How Should We Then Live?

Obamacare

Go down

Obamacare

Post by drainey on Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:44 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Spinks on Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:09 am

What scares me the most about the SCOTUS ruling is that now the government can use taxes as penalties for not following specific mandates. If an individual decides not to buy insurance he will have to pay tax for his disobedience. Suppose that next the government decides that it's a good idea for every American to drive a hybrid vehicle. I decide that I don't need a hybrid car because what I currently have serves me quite well. Here comes that tax again for my civil disobedience. When will it end? Oh, I know. When there is a law passed that requires everyone to own a firearm. Then those that love for the government to impose its will on us will then reject the notion.

I don't believe that it is the job of the government to take care of people. That job belongs to the Church.

What's the difference in voting for a Mormon or a straight up no believer? Neither of the two share my religious beliefs. I have to vote for the one that isn't currently making my blood pressure rise.

____________________
Bill
avatar
Spinks

Posts : 46
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by drainey on Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:15 am

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by tuscaloosatanning on Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:39 am

I don't believe that it is the job of the government to take care of people. That job belongs to the Church
Yea the church failed thats why the government stepped in because the numbers(before SS) were becoming unbearable.

And the individual mandate is a Republican idea. The Democratic preference is for single payer.
This is a bit skewed. Yes, the Democrats position would be a single payer system(which I am tossing around vs. a TRUE free market exchange) but the Republicans position is not for an individual mandate. Unless you are lumping all republicans in with the visionless shape-shifter that is Mitt Romney. So as far as blood pressure Bill...Vote Ron Paul and your apathy will be cured.

____________________
Truth is treason in an empire of lies-Ron Paul

Tanning Oasis Tuscaloosa
Page One SEO
avatar
tuscaloosatanning

Posts : 18
Join date : 2012-06-14

http://www.tanningoasisdowntown.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by drainey on Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:07 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Spinks on Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:24 pm

drainey wrote:

Without Obamacare, people who didn't have health insurance can go to the emergency room and get health care that is free to them, and the costs are passed on those who pay, whether through insurance or rarely up front. It is a tax on irresponsible people. It is no different than the sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. You choose to smoke or drink and you will pay those taxes. And the individual mandate is a Republican idea. The Democratic preference is for single payer.

Here is a novel idea...
Why is this a problem for the government to solve? An unpaid ER bill is the problem of the institution that provided the service.
For those that can afford insurance but don't, let the health care provider seek payment through civil action by simply garnishing the wages of the debtor. For those that cannot afford insurance and are on government assistance let the heath care provider file petition with the government to deduct payment from the individual's "check". Or, deduct a portion of that "check" and put it into a savings account for future medical expenses so that unpaid ER bills don't become a problem. Let the government place mandates on those that are already depending on the government.
For those that are doing the best that they can but can't afford the ER visit the medical provider can finance the bill. This is already common practice.
Since we have already given education to the government, which is a whole 'nother subject, why not require that everyone graduate from high school no matter how long it takes? Also, require everyone to show to be proficient in a viable trade so that there is always something out there for us to do to earn our own way.
I'm making this up as I go so I'm sure that there are holes all in my statements. I do believe that everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves. I recognized the need for a job that included health insurance as a necessity when I was still young and dumb, around 20 years old.

I don't care which party comes up with a certain idea. Both parties are corrupt in their own ways.

drainey wrote:
Before Obamacare, if you were one of at least four million children with preexisting conditions,that were either denied health care outright or had unrealistic limits on the amount of health care you could get for your condition, you were out of luck. Where was the Church? The government is of the people by the people. If Republicans sweep in November, they have claimed they will repeal Obamacare. Whether at that time they wish to make enemies of the people who care about those kids, we'll see.

Well, I have a child with one of these preexisting conditions. Insurance coverage has never been an issue because I had insurance before she was born and have maintained it. Not only did did I have standard medical insurance but I also had supplemental insurance that paid for expenses that were not directly medical related after her birth. It's not about politicians making enemies. It's about the parents making responsible decisions before they start hatching babies.

drainey wrote:
I probably shouldn't have mixed religion into this, I have a weakness for claims that Obama is a Muslim or wasn't born here. So I will leave you with just one of many documented claims:In an interview with the evangelical periodical Christianity Today,
Obama stated: "I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe
in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe
that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal
life."

This is something that we cannot prove or disprove. Therefore, for me, it's not worth wasting time on.
Most any Mormon will give the same answer when asked about their religious beliefs.


Last edited by Spinks on Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Bill
avatar
Spinks

Posts : 46
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Spinks on Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:35 pm

tuscaloosatanning wrote:
Yea the church failed thats why the government stepped in because the numbers(before SS) were becoming unbearable.

So as far as blood pressure Bill...Vote Ron Paul and your apathy will be cured.


When this nation was founded the church and fraternal organizations performed the duties of caring for widows, orphans, and those that were physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. Laziness was considered a personal problem. Society in general has moved away from both of these institutions. Government assistance was originally intended to be a temporary solution until the individual could do better for themselves. The problem is that laziness has become acceptable and the government will not stop benefits once they are started.


Ron Paul: If I thought he had half a chance I would strongly consider it. I think that Rand will much viable in the future.

____________________
Bill
avatar
Spinks

Posts : 46
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by drainey on Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:55 am

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Spinks on Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:01 pm

drainey wrote:

Hospitals are required to treat patients because of an act of Congress in 1986. Previously, it was the government that made an unpaid ER bill the problem of the institution that provided the service.What is the difference between that and making a business fully finance its employee's health care?

There is no difference. IMHO, the act that you speak of in 1986 created that problem that we have today. It created a bunch of unpaid ER bills. What about the people that need real emergency care but can't afford it? If a person bursts through the ER door with a compound fracture or a freely flowing laceration that person will get treatment. A case of the sniffles doesn't warrant a trip to the ER like a missing cat doesn't warrant a call to 911 because it's not an emergency. The government shouldn't have intruded into private business. If a person without insurance has a true medical emergency the ER should treat them, give them a shot of penicillin and send them on there way with a bill in hand. After that, it should be up to the individual to pay the bill and seek further treatment because at this point it is time for him to live with the choices that have led him to this situation.

Spinks wrote:For those that can afford insurance but don't, let the health care provider seek payment through civil action by simply garnishing the wages of the debtor. For those that cannot afford insurance and are on government assistance let the heath care provider file petition with the government to deduct payment from the individual's "check". Or, deduct a portion of that "check" and put it into a savings account for future medical expenses so that unpaid ER bills don't become a problem. Let the government place mandates on those that are already depending on the government.

drainey wrote:
Let the government place mandates on those that are already depending on the government. That's what Obamacare does. People who can pay for health care previously would use the ER as an emergency room, and depended on the government to force the hospital to take them. So they must pay via an individual mandate in Obamacare. They are made to take personal responsibility for their health care. How are we disagreeing on this?


We disagree on how this should be done. I don't believe that the government is there to save us from ourselves. Much like Chief Justice Roberts stated by saying that we have made certain political decisions and now we have to deal with them (paraphrased). If private industry has a problem let private industry solve it or fail all together. That's what the USA has that other countries don't. We can make all of the dumb decisions that we want. We are free to fail just as much as we are free to succeed. The private sector will solve problems that need solving. Sort of like evolving from giant computers that filled a warehouse to a phone that has exponentially more computing power than the one that filled a warehouse.

Spinks wrote:For those that are doing the best that they can but can't afford the ER visit the medical provider can finance the bill. This is already common practice.
drainey wrote:
Is this a misstatement? Who judges who is doing the best that they can? And how is this common practice?

My opinion is that people that attempt to pay a debt but can't fully pay it all at once would be the ones that are doing the best that they can. I know of families that have debts to medical facilities that make monthly payments to the hospitals and or doctors. These people may not live long enough to fully pay the bill but, at this point, both parties have agreed to terms of payment. Also, many years ago, I worked for a small ambulance service. The company filed for reimbursement form insurance and then made arrangements for the patient to pay the remaining. Even for non emergency runs, such as transfers from hospital to hospital, I never knew of them turning anyone one away for not having insurance.




Spinks wrote:Well, I have a child with one of these preexisting conditions. Insurance coverage has never been an issue because I had insurance before she was born and have maintained it. Not only did did I have standard medical insurance but I also had supplemental insurance that paid for expenses that were not directly medical related after her birth. It's not about politicians making enemies. It's about the parents making responsible decisions before they start hatching babies.

drainey wrote:
It's great you can afford that, and it was unusually wise of you to get insurance early. But there are conditions that no private insurance company will cover or cover enough that even a reasonably well off family can pay the expenses. Because it is not profitable to private insurance companies. There are no death panels, you just can't get insurance past a certain point. That is a weakness in free market healthcare, just as overwhelming waste is a weakness of a single payer system. How can you make a responsible decision, pre Obamacare, that will cover your unborn children one hundred percent? How is that about responsibility?

It's not that I can actually afford it out right. I just saw the need for finding a job that provided health insurance as a benefit. I also later saw the need of having a job that allowed me to keep my insurance post retirement and moved to a position that does just that. Supplemental insurance is comparatively cheap. Some supplemental polices run as little as $10 per month.
The key to preexisting conditions is to be born into insurance coverage. This means that you have to know what your coverage includes. I know, this would require an individual's parents to be thinking ahead and preplan for the care of a child before it is even born. As I said earlier,"It's about the parents making responsible decisions before they start hatching babies."



____________________
Bill
avatar
Spinks

Posts : 46
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by drainey on Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:05 pm

`


Last edited by drainey on Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
Daniel
avatar
drainey

Posts : 73
Join date : 2012-03-05

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Spinks on Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:28 am

drainey wrote:

1. I don't agree with EMTALA, I was just replying to you saying "Why is this a problem for the government to solve? An unpaid ER bill is
the problem of the institution that provided the service." I will take your EMTALA argument one step further, that it forces healthcare providers to take customers who won't pay, and leaves the bill with the healthcare provider. This is the classic example of an unfunded mandate. It just shifts a problem, patient dumping, off of the non paying consumer and onto everyone else. I was objecting to your idea that that was ok.

I don't think that I said that it was ok for that to happen. scratch Just to clarify, it's not.

drainey wrote:
2. Whether the government should or should not have intruded into private business is irrelevant. They did 14 years before Obamacare and that did not change with Obamacare. And no significant political movement is trying to change that. I believe we are in agreement on that act being a mistake, though I think the mistake is not finding a way to pay for it.

Actually it is very relevant. Just because it happened once doesn't give permission for it to happen over and over again. I believe that the TEA Party movement is the closest that we have to a group that can make it happen with a platform of smaller government and lower taxes.
Yes, we agree on the act being a mistake. The mistake, to me, is forcing people to buy a product. Where is the freedom in that?

[quote/]
Spinks wrote:I don't believe that the government is there to save us from ourselves. Much like Chief Justice Roberts stated by saying that we have made certain political decisions and now we have to deal with them (paraphrased). If private industry has a problem let private industry solve it or fail all together. That's what the USA has that other countries don't. We can make all of the dumb decisions that we want. We are free to fail just as much as we are free to succeed. The private sector will solve problems that need solving. Sort of like evolving from giant computers that filled a warehouse to a phone that has exponentially more computing power than the one that filled a warehouse.
drainey wrote:
1. The government is there to save us from entities that are more powerful than us, that alone we as individuals are powerless against. Good historical examples would be child labor, civil rights and King George III. This is one aspect of what Obamacare does, protecting us from the whims of private health insurers.

To me, entities that are more powerful than us, the individual, would imply protection from a foreign or domestic enemy. King George III would fall into this category. Child labor and civil rights issues are philosophical atrocities that individuals certainly were not powerless against. Child labor laws were enacted by working people through unions and non-profit organizations such as the National Child Labor Committee. Civil rights legislation was provoked by individuals banding together for a cause that acted through education, demonstration and various forms of peaceful civil disobedience. Individuals were clearly not powerless against issues such as child labor and civil rights violations. In fact, these issues were taken on by individual citizens that acted against injustice.

drainey wrote:
2. If my children have cystic fibrosis, and their medical treatment costs $30,000 a month, and private industry will drop you rather than cover that, regardless of what insurance you bought before they were born then it is not a private industry problem. It is a problem for every man, woman and child in this country. If that is what the USA has that other countries don't, then it has to change. Not because I say so, but because of the overwhelming majority of people in this country who want it to change.

Is this an issue that has to be solved by requiring an individual purchase a product that they do not want? What the USA has that other countries don't is the FREEDOM of choice. Your example of cystic fibrosis is a valid concern and I agree that most people would like to see this particular situation resolved. However, a government mandate is not the answer.

drainey wrote:
3. The private sector will solve problems that are profitable to solve. They will make problems worse if it is profitable. Pretty much anything profitable. Free Market jesus™️

Is this sort of like why we don't have a cure for cancer because it is more profitable to sell medications to treat it? Smells of conspiracy theory to me.

drainey wrote:
4. I work in IT, and when a server is of no further use to private industry, we take it out back and shoot it. Sometimes literally, I kid you not. Is that the metaphor you were going for? That once someone is no longer financially productive, they are of no use to our society and should be euthanized?

Surely you jest? I'm trying to resist being offended because I really do like you.
My point was the fact that private industry has driven the progression of computer technology without government intervention. I can see the confusion given the medical influences of this thread.

Spinks wrote:My opinion is that people that attempt to pay a debt but can't fully pay it all at once would be the ones that are doing the best that they can.
drainey wrote:
The people who avoid the bill, or won't pay it, or won't attempt to pay it, also have the medical provider finance the bill, preObamacare. Then those bills get turned over to a collection company for 20 cents on the dollar. The other 80 cents come from the taxpayer, the insured and the health provider Now, the people who aren't being responsible, pay for insurance, or get fined. Not a perfect solution by any means, but it is a better system, better country, better way of life.

Every business or company that sells a product or service has unpaid accounts. Should we expect the federal government to pass a tax to cover every single delinquent account in the nation? I certainly hope not. Once again, this is a private sector problem. The Declaration of Independence states the following: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It is important to note that we have the right to pursue happiness. This implies that we are not guaranteed happiness and that failure is a certain possibility.

drainey wrote:It's great you can afford that, and it was unusually wise of you to get insurance early. But there are conditions that no private insurance company will cover or cover enough that even a reasonably well off family can pay the expenses. Because it is not profitable to private insurance companies. There are no death panels, you just can't get insurance past a certain point. That is a weakness in free market healthcare, just as overwhelming waste is a weakness of a single payer system. How can you make a responsible decision, pre Obamacare, that will cover your unborn children one hundred percent? How is that about responsibility?

Spinks wrote:It's not that I can actually afford it out right. I just saw the need for finding a job that provided health insurance as a benefit. I also later saw the need of having a job that allowed me to keep my insurance post retirement and moved to a position that does just that. Supplemental insurance is comparatively cheap. Some supplemental polices run as little as $10 per month.
The key to preexisting conditions is to be born into insurance coverage. This means that you have to know what your coverage includes. I know, this would require an individual's parents to be thinking ahead and preplan for the care of a child before it is even born. As I said earlier,"It's about the parents making responsible decisions before they start hatching babies."

drainey wrote:
1. I'm not saying it was cheap or cost you next to nothing. I'm saying you could afford to pay for insurance, and could get the insurance.
2. The unspoken argument that I'm hearing from you over this entire thread, and tell me if I am wrong, is that according to you there is nobody in the United States(pre Obamacare), that could not get insurance for themselves or their children's catastrophic illness or preexisting condition if they had just planned ahead. That there is nobody that even when they got said insurance, the insurance would drop them if they judged the cost too high.

Not exactly. I was just trying to give examples of real life experiences of how I have seen things work. I agree that some reforms are needed. I'm not naive enough to believe that every single person could obtain insurance prior to Obamacare. However, we did have Medicaid that was available to the poor and disabled. Why not develop a plan to enhance the Medicaid system for those that need it without forcing people that don't want insurance to buy into the system? This could include coverage for preexisting conditions. I'm a little more comfortable with Medicaid because at least it's administered and partially funded by the states. Full disclosure, I have a child that receives Medicaid coverage. Which reminds me, at times it can be difficult to find a doctor that accepts Medicaid. I have found that there are two common reasons for this. 1) They don't want to deal with the bureaucratic paperwork and 2) discrimination. Most Medicaid recipients are poor and and don't fit the demographic that some doctor's offices are targeting. I can also see this happening with people that have the tax rebate funded health insurance that is part of Obamacare.

drainey wrote:
Lest we disagree too much, your planning and purchase of health insurance before for you and your family before it was needed, I consider wise,wiser than I was at 20. If I were a Republican I would hold that high as an example of how health insurance could work before Obamacare. From my experience with the housing crisis, I would be amazed if you didn't hold some resentment that our country wrongly rewards people who have been irresponsible with health care while giving no consideration to those who are responsible. Were more people like you we would not need health care reform, or not as much.

In case it isn't clear I would like to state my primary concern about the SCOTUS decision is that the program was declared to be a tax. This now opens the door for the federal government to place a penalizing tax on anything that it deems to "good for us". Also, I believe that the entire law exceeds the scope of the federal government. Any right not granted to the federal government is reserved for the states. The decision states that the law is unconstitutional based on the commerce clause but that it may stand because it is a tax.

I would like to pose a question. If for some reason you lose your current insurance coverage and decide to save money by taking a chance that you will not need health insurance will you be ok with paying the mandated penalty?

Also, drainey, I really appreciate the civil discussion. It's nice to be able to see different perspectives and reflect on them. Please, invite me to the next server shoot. That sounds like fun Smile

____________________
Bill
avatar
Spinks

Posts : 46
Join date : 2012-05-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Obamacare

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum