I'm interested in hearing your opinion about this new law here in the U.S.  Are you...

1) Totally for it.

2) For it, but would like to see some parts repealed.

3) Totally against it and would like to see the system remain the same as before the law.

4) Totally against it but would like to see something else in its place.

5) Don't care... Shut it... Next!

I think I covered all the possible categories.  But if you don't like them, let me know what you think.  Personally, I'm #4.

Views: 588

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks Nara.  I don't think we will ever have preventative care with our health ins., and it hardly matters now, since we can afford a mammogram a year, and the kids are now adult-age.  I'm afraid with my husbands next contract our ins. will get worse, which is why we take steps to have no debt, and savings to pay for anything medical we would need. 

You are right about people not caring about healthcare for all until they themselves don't have it!!!

Take care~ Melinda

Nara Nay,

In your opinion, who defines "quality of life"?

Also, are you ok with forcing people to pay higher premiums if they are not living a life which would be higher risk for future medical services?  (i.e. People not following preventative care measures, people who don't exercise, smokers, unhealthy eaters, etc.)  If so, who gets to define where those lines are drawn for the higher premiums?

Thanks  :)


I am sure everyone defines it different.

I define it as being healthy enough to pursue all that life has to offer. Being able to pay my mortgage, watch my children grow up into successful adults pursue my dreams....

  I get my insurance from my employer. They pay 80% I pay 20%...

There are people who aren't as fortunate. My sister works in a dental office. She has cystic fibrosis...she needs tons of medical care. She can't stop working because then she can't pay for her medication and office visits which cost her 150.00 every time (there are times she has to see her doctor 2 times in one week). Her meds cost 200 and more! She has tried to get coverage on her own but she has a "pre existing condition" so insurance companies won't cover her.

These are people in suits who've never stepped foot into a medical school who are defining what a quality of life is. The "suits" are saying this person can have healthcare while this person cannot! Based on things that they can't control! Is that fair? IMO it isn't and that’s why I believe in health care FOR ALL.

Requiring everyone to join the Pool will bring cost down!

It won't matter that a person is overweight or that they smoke because they will have the ability to seek care BEFORE it's too late...

If they choose not to then that’s on them! It's there. This makes it an option. It’s a lot better than not having the option at all, using the emergency room and having other people like you and I pay higher cost for doing the right thing!


So quality of life is (to me) is based on one's ability to improve their circumstances. If you are sick because of something you were born with and cannot get coverage and weren't fortunate enough to be born with rich parents how are you free to pursue happiness?? With all the other life expenses, food, shelter, clothes, education etc....

Isn't that why people put those bumper stickers that read "FREEDOM ISN'T FREE" on their cars? Or is that a justification for war?? lol I wonder...

When it's time to invade unarmed countries it’s ok to spend all the money in the world right? BUT when we want to raise our infant mortality rate which is one of the lowest of all the industrialized nations people cry foul!

hmmmm....what a weird thing.

I hope this has explained my point of view in detail. Good question thanks for asking...

Nara Nay,

I appreciate your passionate response to my questions.  It clearly shows you are coming from a perspective not just about access to healthcare at a reasonable cost for yourself and your loved ones but for everyone else as well.  Kudos.

I'm afraid I was not specific enough in my questions.  For that, I do apologize.  I think the following scenarios might clarify what I'm asking.  I would love to hear your opinion (or anyone else if interested).

2 people (person 'A' and person 'B') begin paying into the Affordable Care Act at age 26.  Let's say they stayed on his/her parent's plan until then.

'A' smokes, doesn't exercise and does not eat healthy.

'B' doesn't smoke, exercises often and eats well.


As 'A' gets older and older, he pays increasingly more in monthly premiums due to statistical analyses on the higher risk he will require more medical attention in the future.

As 'B' gets older and older, his premiums stay consistently level because of healthy habits.


Let's also say, at the age of 76, 'A' dies of a heart attack in his home.  His family finds him and he is buried having never needed nor utilized any major attention from the healthcare community.

Let's say, at the age of 42, 'B' has a heart attack and requires costly surgery.  'B' lives until age 65 where all the exercising requires costly knee surgery.  'B' lives until 76 having spent the last 3 years in a nursing home.


So, over the course of 50 years, 'A' paid far more into the system than 'B' due to statistical analyses of presumed risk.  But 'B' ended up actually using more out of the system and paid less.

My question:  Are you (anyone) ok with this?



I agree with everything you are saying as long as:

1) Private Insurance Companies are not involved in the mix and

2) There is an option for those whom do not want to be a part of "...each who will need health care at some point in their lives and thus will receive benefits for their contribution into the general fund."

Given that, I'm wholly on board with your whole position.  :)

So right now, we already pay for people who don't have health insurance. Whether it is because they are irresponsible or poor we spend 18% of our income on healthcare when our competition doesn't pay more than 11.8%. We pay so much because there are so many people who don't have it, because they can't afford it or they have a pre existing conditions.

The new healthcare bill gets rid of insurance companies being allowed to discriminate.

Those are the facts and those facts lead me to be FOR the mandate. At some point in EVERY HUMAN BEINGS life they WILL need healthcare for one reason or another.

However if  there was such a person on the planet he or she would be the ONLY person I would not feel needed to be mandated to have healthcare...lol

Yes I am ok with that and here is why:

Healthcare isn't only based on your personal lifestyle and behavior but the lifestyle and behavior of your neighbors. I wish it was contingent on my own personal choices but the fact is, it is not.

If your neighbor loses their home the price of your home is devalued... even though you've never missed a payment and you are a responsible homeowner. That's just the way it is...Healthcare is no different.

 I don't like the idea but hey FREEDOM ISN'T FREE right?

Currently, my insurance premiums go up every year. Not because my employer pays less and less but because there are people who use the emergency room as their healthcare, (the MOST EXPENSIVE AVENUE)then they can't pay the bill or don't. Guess who gets to pay with that?

However, the health and well being of others isn't my only concern, the economic future of this country is also a huge factor. The way healthcare is right now is counterproductive to economic progress.

Its math! And one of the reasons I love math is because it isn't based on opinion there is nothing you can do to manipulate the outcome.It is what it is... A number is a number is a number. The numbers say MANDATE is better! :)

Did I answer this time?? lol

I respect your opinion on the matter and I somewhat see your point of view, however it's based on a very unrealistic point of view.

Nara Nay,

I do very much appreciate we can disagree with cordiality.  What a joyous change of pace!

I find it to be most unfortunate this stinky argument persists:

"We pay so much because there are so many people who don't have it, because they can't afford it or they have a pre existing conditions." and "Currently, my insurance premiums go up every year. Not because my employer pays less and less but because there are people who use the emergency room as their healthcare, (the MOST EXPENSIVE AVENUE)then they can't pay the bill or don't. Guess who gets to pay with that?"

I cannot stress enough how much that is Absolutely Not True.

The reason your insurance premiums go up every year is wholly due to the existence of insurance companies within the healthcare industry.  All the money that could go to healthcare providers is redirected to pay for administrative costs and PROFIT for private insurance companies.  If everyone that has insurance would cancel his/her policy, the entire healthcare industry would have to adjust prices down in competition to provide services.  And, all that money everyone would have been paying in premiums would go directly to the providers also driving prices down.  I would hope you might consider utilizing your love of math to calculate the costs when removing insurance companies' "take" from the equation.  You might be surprised.  LOL

I'll throw an analogy out there for consideration in response to Susan and Write4U.  Hugs

I don't get it.  Wouldn't opting out make things more expensive for the government?


You have re-stated my position precisely.  How superb!  Your attention to detail is beyond excellent.  Furthermore, your writing style is intelligently honed.  Thank you very much.

Susan, I responded to Nara Nay, but that response is for your question as well.  You have asked a very popular question - what I believe is the main concern which has given us this new healthcare bill.

I don't know if you like analogies, but here is one I hope might shed some light on the root cause of healthcare costs.  If nothing else, maybe it'll be fun to read.  :)

All of us are in a room with a large grizzly bear.  On the wall is a panel with a dumb waiter.  Every so often the panel opens and dispenses food for everyone.  The grizzly is quite aggressive and very hungry.  Each time the panel opens, some of the people in the room give food to it to make it happy.  Some people do not give food to the bear.  Over time, the bear learns how to be nice to those giving it food, allowing them free access to the panel.  But the bear becomes more aggressive towards those not giving it food.  The ones not giving it food have a harder and harder time getting to the panel - they get less food.

As time goes by, the people feeding the bear see the starving people and (while also continuing to feed the bear) give up the portions they get to the starving people.

Eventually, this gets out of hand.  The people feeding the bear feel they are handling the situation properly (controlling it) and have become the ones responsible for keeping everyone fed.  These people see the ones not feeding the bear as the "problem".

A decision is made by the bear feeders:  Everyone Must Feed The Bear!  The bear will be happy and nice to everyone.  All will get food.

A few questions:

Why is there a bear in the room?  Why do we have to feed it?  It eats a LOT.  Why haven't we simply opened the door and coaxed it out so everyone can have access to the panel without fear and even share the food the bear was getting?

Thanks for reading.  I hope it goes without saying who the bear is.  :O

If you mean private insurance companies then I agree.  That is why I , along with some others on here, think we should have nationalized insurance.  Though you public fund that your are and Write4U have been discussing is also intriguing.  Being the daughter of a doctor and having one in another group, I know the headache the insurance companies can be.  It would be better all around without them.

The reason that health care in America is so expensive is that so many people in America work in the healthcare industry.  In other words, health care is a huge engine of employment and revenue.  If health care were to be made "more efficient", either by government intervention or market-forces, lots of people working in the industry would lose their jobs, and lots of businesses would lose revenue.  Therefore there ar tremendously motivated engrained interests preventing "reform" of health care beyond superficial palliatives.

The idea of "insurance" is that the customer makes regular payments to the insurer and the insurer pockets those payments so long as nothing goes wrong.  When something finally does go wrong, the insurer reimburses the customer for his/her loss.  This works fine when the item to be insured is valuable and the likelihood of damage is minor.  A good example is home insurance against fire.  But health care treatment is a matter of regularly tending to something to not merely goes wrong, but requires extensive preventative maintenance - the human body.  The concept of insurance is invalid for maintenance and occasional tending of something.  It only works for fixing big and rare problems.  True healthcare reform will change how we pay for health care from an insurance-model to some completely different alternative.  Attempts at reform from within, that retain the insurance model, are doomed to abject failure.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service