from being applied to any other risky choices that might impact others in similar fashion. Start with emily's example regarding sexual activity. is that different in your view? If not, do you honestly want to live in a society where we are required to carry insurance for anything we do that might put us in a position to need help or charity?

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

Mr Brown has one solution to all problems. Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer, and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow, slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.

Sounds like a return to slavery, doesn't it?

 

[RKMBrown]

I say, let's shoot the poor and the wealthy and keep only the wealth creators.

Yeah and being an "engineer" I've heard that argument plenty of times. One needs to be careful of the tendency to over value oneself in the grand scheme of things. How about we not shoot anyone, and let everyone live the fullest of their own potential through their own efforts?

 

[RKMBrown]

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

Mr Brown has one solution to all problems. Keep the poor barefoot and pregnant and most of all poorer, and give to the wealthy, the 15% of the wealth that, somehow, slipped away from the wealthy and is now shared by 80% of Americans.

Sounds like a return to slavery, doesn't it?

Why is all this shit coming out of your mouth? What are they feeding you at the "home?"

 

[beagle9]

My apologies for interrupting the partisan pissing match, but...

PMZ - I'm wondering if you'd be interested in returning to this issue, as I think it's the most interesting bit of the thread.

It seems to me that part and parcel of running a welfare state is the risk that taxpayers will be tapped for the costs of irresponsible behavior. You seem to be suggesting that the mere existence of such welfare programs can be used as a justification to limit our rights, even if we've never utilized the the welfare 'offered', and I find that quite troubling. I see no limiting principle on your argument here, and no reason it couldn't or wouldn't be applied to the example emily raised, or any other activity that might put us in a position to need public assistance. Do you?

Regarding emily's question about 'sex insurance', children born to parents without adequate financial resources represents a huge burden on the welfare state. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to require a similar guard against these people "forcing" others to pay for their mistakes? If not, how is it different? Why shouldn't people be required to carry insurance, or otherwise prove financial responsibility, before they're allowed to have sex?

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM). This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these contributions.

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, now here I am getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess. WOW!

I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.

 

[RKMBrown]

dblack... I think you are confused. We already use Medicaid as "sex insurance" for the poor. And Obamacare already provides sex insurance through subsidies for middle class and lower income earners up to 4x the poverty level for those who were not already covered by Medicaid.

Thus the taxpayer is already being mandated to pay for sex insurance for 51% of the nation. Further, it is now unlawful (correct me if I'm wrong) to offer health care plans that do not cover "sex insurance." Thus while you can get away with not having it you will have to pay a fine that is then used to pay for it anyway.

Food insurance (EBT, and other programs, check), rent insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), utilities insurance (state and federal programs for that, check), health care insurance (medicaid, and Obamacare, check), communications (Cable tv, internet, cell phones, computers, state and federal programs, check check check...), education (check),...

Sort of hard to come up with an example of something that is not already covered.

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM). This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these contributions.

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.

Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.

SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases. If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky. Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this. But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.

Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.

 

[beagle9]

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM). This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these contributions.

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.

Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.

SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases. If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky. Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this. But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.

Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.

Are these exchanges now allowing for what the repubs were wanting all along, the buying of ones insurance across state lines now ? If so how come the repubs couldn't get this done when they suggested it as a better solution to the rising cost of health care plans for so many back in the day ?

 

[RKMBrown]

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM). This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these contributions.

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.

Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.

SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases. If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky. Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this. But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.

Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.

Are these exchanges now allowing for what the repubs were wanting all along, the buying of ones insurance across state lines now ? If so how come the repubs couldn't get this done when they suggested it as a better solution to the rising cost of health care plans for so many back in the day ?

I don't think so.

I don't think buying policies across state lines ever made sense at all. Different states have different laws regarding health care. And different regions have different costs based on where you live.

The problem with costs was never a matter of state lines, the problem was bad management by state and federal regulations that ran the costs of health care up. For example states that forced insurance to cover pregnancy, where before it was optional. For example, states that forced insurance to cover depression, thus leading to an "epidemic" of depression.

 

[beagle9]

What??

You're completely missing the point. PMZ, and others, are arguing that because we have safety nets covering people who can't afford health care they can, in effect, force other people to pay their way. And they're using that as justification for forced insurance covering such situations.

But we have lots of other similar safety nets, and I'm asking what's different about those? You can make the same argument for food, rent, children, etc - all the other expenses that can be pushed off on the welfare state. It seems like a dangerous precedent to use the potential need for public assistance as an excuse for mandated insurance.

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

NOTICE OF REINSURANCE FEE'S

Effective January 1st, 2014. The ACA will require all health insurance/care providers to collect a payment known as a "reinsurance fee", and this on behalf of the federal government. These payments will fund a transitional reinsurance program that aims to stabilize the market by paying insurers that cover high risk individuals.

To comply with the ACA requirement, BCBS will calculate reinsurance fee's into your premium rate at the amount of $ 9.12 per employee per month (PEPM). This change will be reflected in your bill for 2014.

As a group with an anniversary date of February 1, 2014 or later, we want to ensure that you are aware of this off anniversary change and why it was occurring. Please keep in mind that reinsurance fee's are collected on behalf of the federal government: Blue Cross Blue Shield will not profit from these contributions.

For more information about this fee, and the transitional reinsurance program, please visit http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/files/downloads/3rs-final-rule.pdf.

If you have any questions pertaining to your BCBS bill, please contact your BCBS representative.

So here I am after all this time watching my health care go higher and higher, where as I was hoping that my insurance bill as a working contributing citizen would finally get some relief in the whole thing sooner or later, getting hammered yet again and again in all of this mess.

Now I make less than 50,000 dollars a year now, and I have worked all my life contributing as a working man to my country, family and friends, only to get screwed into the ground for it all in the end. All I ask is for some sense to become the norm again for us working people in this nation, instead of us being asked now to carry such a heavy load. I have done what I was supposed to do in life, and it appears that that was the wrong thing to do in life, because now I am the fool for it all. As if I haven't been duped by all of this in the past, it seems to be getting worse and worse now.

How much more can the real working people stand in this nation ? It's so sad now ! Think about the feds waste in this nation, and then think about how it's never enough what goes on with us who are working to cover it all.

SS started at 2% now it's 15%... just sayin this 10 a month thing is just the start of a long run of a ton of increases. If all you got was an extra 10 you are lucky. Many folks are going from 450 a month to 1200 a month... we are gonna be so screwed with this. But Obama will tell you to smile and be happy because your 50k is within the 4x of poverty number so you will be approved for the subsidies if you move to the health exchange.

Like you I'm amazed more people haven't gone postal on our government, like the TSA killer did this morning and the IRS killer did in austin a couple years back when he flew a plane into the IRS building.

Below the poverty line at around 50,000 or less eh ?

So I could go to the web site and look at these exchanges you say, and then I can apply for subsidies, and even get a new plan that fits maybe, therefore making me a government healthcare welfare recipient now ?

So instead of a positive I become a negative on the system along with so many more, even when I am doing ok working and paying my bills now ? I mean as long as they don't keep going higher and higher and higher because the government or insurance companies are making it this way, then I will be alright just as I always have been. I just want to be treated fair and get a just plan that is right for workers like me, no more and no less.

I worked hard in my life, and me and my wife did the right things in our lives, but fast as a speeding bullet we are quickly being threatened to have nothing to show for it, and that is unacceptable is what I think.

 

[dblack]

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

...

I'm not really sure what you want me to comment on. I think ACA is a first class scam, a ploy by the insurance industry to keep their fingers in every single health care transaction.

 

[beagle9]

A letter I got in the mail today is this... I will write it just like it is written for all to see, and then I want your comments in respect to where this post and thread is at now.. This is from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) to me as a worker with this coverage through my employer. Thanks

...

I'm not really sure what you want me to comment on. I think ACA is a first class scam, a ploy by the insurance industry to keep their fingers in every single health care transaction.

Here is my current plan now. I have a 10,000 dollar deductible for this plan WHY ? If I had my family on with me it would be a $20,000 dollar deductible.. WOW!

RK Brown said it wasn't to bad that they only raised it $10.00 more a week for this reinsurance fee to the federal government , but what he don't understand is that this ten dollars hike is on top of the rates that have been raised already on me within this re-enrollment schedule. How much higher can all this go, and why doesn't this system work like the credit system works, where as if I have been a healthy individual over the years, and I haven't abused the system at all, then why can't I have a health credit rating score that is second to none just like my credit score in life is ? Then with this health credit rating score, how come it doesn't come with huge discounts for a person like me who plays by the rules of staying healthy in life, instead of throwing me into the sea with all those who had abused themselves and horded their money (never paying into anything, much less a bill that they would get if they got sick or something), and all due to medical issues in which they may have created themselves due to their hap hazard lifestyles lived in their life ?