probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
On September 20 2012 06:18 coverpunch wrote: When you compare the US to Canada in terms of health care, you have to make a couple important distinctions.
For one, immigration. Canada only borders the US so it can essentially pick and choose who it allows to immigrate, granting about 250,000 permanent residencies per year. By contrast, the US grants about a million green cards per year and estimates a million people immigrate illegally.
Secondly, Canada's system is good for mundane, everyday problems. I would make the analogy to saying the government should give everyone cell phones. Well, everyone in the US wants the Galaxy S3 and the iPhone 5. Canada doles out free flip phones. It's fine for doing all the things a cell phone is supposed to do. This is part of the problem in the US though. Perversely, technological benefits don't pass costs savings to consumers because Americans demand health care on the cutting edge, which is extremely expensive. But that's only for serious medical issues.
The final difference is the strange state of insurance companies in the US. Note that Obamacare treats people who don't buy insurance as free-loaders, not victims. They're part of the problem because if I go to the hospital for a broken arm and use my insurance to cover the cost, the hospital charges me much more because I also have to cover the risk that SayGen doesn't pay. Universal health care works if it's like a giant gym membership where everyone pays but most people never use it, which is exactly what Obamacare is trying to do by forcing young, healthy people to buy insurance but not go to the doctor (or go when they have a small problem, not wait until it turns into a disaster they can't afford).
Not quite.
Canada's healthcare system is more like a Samsung Galaxy or Google Nexus tablet. One thing that is seems consistent among Republicans is this gross misconception that the quality of Canadian healthcare is significantly inferior to US healthcare, which simply isn't true at all. The quality of care is actually very, very good. Of course it can be better, but that's true with everything.
Trust me, if our healthcare was equivalent to a flip-phone in 2012, Canadians would be demanding reform as vigorously as people in the US.
My point is more than the iPhone 5 isn't THAT much better than a flip phone but people are willing to pay exorbitant prices for that little extra boost. But in terms of why you buy a cell phone, a flip phone does it all at a fraction of the price. Certain things are going to get cut out of Obamacare, like scans that people don't really need.
The Canadian system isn't bad. But it's a utilitarian system designed to provide the most benefit to the most people, who generally suffer only a few serious health problems in their life (one of which kills them). If you have that serious problem where the cutting edge treatment will help, then people go to the US. The issue is that the US spends MUCH more than Canada does for everything and our overall outcome is not significantly better (it's worse by many measures).
On September 20 2012 05:34 SayGen wrote: I love the thought behind it UHC but it doens't work in the real world.
You're right. Canadians aren't real. We're figments of your imagination; a manifestation of your conscience that surfaces when ever you talk about healthcare.
It's like Inception. Spin your totem. Spin it now.
that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?
And over 50%+ (some polls high as 66%) said they would perfer the current system here in US. Why are you pushing so hard that US has the same plan as you? Agenda?
That is an outright lie. Around 50% of Canadians would support a MIXED system, maintaining the public healthcare system, while allowing for SOME private clinics. You watch fox news, and you spread lies like they do also.
1) Stop 2) I was REFERENCING AN AMERICAN POLL not a CANADIAN ONE 3) Do not tell me what News I watch (I don't watch any). I link one random video that happens to be of a Right Wing bias, and you go all nuts- GET OFF UR OWN BIAS). 4) I have not lied. Libel is a crime. I just looked--it's a crime in Canada too.
In the United States, at the federal level, libel is not a crime. Only seventeen states recognize defamation as a potential crime. But there are certain standards that must be met for something to be considered defamatory. Bringing up libel in this context is nothing short of ridiculous.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:
On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:
On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote: [quote]
If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us.
Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be.
Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off.
umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said...
For example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs.
Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal).
Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game.
Not on a practical level. On a theoretical level.
Someone's gain is always another's loss (whether material or lost opportunity). It might be split over all 6 billiion of the people and therefore be imperceptible, but it's still there.
Nations tend to ignore this. They work on short-term models where it very well can benefit two people. Hell, that's the whole theory behind Keynesianism. And it works.
And Daunt, I work for a moderate
I don't think that's even Keynesian. That's more like mercantilism.
If one country has a lot of capital, but not much labour and another has a lot of labour, but not much capital, then it is mutually beneficial for the country with capital to invest and employ all those people. Now I'll grant that there can and are abuses to this. Wages can be suppressed. But for value is added when you turn sand to silicon and silicon to computer chips. The computer chip is not the same value as exchanging sand back and forth so I'm not sure why it would be zero sum.
So that's value added labor. That's the most common form of wealth creation, and a big reason many people promote production maximization. But your ownership of that sand and your conversion has cost every single person not gaining an opportunity cost, however minor or impractical that may be.
So there's always a cost to doing one thing and not another? But if the opportunity to do the one thing was only minor or impractical and they went with the first which was both major and practical, can't those involved be said to have gained? Why is the opportunity to do an unlikely/unpractical thing given equal weight to the likely/ practical so that it balances out to being zero sum?
I'm just trying to get my head around opportunity cost. Are you saying action 1 is zero sum because it precludes theoretical action 2? Whereas I'm thinking along the lines of action 1 is a gain from inaction. Though perhaps theoretical action 2 could be a gain from inaction. But in both cases I'd be comparing the current state (after action) to the past state and not between hypothetical alternatives. Somehow I feel like I'm getting this wrong.
I think you have the gist of it. Like I said, it's more theoretical than practical. I just think it's wrong to give 100% weight to the practical side of it when you are discussing policy. You should always be looking at externalities when discussing theory.
My original point was that losing 15 jobs may not be the worst thing ever if we get more in return than we give up (as a collective group). More purchasing power per capita should be more important as a national policy than full employment. You can always correct the latter after the fact, you cannot do the same with the former.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
My bad. That $5/month will devastate your healthcare fund. Maybe you should speak to someone who has read the bill, there are professionals who do that kind of thing. That's probably a safer bet for planning your healthcare than posting online over and over about how little understanding of the situation you have. I'm not sure why you feel your ignorance is an asset here.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
Healthcare is a business in the US. That is exactly the problem. Health care should be an essential service, not a business.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
675$ is annual?? How on earth can you complain about being covered medically for that price? Why aren't you overjoyed?
Your old system: $3600 in the bank, might need all of it and far more if I get injured. Your new system: $2928 in the bank, no worries.
I mean, how is this so offensive to you? You hate Obama for this? Are you aware you wouldn't have been covered for this price before?
You said you paid $7000 for breaking your arm! It would take you around 11 years to make up this difference between your new and old system.
Edit: Sorry if this value pertains to the penalty for not having it. :|
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
Business 101: The operation to save your life costs 100k. you dont have a 100k. let him die HC 101: The operation costs 100k. you pay 675 a year regardless. you life and if you dont need the operation you just saved someone elses life that year. Feel good about yourself.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
I paid for a broken arm with change to spare. now if I get shot tomorrow, yes i'd have to get a loan- but I can get a loan cause I work for a living.
What people still don't seem to understand, I'll try this one last time then i'm giving up on you. HC is a business What does business 101 say is the 1st job of a business: To make a profit. So why would I go to a middleman(HC insurance) who is in it to make money when I can go straight to the hospital and avoid the INSURANCE COMPANIES mark up?
I'll tell you all sides of the insurance game.
What's in it for you is that you pay a small, regular fee to be covered in case you have one big expense. It's human nature to prefer this. Gambling is the converse of this, paying small amounts for the chance of one big win.
What's in it for the insurance company is that most people (especially young people) never have that big expense so they can profit from the spread in probability.
What's in it for society is that everyone pays so everyone is covered. If you have a big problem and don't pay, then someone has to fill that gap.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
I think he is saying:
If I don't have a car, I don't need to pay health insurance. I get to choose if I get a car or not. With health insurance, I don't get a choice. I'm forced to have it, regardless (well, you COULD choose to live or die, but that plays into his statement before of how Obama is killing him).
basicly yes. You choose to drive. You do not choose to get HC (it's forced upon you through taxation) KEEPING IN MIND THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS
User was warned for posting in all caps
So what happens when you or one of your loved ones gets hurt bad enough that you cant cover it, we let you die? No the tax payer is going to have to cover it witch in turn means higher taxes. I just dont get where you are going with this. Do you think all that money that is spent on people without insurance comes from the money tree that the government keeps?
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
675$ is annual?? How on earth can you complain about being covered medically for that price? Why aren't you overjoyed?
Your old system: $3600 in the bank, might need all of it and far more if I get injured. Your new system: $2928 in the bank, no worries.
I mean, how is this so offensive to you? You hate Obama for this? Are you aware you wouldn't have been covered for this price before?
You said you paid $7000 for breaking your arm! It would take you around 11 years to make up this difference between your new and old system.
The oppression we Americans must bear. It's back-breaking, I tell you.
Yes there is, now instead of private business the government is in charge. One has to compete to offer the best product. One just raises taxes if it falls short of the bottom line one month.
which one is more likly to be optomized?
No, health insurance is still mediated by private business, the government has simply remedied what was a market failure by controlling (some of) the market conditions.
I'm intrested in hearing about this *no sarcasm* Can you eleborate. What is the government controlling. What have they stopped/added.
The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).
Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?
In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.
The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?
Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?
Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain. You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition. I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)
Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did. In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up. Can you choose to drive? Yes. Can you choose to by UHC? No. Thanks for that one.
As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)
What state do you live in that lets you drive with insurance, you cant drive the car off the lot if you buy it from the dealer. You wont be able to get you tags without insurance. And if you get pulled over without it you get finned and jailed and will most likely get you car towed tell you get insurance. So of you are trying to use driving with insurance to help you i dont think that is the best example since you kinda do need it to drive.
I think he is saying:
If I don't have a car, I don't need to pay health insurance. I get to choose if I get a car or not. With health insurance, I don't get a choice. I'm forced to have it, regardless (well, you COULD choose to live or die, but that plays into his statement before of how Obama is killing him).
basicly yes. You choose to drive. You do not choose to get HC (it's forced upon you through taxation) KEEPING IN MIND THIS IS AFTER HE SAID HE WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS
User was warned for posting in all caps
maybe healthcare shouldn't be a commodity to be bought or sold. It creates disparities in medicine when doctors can't treat certain people just because of their socioeconomic status. Healthcare is an inherent right, and should be provided to everyone. I am in medical school atm, and regardless of what happens to my salary in the future, I want this damn country to stop treating Healthcare as merchandise. It is a damn shame that millions are left to fend for themselves and hope they don't get sick.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
The problem is that you don't "get" coverage under Obamacare. Rather, it incentivises you to buy it if you do not have it by way of penalizing you if you do not have it. It does the same to employers to provide it. Most smallish businesses do NOT provide health care to their employees simply because it's not financially feasible. They pay wages.
Obamacare isn't a huge issue for larger businesses -- most of them already comply with many of these rules and the changes they have to make aren't significant. However, it completely changes the way emerging businesses operate. They must not include overhead that basically makes it harder for them to compete because they have to pay their employees way more than they can afford to.
It's a complicated issue. Honestly, even as a conservative, universal healthcare is superior to Obamacare in terms of fairness. I just don't think it'd be as cost effective. The state voucher system pushed by most republicans is, in my opinion, slightly better than universal. I still think universal, individual vouchers is the most effective, however.
Basically, of the four options on the table, Obamacare is the worst.
Is the $675 a year that keeps being brought up the "tax" for people who choose to not purchase any insurance and who do not qualify for Medicaid?
If so then SayGen is paying $675 a year to not have insurance of any kind so that he can put away his $2925 to pay for healthcare problems that will occur in the future?
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Dude, without insurance you won't be able to pay for treatment of the gaping gunshot wound, let alone the removal of the bullet.
Sigh.
This is not true. ER care is always taken care of regardless of insurance. If you don't have it, the hospital eats the costs. This gets priced into other services, which is the reason more complete coverage would actually lower the cost for an average american.
probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.
What extra money? I can't save the 300 anymore cause Obama taxed it all After he said he wouldn't--again he lied
Obama taxed it all away when he raised taxes by 675? Unless that's 675 a month I'm pretty sure you just can't count.
Err I apologise for the exeration, no it's annual.
Though my fustration remains.
675$ is over 2 months of my current set aside savings. It's hard enough to put 300/month away in this economy. 300 is the bare minimum, now I have to find somewhere in my budget to pull another 675$ out of.
So, if I understand the situation correctly, you've got basic coverage now from the Obama reforms and still have $248 a month to put in your rainy day health care fund and because of this Obama is trying to kill you.
I don't know if I got basic coverage from Obama, I can't read (nor can any one I've ever met) the 10,000 page bill) He said I do, but he already lied once, so I can't believe him.
248? How you getting your math?
300x12= 3600 3600-675(that's the minimum by the way)=2925 2925/12=243$
My bad. That $5/month will devastate your healthcare fund. Maybe you should speak to someone who has read the bill, there are professionals who do that kind of thing. That's probably a safer bet for planning your healthcare than posting online over and over about how little understanding of the situation you have. I'm not sure why you feel your ignorance is an asset here.
I'm not worried about the 5$ I was just asking a question to see if I missed something. No need to take it so offensively. I'm not upset about the conversation- this thread is about politicans- they get judged on their policies. I don't like the policies that are being put into effect. I don't like free choice being less free. I don't like adding middlemen (AKA growing the bureaucracy). We should be trying to find solutions to make things better and more effecient like my proposed ideas of a new HC law. I did it in 3 lines, and I'm not a subject matter expert- surly people who are 'professionals' can execute a policy that doesn't take 10,000 pages of legal-speak or hide it.
(Oh Dear God, I just linked a vid from Fox News I must be a GOP/Republican dispite trash talking Romney)
Why can't we have a runner who wants to lower American expenses, bring our troops home, and get less involved in world affairs.
If my opinion appears as ignorance so be it. I like to think that 'freedom' is a good thing. Big government may be the norm in UK but it isn't here, and I'm not alone when I say I don't trust a bunch of millionaires running my country. Unlike most I've actually served, 5 years and counting- including deployments to Kandahar, Afg. If I care, i'm sorry. But I love my country and I want what is best for it, and its people.
I respect others who disagree and don't recall calling them ignorant.
On September 20 2012 07:05 Saryph wrote: Is the $675 a year that keeps being brought up the "tax" for people who choose to not purchase any insurance and who do not qualify for Medicaid?
If so then SayGen is paying $675 a year to not have insurance of any kind so that he can put away his $2925 to pay for healthcare problems that will occur in the future?
Yes, I pay approximately 150 a month for minimal individual health insurance with a 5k deductible with a 80/20 split (meaning the first 5K always comes out of my pocket, with a few minor exceptions, then I split the next 95k 80/20 with the insurance company.
This is annually. Health insurance in the US is not cheap. It's cheaper to pay the penalty than get insurance, and insurance by no means is "worry free". You still pay most stuff out of pocket besides your routine checkup and catastrophic bodily injury.
On September 20 2012 07:05 Saryph wrote: Is the $675 a year that keeps being brought up the "tax" for people who choose to not purchase any insurance and who do not qualify for Medicaid?
If so then SayGen is paying $675 a year to not have insurance of any kind so that he can put away his $2925 to pay for healthcare problems that will occur in the future?
EPT
