ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[saxitoxin]

The real winners in Obamacare are the detainees at Obama's torture-prison at Guantanamo Bay. After a few rounds of power drills to your body you need a good orthopedic specialist, plus a surgeon to handle the skin grafts. Obama has shown he is a caring Supreme Overlord.

Of course, this assumes a detainee will be able to afford whatever price the Aetna, Inc. Board of Directors decides to set for health insurance and don't have to opt for the $2,085 fine instead.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's my take on pre-existing conditions:
No insurance companies (non-profit and for-profit) should not be required to provide equal prices for those with pre-existing conditions. The risk is greater; therefore, the expected outlays of covering such problems will be greater. This is a fair system because it doesn't force healthier people to pay the marginal burden of those inclined to higher risks.

That's good in theory, but what is to keep an insurance company from taking the higher fees for those pre-existing conditions, then when the cost layout in paying for the treatment for those conditions gets too high, simply declaring bankruptcy? Is there a law against that (I honestly don't know).

Profit and loss incentives tend to help correct that. Why would they intentionally bankrupt themselves and ruin their future streams of income? Besides, others learn by others' failures. Then, if it's illegal, there would be laws, or newly created ones from such instances. Of course, I'm talking about a long process of trial-and-error in a competitive environment.

The ultimate paradox is this: by supporting further state intervention, these advocates in turn will incur the additional costs and consequences of state intervention. There is no easy answer for those supporting further state intervention, yet are willing to ignore the consequences. You can't have state-mandated regulations and a "socially just" society without the burdens of state and its unintended consequences and additional costs.

Who here is ignoring these unintended consequences that you're referring to?

The mess we have today. People appeal to the government for more regulation, or more control, and more provision of Basic Needs!, and we'll keep winding up with what we have.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the free market were allowed to work, someone will find a way to provide a product to and make money from people who have pre-existing conditions that other providers won't cover.

No they won't - there's no profit margin there that's remotely affordable.

My good sir, I must disagree. Profit is not simply a monetary issue. Profit is also realized by the subjective gains, or increases in "good and fuzzy feelings," of those who establish organizations which would mitigate the costs of people who have pre-existing conditions.

These means of support can be provided by family, friends, or the community----if only these means were allowed to operate.

That's really not health insurance, you realize.

Sure, it is. It's another form of it--especially the community-based mutual aid societies. They actually pooled their money and gave it out to whichever member needed help.

[PLAYER57832]

Obama's brilliance comes through yet again.

Yes, of course, because Obama somehow not only coerced Congress, but now has infiltrated the minds of the Supreme Court Justices with 'his" ideas.. never mind that what you call "Obamacare" was not his original idea, just a compromise.

[bedub1]

This might need to be split to a new topic as nobody is going to review 227 pages of crap.

My question is thus. If I don't get health insurance, and am forced to pay a tax, does the government then give me health insurance?

[BigBallinStalin]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

What do they mean by "can afford"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Still the best "basis for interaction between citizens and government," Night Strike?

It's the Constitution itself that makes this happen, don't you realize? If the Constitution clearly stated what was constitutional and not (and could be amended to do so), and didn't rely on 9 clearly political figures to make decisions, wouldn't all of this be prevented?

You know there is no correct interpretation of the Constitution because the writers of the document did this intentionally, right? They were flawed men who wrote a flawed document. Admit it.

Well, it worked pretty well for 150 years or so. What's interesting is seeing this constitution plus the ratchet effect at play.

It isn't necessarily the constitution's fault. The problem arises when judges are selected for their party loyalty, instead of their strict adherence to the constitution.

[AndyDufresne]

We should probably all just switch-over to a bee-like hive society.


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

It will be interesting to see, companies with 50+ employees must offer insurance or pay a penalty. If the penalty is less than the cost of what the health insurance would have cost the business, then it would make economic sense to just pay the penalty and let your workers either buy insurance on an open market or go on a government plan.

Or companies that can't afford to provide health insurance will make sure they never have more than 49 employees,

Oh, you mean the system we have HAD...
no, this will be a change.

Speaking of the economy, although this ruling provides more certainty to the business environment, it's not the ruling that businesses will want. It will now be impossible for the economy to improve before the election because the businesses know that the only way to remove this weight from their necks is for a change in the government.

Not everyone in business buys into the far right rhetoric supported by those at the very top, just to clarify. The needs of mom and pops are quite different from those of the big conglomerates.

[Frigidus]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

[Phatscotty]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

+3

[Neoteny]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

I still fully agree with this.

[saxitoxin]

This might need to be split to a new topic as nobody is going to review 227 pages of crap.

My question is thus. If I don't get health insurance, and am forced to pay a tax, does the government then give me health insurance?

No.

But the tax is less than the cost Obama's campaign donors at Aetna will charge you for health insurance (a person making $50,000/year will only be taxed $1,250) so the working poor will be taxed and still have no access to non-emergent healthcare.

[john9blue]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

thank you dude. sick of the democrats in this thread defending this thing to the death just because "their team won"

[karel]

how can you blame the dems for sitting on their asses,i see both parties sitting on their asses,and mostly republicans doing it,whether you like it or not deal with it,only one you can blame is the court,the court already screwed up and their last decisions,again the courts fault,besides i have heard of nothing that the republicans are doing about health care, ,thats right they dont have a plan,they just talk a lot of shit,no wonder why we have global warming,at least the dems are trying do something about health care

[PLAYER57832]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

I still fully agree with this.

So do I. It is slightly better than the previous system, but not by much. Despite all of Phatt and Nightstrikes continual claims to the contrary, that is pretty much all I have ever said about this bill/law.

[Juan_Bottom]

[saxitoxin]

Now that the Supreme Court has decided the U.S. has the ability to tax people engaging in lifestyle risks, it's up to the government-of-the-hour to decide what's a risk.

If 51% of a future Congress decide that homosexuality is a lifestyle risk, then gay couples should keep their eyes open for the $2,000 homosexuality fine in the mail (insert some vague statistics about increased AIDS transmission rates here). Interracial marriage? That will cost you $1,600 (insert vague statistics about psychological angst). Abortion? We can't make it illegal but even Pro-Choice proponents agree it's a dangerous procedure ... so we can tax it - you'll need to come up with $500,000 before that doctor can terminate your pregnancy!

• edit: increased the abortion tax

[BigBallinStalin]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

I still fully agree with this.

So do I. It is slightly better than the previous system, but not by much. Despite all of Phatt and Nightstrikes continual claims to the contrary, that is pretty much all I have ever said about this bill/law.

When will you stop supporting crony capitalism?

[PLAYER57832]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

I still fully agree with this.

So do I. It is slightly better than the previous system, but not by much. Despite all of Phatt and Nightstrikes continual claims to the contrary, that is pretty much all I have ever said about this bill/law.

When will you stop supporting crony capitalism?

I don't. But I do sometimes accept that compromise is necessary if we want any change at all.

[saxitoxin]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

I still fully agree with this.

So do I. It is slightly better than the previous system, but not by much. Despite all of Phatt and Nightstrikes continual claims to the contrary, that is pretty much all I have ever said about this bill/law.

When will you stop supporting crony capitalism?

I don't. But I do sometimes accept that compromise is necessary if we want any change at all.

LOL

You have got to own shares in Aetna. Sorry, no one could honestly be this naive.

[Woodruff]

Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.

+3

Why are you pretending to agree with Frigidus? Your position is diametrically opposed to Frigidus'. I also voted "It's ok, I guess".

[Woodruff]

Yes, liberals couldn't possibly understand nor respect the Constitution. Only conservatives do that.

Still not up on that self-reflecting thing, are you?

Liberals are the ones who believe in a "living document" interpretation of the Constitution and outright reject any "original intent" arguments.

I don't reject "original intent" arguments. However, I also recognize that the founding fathers absolutely wrote the Constitution in a vague manner precisely because they knew it would need to be re-interpreted as the future unfolded.

As an addendum, Obamacare would have NEVER passed if Obama and his democrats had not LIED to the American people.

I'm wondering why you never seem to complain about the Republicans lying. Why is that?

Because he is a died in the wool Republican, which means he drinks the coolaid versus someone like me who only agrees with them 75% of the time or so.

And you know from our private conversations that I value your opinions as well-considered, even though we routinely disagree.

[Woodruff]

This might need to be split to a new topic as nobody is going to review 227 pages of crap.

My question is thus. If I don't get health insurance, and am forced to pay a tax, does the government then give me health insurance?

As I understand it, it depends on whether it can be determined that you can afford the health insurance premium or not.

[Woodruff]

Today is a victory for America.

Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?

Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.

What do they mean by "can afford"?

Uh...be able to pay for within their means? I'm honestly confused by your question, because it seems...obvious.