ObamaCare's Plans Are Worse

Really? Sticker shock has been huge where my family lives in Sacramento California, and the shock will get only worse when 20 somethings do not sign up. The last they need is to have a huge monthly bill for something they see no benefit from. My other thoughts on this nightmare legislation solely owned by the democrats, how is the money collected each month from the millions of people that don't own a credit card, have a bank account, or have a credit score in the 5's?

Democrats would have fared much better had they just taken Medicare and expanded it to fit all Americans, where the payments come from everyone's pay check just like it does now. Simplicity has never been what the government strives for

 

You pay a small fee, as you already know.

 

Tell that to the majority of folks who are having their costs jacked up. They'll appreciate the humor.

 

People all over the country are getting out their checkbooks to pay their new insurance premiums, looking at their potential new out of pocket expenses, and laughing their tails off.
They don't feel forced at all.

 

So you are good with most people paying more even though they are not getting anything better? BTW, healthcare is an issue in most countries.....we are an aging and overweight population. The issues is NOT coverage but the focus should be about wellness.

 

Yep, it's sort of like looking up into the grinning face of Guiedo, the mob enforcer, as he says in that patented voice that was once worked over by a lead pipe, "Mr. Obama, now he don't want youse to look at this as being forced to do nothin'. Youse just gots to pay him that's all; and youse can pay Mr. Obama now or -- after a friendly little visit from me -- youse can pay him later . . . and try out your new ObamaCare plan . . . from the hospital."

 

paying "protection" money is always optional. You know that.

 

Absolutely.

 

Which doubles the next year and possibly every year after that (nobody seems to really know). So it is economic coercion. It pretty much boils down to, "either you do what we tell you to do or we will make you so economically miserable that in the end you WILL give in."

 

Those who choose not to get insurance are getting off easy with the fine. If these uncooperative folks get injured, guess who has to pay the enormous bill of they can't?

 

Coercion is coercion . . . and then socialists wonder why they aren't particularly liked by the rest of the nation.

 

Are you saying that Medicaid patients do not receive the same care as private insured individuals? The physician would be sued if they didn't treat everyone with the same care. What is true many services are not covered under Medicaid but it is also true with private insurance.

The health insurance companies combined prior to Obamacare only had 11 million people that were fully insured through them. The majority of working individuals are employed with a self insured employer which means their employees is the only pool and are not part of the health insurance company's pool that administers their plan. Most of the employers that have over 50 employees are self insured.

It is this reason why cost for smaller employers have risen so significantly in the last 10 years. The health insurance companies did not have the majority of the population in their pool. As far as Medicaid members is concerned, the state pays a set specific amount for every Medicaid enrollee to the private health insurance company and then the insurance company pays the provider of care a set amount per month for each Medicaid enrollee. It doesn't matter if that person receives care or not, the provider is still paid per month for them if they are assigned to them.

 

It isn't coercion--I thought you guys were all about making sure no one gets a free ride? If someone chooses not to get insurance, they should pay the fine. It's a small price to pay for they're gambling that they won't get sick or injured with our money.

 

I suggest you look up the term, and then if that does not alter your perspective, then I wish you well in life; cause that's all that's left to do.

 

says who, the political whores who want us to pay insurance companies more ?

 

"ObamaCare's Plans Are Worse..."

Worse than no insurance at all? Not hardly.

Ironically "Republicans" are complaining that some individuals that have private insurance that is "worse than Obamacare" might have to replace these crappy insurance policies with superior health insurance policies under Obamacare.

 

Who do you think has been paying for the uninsured all this time? The tooth fairy?

An "invincible" youth gets in a car accident and breaks a leg...he doesn't have a pot to (*)(*)(*)(*) in...guess who is paying for his enormous medical costs while he files for bankruptcy?

The right complains with the best of 'em, but they offer no solutions whatsoever. Never have.

 

who do you think has been making us pay for them ?

 

Sorry, denying ER care to people who lack health insurance isn't an option in the United States of America. They must be treated, and the bills must be paid for. I know this sucks for all you compassionate conservatives, but that's the way we've been doing it.

Obamacare is obviously the better alternative (and single-payer is superior to it, but conservatives were against that too).

 

I know, I just said that.
If we make them pay something, they won't have money for cable, smokes, booze, nike's, sporting events, concerts, iphones, call of duty, and hollywood movies.

 

The "sticker shock" won't really happen until about 2020 and that is something many seem to ignore. By then most Americans will have health insurance though and no one is going to be able to take it away from them. That is where Republicans have it wrong. Repeal of "Obamacare" is not possible because it does provide health insurance to people that otherwise couldn't afford it. Only revision to eliminate the problems, of which there are many, of Obamacare is politically viable and the sooner the better.

 

so that takes about one page of legislation. What's in the other 2000?

 

ND is a very low cost state (except for the temporary oil boomtowns) compared to Mass. Makes medical care much cheaper.

ND is a low regulation state as far as insurance policies - medical policies in ND can un-include ANYTHING, and people happily buy the resulting "pretend policies" and "like ther coverage", that is until they need it and find a loophole means they are on their own after years of premiums. ND is the kind of state where McDonald's $65/month $5,000 MAXIMUM annual payout health insurance policy impresses your neighbors!

 

You DO understand that the Wisconsin high risk pool HIRSP is a GOVERNMENT program, and while insurance companies have to give it discounts, it is subsidized by tax payers with significant limitations (like long waiting periods before coverage and limitations on care)? What do the people do who are sick and dying NOW? Who exceed (very easy to do) the lifetime caps on benefits? Who need the care excluded by these programs?

Despite its limitations, it was one of the best programs in the country. California's high-risk pool totally sucked, but even then most of the time NO ONE could join it because the state budget was capped, just like Wisconsin certainly does when money is tight.

 

Pssst... the question wasn't why is ND the lowest... it was why is MA the highest in the nation. Are you suggesting they have the best healthcare?