(03-28-2012 12:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If you have insurance (like me), than the mandate won't affect you. You are defending deadbeats that increase your taxes when they need emergency medical treatment because they refuse to get insurance.

Parts of the law force longer coverage on kids, more services, and other regulations which will jack up the price.

(03-28-2012 12:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 12:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If you have insurance (like me), than the mandate won't affect you. You are defending deadbeats that increase your taxes when they need emergency medical treatment because they refuse to get insurance.

So naive.

Yes it will affect you because the mandate has a minimum coverage requirement that must be purchased. If your current plan does not meet that minimum requirement you will have to purchase one that does, which, undoubtedly, will be more expensive.

So you are wrong.

No. I have great coverage. This mandate doesn't affect me. I will have to pay in higher taxes for these deadbeats to get healthcare when they show up at the hospital

(03-28-2012 03:03 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  No. I have great coverage.

Great is a purely subjective term. It may be great for you. If it doesn't meet the minimum government standards then you will have to change. Do you know what the minimum standards are? If not it would do you well to research it before convincing yourself it won't impact you.

Quote:This mandate doesn't affect me. I will have to pay in higher taxes for these deadbeats to get healthcare when they show up at the hospital

If you're employer decides it's cheaper for them to pay the fine rather than pay what they do today they will drop you. It will affect you then.

It is beyond naive to claim the mandate doesn't impact you when you clearly don't know the full ramifications of it in the first place.

(03-28-2012 12:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 12:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If you have insurance (like me), than the mandate won't affect you. You are defending deadbeats that increase your taxes when they need emergency medical treatment because they refuse to get insurance.

So naive.
Yes it will affect you because the mandate has a minimum coverage requirement that must be purchased. If your current plan does not meet that minimum requirement you will have to purchase one that does, which, undoubtedly, will be more expensive.
So you are wrong.

But Obama told him that if he liked his doctor and his health insurance, he could keep them. And of course, Obama would never lie to him.

(03-28-2012 03:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 12:44 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 12:37 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  If you have insurance (like me), than the mandate won't affect you. You are defending deadbeats that increase your taxes when they need emergency medical treatment because they refuse to get insurance.

So naive.
Yes it will affect you because the mandate has a minimum coverage requirement that must be purchased. If your current plan does not meet that minimum requirement you will have to purchase one that does, which, undoubtedly, will be more expensive.
So you are wrong.

But Obama told him that if he liked his doctor and his health insurance, he could keep them. And of course, Obama would never lie to him.

(03-28-2012 03:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 03:03 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  No. I have great coverage.

Great is a purely subjective term. It may be great for you. If it doesn't meet the minimum government standards then you will have to change. Do you know what the minimum standards are? If not it would do you well to research it before convincing yourself it won't impact you.

Quote:This mandate doesn't affect me. I will have to pay in higher taxes for these deadbeats to get healthcare when they show up at the hospital

If you're employer decides it's cheaper for them to pay the fine rather than pay what they do today they will drop you. It will affect you then.

It is beyond naive to claim the mandate doesn't impact you when you clearly don't know the full ramifications of it in the first place.

I am self employed so if my employer pulls my insurance we are gonna have some problems.

My insurance will always be enough. I still don't want my taxes paying for deadbeats.

(03-28-2012 04:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 03:08 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-28-2012 03:03 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  No. I have great coverage.

Great is a purely subjective term. It may be great for you. If it doesn't meet the minimum government standards then you will have to change. Do you know what the minimum standards are? If not it would do you well to research it before convincing yourself it won't impact you.

Quote:This mandate doesn't affect me. I will have to pay in higher taxes for these deadbeats to get healthcare when they show up at the hospital

If you're employer decides it's cheaper for them to pay the fine rather than pay what they do today they will drop you. It will affect you then.

It is beyond naive to claim the mandate doesn't impact you when you clearly don't know the full ramifications of it in the first place.

I am self employed so if my employer pulls my insurance we are gonna have some problems.

My insurance will always be enough. I still don't want my taxes paying for deadbeats.

Don't want your taxes paying for deadbeats??? Wrong country pal...wrong planet for that matter.

RINOS. Y'all ain't real let 'em die conservatives.

Life begins at conception and ends when you don't have health insurance.

(03-28-2012 08:52 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Life begins at conception and ends when you don't have health insurance.

Wrong again dipchit. Everyone in this country already has access to healthcare.

The SCOTUS may, briefly, restore my faith in Constitutional government.

(03-29-2012 09:01 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The SCOTUS may, briefly, restore my faith in Constitutional government.

Amen...

I think if this is struck down it will pave the way for a single payer system in his second term if re-elected and if the socialists gain control of both houses of Congress. IF that happens I will begin looking for opportunities outside of America to work and raise my family.

Apparently the law says you must buy health insurance. If you don't, you will be assessed a fine. If you don't pay the fine... nothing happens.

The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don’t pay the fine.

So what Obama said would cost 900 billion but has already increased to 1.8 trillion will go to 3T or more.

(03-29-2012 09:26 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Apparently the law says you must buy health insurance. If you don't, you will be assessed a fine. If you don't pay the fine... nothing happens.

The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don’t pay the fine.

So what Obama said would cost 900 billion but has already increased to 1.8 trillion will go to 3T or more.

Except if you owe the government and don't pay the government can institute a collection action against you. Just because you can't be thrown into a debtor's prison or there's no lien to attach (meaning it's unsecured) doesn't mean debts are worthless. This country would fall apart if that were the case. God. Where did you hear this? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't come up with this yourself and it was some lie on Fox News.

(03-29-2012 09:05 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 09:01 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The SCOTUS may, briefly, restore my faith in Constitutional government.

Amen...

I think if this is struck down it will pave the way for a single payer system in his second term if re-elected and if the socialists gain control of both houses of Congress. IF that happens I will begin looking for opportunities outside of America to work and raise my family.

If this gets struck down I hope the Dems are dumb enough to try and force single payer. They will get destroyed that's why Obama moved towards the mandate (that he criticized as a candidate).

Well he wanted a public option which would have been a great idea but he didn't have the votes for the supermajority in the Senate to do that (Lieberman being the 60th vote held out on this). The insurance company middlemen were lobbying hard against it and won. What we ended up with is what has historically been proposed as a right wing solution for universal health care and while it isn't what I (or probably Obama) wanted, it's much better than nothing.

(03-29-2012 12:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Well he wanted a public option which would have been a great idea but he didn't have the votes for the supermajority in the Senate to do that (Lieberman being the 60th vote held out on this). The insurance company middlemen were lobbying hard against it and won. What we ended up with is what has historically been proposed as a right wing solution for universal health care and while it isn't what I (or probably Obama) wanted, it's much better than nothing.

And he is not going to get 60 this time around, he will be lucky to hold the majority in the senate. Best case he picks up 3 or so.

Like I said he had to move because single payer is not going to happen.

(03-29-2012 12:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Well he wanted a public option which would have been a great idea but he didn't have the votes for the supermajority in the Senate to do that (Lieberman being the 60th vote held out on this). The insurance company middlemen were lobbying hard against it and won. What we ended up with is what has historically been proposed as a right wing solution for universal health care and while it isn't what I (or probably Obama) wanted, it's much better than nothing.

I'd like an honest answer on this.

I get hammered when I express the opinion that Obama is a socialist/communist. "Oh, no, if he were a socialist or communist then the Affordable Care Act would contain the public option."

But when the subject turns to Obamacare, the response is always, "Oh he wanted the public option but didn't have the votes to pass it."

Obama may in fact not be a socialist or communist. I believe that he is, and I believe that there is ample support for my opinion. But the fact that Obamacare does not include a public option cannot be offered as support for the proposition that he isn't, not if you're going to turn around and say that he wanted the public option but didn't have the votes. You can advance either of the left-wing arguments quoted above. But you can't advance both of them. They can't both be true. So which one is true and which one isn't?

(03-29-2012 09:05 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(03-29-2012 09:01 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The SCOTUS may, briefly, restore my faith in Constitutional government.

Amen...

I think if this is struck down it will pave the way for a single payer system in his second term if re-elected and if the socialists gain control of both houses of Congress. IF that happens I will begin looking for opportunities outside of America to work and raise my family.

(03-29-2012 12:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Well he wanted a public option which would have been a great idea but he didn't have the votes for the supermajority in the Senate to do that (Lieberman being the 60th vote held out on this). The insurance company middlemen were lobbying hard against it and won. What we ended up with is what has historically been proposed as a right wing solution for universal health care and while it isn't what I (or probably Obama) wanted, it's much better than nothing.

No, we did not end up with a right wing solution. That is a soundbyte lie that needs to die.

I'm not aware that the Health Choices Commission or the Independent Payment Advisory Board or the effective elimination of Health Savings Accounts or any of about 2500 pages of other stuff has ever been proposed by the right wing. If you know of any such proposals, please provide cites.

What Obamacare represents is a combination of the worst of our present system (tying health insurance to employment) with the the worst of single-payer/single-provider systems (unaccountable bureaucrats taking health care choices away from doctors and patients). The French approach eliminates both of those; that's why it is better, as are the Dutch, German, and other plans that follow the same approach.