OBAMA CARE

Alright heathens, its time for passions to ignite over whether this Health Care Reform is the best thing in the last 40 years or is going to tear America apart at the seems.  In return for your opinion, I will share some funny.

 

 

Tags: care, health, obamacare, reform

Views: 12

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by TK on February 1, 2011 at 11:03pm

There is nothing wrong with the public option.  Hell, it doesn't even have to be government administered.  We should be allowed to pool together into private insurance groups free from our employer based health care. 

 

In all honesty, I do think that the mandate is unconstitutional.  I think it's a huge over reach of the commerce clause.  Who is to say that next the government says you have to buy a certain brand of toothpaste because it's the healthiest?  That's the logical progression of the individual mandate.
Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 2, 2011 at 8:06am
What do you think about car insurance?
Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 8:13am
(I see where you are going with this, but its been refuted by A car insurance is mandated by the states, not fed and B. its only enforceable if the person chooses to buy a car~ if not, then no car insurance) I think what we might be looking for here is "is it ok for the fed to mandate vaccinations for children?" because that actually follows along the same lines more accurately.  I don't like the mandate either, I don't think that was the way to do it, it was merely capitulation to the 'right' in an effort to seem bipartisan~ if they don't give a shit about healthcare (which they don't) then do it without any of their ideas.  public option all the way, I don't care if its federal or not.  I don't see why a standard plan couldn't just be made that all companies must offer if they choose to operate in the US~ a plan that has all the benefits needed and a price cap on it so its affordable.  Health reform through regulation.
Permalink Reply by TK on February 2, 2011 at 9:02am
It's legalized racketeering.  If you can prove that you can financially meet the minimum state requirements for liability cost and everything that is required to be covered, then why should you be forced to purchase car insurance?  Insurance companies also exert a tremendous amount of control over the government.  The only reason we have seat belt laws is because of the insurance companies.  I don't wear my seat belt because it's illegal not to.  I wear it because it's the smart thing to do and will probably save my life if I get into an accident.  Same with helmet laws.  Here in SC you are not required by law to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle.  However, when I rode my motorcycle (I can't wait to get another one and start doing track days again), I was always in full gear head to toe.  Not because some nanny state government told me to do so, but because I knew it was the smart thing to do while participating in a dangerous activity.  Hell, a lot of people would like to take motorcycles away from people because of the risk of injury and death they pose.  It is not the governments job to protect you from yourself.  Anyone who thinks it is, does not deserve the freedom they have, and will lead us into ever more government intrusion into our lives. The less government interferes with your life, liberty, and property, the more free and more prosperous we all will be.
Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on February 2, 2011 at 9:20am
Some of those are clear cut but, not all of them are.  What about the fact that premiums keep going up?  You are paying for those without insurance.
Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 9:48am

Minimum coverage is to protect others from you, not to protect you.  If something happens and you put them in the hospital for a year (they don't have health insurance, this is america, remember?) you will have their bills to pay, which could be in the tens of thousands or the millions.

If you can prove that you can financially meet the minimum state requirements for liability cost and everything that is required to be covered, then why should you be forced to purchase car insurance?

 

Maybe once we are all millionaires that will be the point~ thats not the case right now (or ever, for that matter.)

Permalink Reply by TK on February 2, 2011 at 10:01am

I agree that if you aren't financially able to cover the state minimum requirements for another person's medical bills and or property due to an accident, then you should be required to carry minimum insurance.  That is only because you pose a threat to others.  However, requiring everyone to purchase insurance despite the fact that they have the means to pay for someone else's care if they injure them is nothing more then a hand out to the insurance companies. 

 

In regards to insurance premiums going up due to those without insurance, if we had a public option that made health insurance affordable for people, even lower income people, then we wouldn't see premiums rise like they do.  Insurance premiums rise like they do because most insurance companies operate in a monopoly fashion.  Sure rising health care costs play a part in it, but it's more due to the lack of competition and the people's inability to join group plans together across state lines.  Competition between insurance companies is pretty much nonexistant. 

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 10:08am

I'm curious, how would one determine the amount that would be sufficient to 'cover damages' in an accident that hasn't happened yet?  I like insurance in the sense that even if the payout is a billion dollars, I'm not responsible for paying that out, they are.  I give them my money, they give theirs.  Are the rates reasonable?... I don't think they are, since they have been making hundreds of millions of dollars of profit for years and years now.  But in concept the idea is stead~ that is, unless we had a system where people were taken care of regardless of whether they could pay or not, thus eliminating the need for a significant part of insurance to begin with.

   I think on health care we are close to the same page... I guess I'll have to watch the discussion more.

Permalink Reply by TK on February 2, 2011 at 10:15am
I don't know either.  Apparently states have a way to determine it by having minimum liability coverages.  I like insurance too because I don't have the means to pay for something if it happens, so I pay an insurance company to protect me if something does.  Nothing wrong about that.  However, if i have the means to pay for something if it does happen, then why should I have to pay for it if it does not happen?
Permalink Reply by Gary Burk on February 2, 2011 at 10:17am
Travis, Auto insurance is not required if you can prove that you are able to meet the state minimum requirements. Instead of insurance you can be "bonded". The agency issuing the bond certifies that you have the resources available. So, if your state has a minimum requirement of $50K, you can buy a long term CD from your bank for $50K and have them issue that bond. You can then not redeem that CD until the bank cancels that bond. If you are found liable by a court you have given the bank authority to pay that amount. By getting bonded, you are able to avoid paying an insurance companies cost and profit margin, and do get the interest from the money you've invested. You do have to pay the bank for their service. To my knowledge, bonding is always acceptable in place of insurance and fills the need of protecting other against costs that you might impose on them - to the state minimum limit.

Of course, most state's minimums are very small, not nearly adequate for todays legal liabilities. $50K doesn't go very far in a serious accident, it may not even pay for the damage to the car.
Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on February 2, 2011 at 10:27am

I love it! all I need is fifty thousand dollars that I won't need to tie it up in a cd, then I won't have to pay $150 dollars a month! unless, of course, I'm in an accident, in which case I will still have to pay for everything that damages my vehicle and anothers if I am at fault..

 

I guess I like the idea of airing on the side of caution when it comes to what little money I have, especially when shit is so expensive nowadays.  being in the situation I am, I can't imagine wanting to put up a lump sum of cash so I don't have to pay a small fee per month, but hey, thats just me.

Permalink Reply by TK on February 2, 2011 at 10:28am
Ok, well I was unaware of that and thanks for bringing that to my attention.  This is why we discuss these things so we can exchange ideas and learn things.  ;-)  Does this apply in every state?

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service