ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[WILLIAMS5232]

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?

when i have to pay for other peoples heath care bills to go get a "check up" when they have a runny nose.

or when i don't get sick ever, and because someone else is always sick, i have to pay more regardless.

if there were something like a refund for not using it ever then i'd be fine with it.

right now, my company pays for my insurance that i never use. i'm not sure how this is going to work, but from what i gather there will be a time when this is going to come out of my pocket.

basically, i think some people don't like being told what to do. and this sounds a lot like people are trying to tell others what to do. if it's not, then i'll say i'm wrong. but it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that.

[Symmetry]

The facts on the ground are that the Repubs have invested a huge amount of political capital arguing against the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and this has been rejected.

They've also invested a lot in proposing to appeal "Obamacare", which won't be possible any time soon.

These things are not really debatable.

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

[Juan_Bottom]

when i have to pay for other peoples heath care bills to go get a "check up" when they have a runny nose.

or when i don't get sick ever, and because someone else is always sick, i have to pay more regardless.

if there were something like a refund for not using it ever then i'd be fine with it.

right now, my company pays for my insurance that i never use. i'm not sure how this is going to work, but from what i gather there will be a time when this is going to come out of my pocket.

basically, i think some people don't like being told what to do. and this sounds a lot like people are trying to tell others what to do. if it's not, then i'll say i'm wrong. but it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that.

With the current system, you are already paying for all of this stuff. You pay higher insurance fees because hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who is about to die, even if they don't have insurance. To make up the loss, they charge you more money.
Your company may pay your insurance, but it's considered part of your wages.

With the new system, everyone will be forced to pay, which will lower the costs for everyone. The free-loaders without insurance and the people with pre-existing conditions will all have insurance so you wont be asked to pay more to make up their difference. As a law-abiding citizen who already has insurance, this should lower your costs.

[Phatscotty]

How about Republicans have been against it because it's a new tax on the middle class

Another entitlement ponzi scheme.

[Juan_Bottom]

Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

How about Republicans have been against it because it's a new tax on the middle class

Another entitlement ponzi scheme.

It's actually a legitimate question because I too remember that the Republicans were for it at the start.

I hope for the best though.

[Phatscotty]

[Night Strike]

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Only recently did conservatives and libertarians start remaking the Republican party, that's why only recently did the Republican party decide not to support individual mandates. But it does demonstrate why we must continue to remove progressives of all parties from positions of power in the government.

when i have to pay for other peoples heath care bills to go get a "check up" when they have a runny nose.

or when i don't get sick ever, and because someone else is always sick, i have to pay more regardless.

The thing about this law is that it doesn't allow insurance companies to charge different rates based on personal lifestyle choices. That means everyone will pay the same amount in premiums whether you are young, healthy, and fit or middle-aged, fat, and lethargic. All that does is raise rates on everybody, even if you are a person who makes the correct choices for your health.

[Symmetry]

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Only recently did conservatives and libertarians start remaking the Republican party, that's why only recently did the Republican party decide not to support individual mandates. But it does demonstrate why we must continue to remove progressives of all parties from positions of power in the government.

To be fair, the guy running for the Republican Presidency is probably the most famous implementer of the individual mandate system of healthcare prior to Obamacare.

I'm not sure the "conservatives and libertarians" are doing a great job if they're trying to elect one of those old-guard individual mandate supporters to the highest office in the land.

[Juan_Bottom]

[john9blue]

To be fair, the guy running for the Republican Presidency is probably the most famous implementer of the individual mandate system of healthcare prior to Obamacare.

I'm not sure the "conservatives and libertarians" are doing a great job if they're trying to elect one of those old-guard individual mandate supporters to the highest office in the land.

we're just doing it so that we can watch romney stumble over his own contradictions at the presidential debates.

[Night Strike]

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Only recently did conservatives and libertarians start remaking the Republican party, that's why only recently did the Republican party decide not to support individual mandates. But it does demonstrate why we must continue to remove progressives of all parties from positions of power in the government.

To be fair, the guy running for the Republican Presidency is probably the most famous implementer of the individual mandate system of healthcare prior to Obamacare.

I'm not sure the "conservatives and libertarians" are doing a great job if they're trying to elect one of those old-guard individual mandate supporters to the highest office in the land.

That's why myself and many others did not vote for him in the primaries. But he is the person who was chosen as the nominee, and he will be the person to sign the repeal if we provide him with a conservative super-majority. There's no way Obama will repeal the massive tax increase he has pushed onto the American people, so Romney is the only option available in 2012.

[karel]

im glad it passed,just to piss everyone off

[Juan_Bottom]

im glad it passed,just to piss everyone off

One step closer to Revolution.

Hopefully it will be the French kind though.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i seriously wish for a depression worse than the great one. one that will humble alot of whiny people that think life is so tough as is. or think they deserve better than what they got just because they punch a time clock.

it'd be great to see my "in debt up to their neck" neighbors who all own escalades with gigantic corny ass rims and bmw's standing in a bread line. then go home and wash their polo shirts in the ditch. i would laugh my ass off.

all the while i'm sitting there eating my corn beef hash... not because i have to, but because it's just that damn good.

i just can't stand people who make excuses...or desire things they do not care to earn

[karel]

f*ck the french bunch of ass wipes they are,only ones to blame is the courts not any political party

[Symmetry]

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Only recently did conservatives and libertarians start remaking the Republican party, that's why only recently did the Republican party decide not to support individual mandates. But it does demonstrate why we must continue to remove progressives of all parties from positions of power in the government.

To be fair, the guy running for the Republican Presidency is probably the most famous implementer of the individual mandate system of healthcare prior to Obamacare.

I'm not sure the "conservatives and libertarians" are doing a great job if they're trying to elect one of those old-guard individual mandate supporters to the highest office in the land.

That's why myself and many others did not vote for him in the primaries. But he is the person who was chosen as the nominee, and he will be the person to sign the repeal if we provide him with a conservative super-majority. There's no way Obama will repeal the massive tax increase he has pushed onto the American people, so Romney is the only option available in 2012.

Although, again, you have to accept that a Republican super-majority is almost impossible, so Romney couldn't repeal Rombamacare (heh!) even if he gets elected, let alone if he stands by his claim that he'll do it after election, or indeed stands by it next week.

Vote for him, of course, if that's what you want, but don't believe that Romney can do what he says he'll do, and don't believe that he won't flip on the issue again.

After all, he got to the position of Republican nominee based on his success as gov of Massachusetts, again based on...

...individually mandated healthcare.

[rockfist]

I think there is hope that some Democrats would not filibuster a repeal in the Senate if in November we put a big enough shellacking on them. Maybe false hope, but for those on the right who oppose the health care bill, its all they/we have left.

[BigBallinStalin]

The facts on the ground are that the Repubs have invested a huge amount of political capital arguing against the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and this has been rejected.

They've also invested a lot in proposing to appeal "Obamacare", which won't be possible any time soon.

These things are not really debatable.

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Check this post out. It's a great example of what Hasnas was talking about.

It's the law because the Supreme Court have said it's constitutional; therefore, the debate is over. How dare they resist! Rest assured, the rule of law is in place, so please go about your days and accept a marginal shift of power toward the state and away from you. The law is objective, the judges are impartial. Please, go back to sleep. There, there, good children. Rest well.

[BigBallinStalin]

when i have to pay for other peoples heath care bills to go get a "check up" when they have a runny nose.

or when i don't get sick ever, and because someone else is always sick, i have to pay more regardless.

if there were something like a refund for not using it ever then i'd be fine with it.

right now, my company pays for my insurance that i never use. i'm not sure how this is going to work, but from what i gather there will be a time when this is going to come out of my pocket.

basically, i think some people don't like being told what to do. and this sounds a lot like people are trying to tell others what to do. if it's not, then i'll say i'm wrong. but it will take a lot of convincing for me to believe that.

With the current system, you are already paying for all of this stuff. You pay higher insurance fees because hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who is about to die, even if they don't have insurance. To make up the loss, they charge you more money.
Your company may pay your insurance, but it's considered part of your wages.

With the new system, everyone will be forced to pay, which will lower the costs for everyone. The free-loaders without insurance and the people with pre-existing conditions will all have insurance so you wont be asked to pay more to make up their difference. As a law-abiding citizen who already has insurance, this should lower your costs.

I like these empirical claims. Let's disregard the extreme difficulty in predicting future prices for now. Why do you believe your post? Have you read some economic articles which support your argument?

[Symmetry]

The facts on the ground are that the Repubs have invested a huge amount of political capital arguing against the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and this has been rejected.

They've also invested a lot in proposing to appeal "Obamacare", which won't be possible any time soon.

These things are not really debatable.

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Check this post out. It's a great example of what Hasnas was talking about.

It's the law because the Supreme Court have said it's constitutional; therefore, the debate is over.

Not at all, and I don't think either of us think the debate is over. I only talk about the practical elements, and, I'm afraid, the SC is kind of as high as you can go on the practical side of law.

Cute post though.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?

An excellent question!

No one really knows when the increasing deficit spending, increasing federal government expenditures, and further hampering regulation will eventually lead to the next recession or massive social unrest.

What is certain is this: the current situation is unsustainable in the long-run.

[BigBallinStalin]

The facts on the ground are that the Repubs have invested a huge amount of political capital arguing against the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and this has been rejected.

They've also invested a lot in proposing to appeal "Obamacare", which won't be possible any time soon.

These things are not really debatable.

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Check this post out. It's a great example of what Hasnas was talking about.

It's the law because the Supreme Court have said it's constitutional; therefore, the debate is over. How dare they resist! Rest assured, the rule of law is in place, so please go about your days and accept a marginal shift of power toward the state and away from you. The law is objective, the judges are impartial. Please, go back to sleep. There, there, good children. Rest well.

Not at all, and I don't think either of us think the debate is over. I only talk about the practical elements, and, I'm afraid, the SC is kind of as high as you can go on the practical side of law.

Cute post though.

I'd recommend clicking on that link in order to understand what I was talking about. If you don't want to, that's fine because it's your decision to remain oblivious, which is a regrettable choice to make, in my humble opinion.

[Symmetry]

The facts on the ground are that the Repubs have invested a huge amount of political capital arguing against the individual mandate as unconstitutional, and this has been rejected.

They've also invested a lot in proposing to appeal "Obamacare", which won't be possible any time soon.

These things are not really debatable.

The interesting question is what they'll do next. Opposition to the Individual Mandate was kind of a recent thing for Republicans- not so long ago it was widely supported within the party. Will they return to that position, and work bipartisanly to get the law running efficiently, or will they sabotage its effective running at every opportunity and make it more costly?

Check this post out. It's a great example of what Hasnas was talking about.

It's the law because the Supreme Court have said it's constitutional; therefore, the debate is over. How dare they resist! Rest assured, the rule of law is in place, so please go about your days and accept a marginal shift of power toward the state and away from you. The law is objective, the judges are impartial. Please, go back to sleep. There, there, good children. Rest well.

Not at all, and I don't think either of us think the debate is over. I only talk about the practical elements, and, I'm afraid, the SC is kind of as high as you can go on the practical side of law.

Cute post though.

I'd recommend clicking on that link in order to understand what I was talking about. If you don't want to, that's fine because it's your decision to remain oblivious, which is a regrettable choice to make, in my humble opinion.

I read it, unfortunately, daftest bloody thing I've read in a long time.

[john9blue]

daftest bloody thing I've read in a long time.

your british is showing

[Symmetry]

daftest bloody thing I've read in a long time.

your british is showing

I play it up sometimes.