Obamacare screws the young & healthy

[Taft2016]

the young healthy millennials with an already poor job market and up to their eyes in student loan debt are being forced to give money to those that already have a lifetime of savings (or had the opportunity to procure said savings). We are being forced at gun point to pay for the most selfish generation - the old useless baby booming fucks who constantly wage war on the young so that they can have a surplus of viagra.

FUCKING DIE ALREADY.

Excuse me, I'm a Boomer and I didn't support any of this. We're not an homogenous thinking generation. Just like all of you don't ride skateboards.

Although I can't say I fault you for your outrage. You're already being compelled to contribute to Social Security and Medicare systems you won't benefit from.

It was only a decade ago that President Bush tried to take a few baby steps in Social Security reform and the liberal scare tactics sent the entire effort into retreat. It was a small effort that designated a small amount of contributors' money as "their money" (anathema to liberal sensibilities. It's "ALL" the government's money). Even until today, you can watch replies to this post and lies will pour in about "privatization" and "ENRON!" etc. At a worst case scenario, even if those managing "their money" screwed up and lost it all, it would have only amounted to about $25 to $50 a month less in their monthly checks.

On the upside, when people died "their money" could help the surviving family members with burial costs, or leave some sort of small inheritance. Now? It's all the government's.

It's ironic looking back on the scare tactics they used then, for a babystep proposal.... and now they complain that we're using scare tactics today against the complete and comprehensive overhaul of the entire health care system.

 

[Taft2016]

I hope you are correct on that, bm. At last we agree on something!!!!!!!!

Petula

So which model do you like best?

The UK model that puts 106 year-old women on 56 month waiting lists for hearing aids, or the Canadian model that drives the wealthy and politicians to leave the country for treatment?

 

[Althea]

Excuse me, I'm a Boomer and I didn't support any of this. We're not an homogenous thinking generation. Just like all of you don't ride skateboards.

Although I can't say I fault you for your outrage. You're already being compelled to contribute to Social Security and Medicare systems you won't benefit from.

It was only a decade ago that President Bush tried to take a few baby steps in Social Security reform and the liberal scare tactics sent the entire effort into retreat. It was a small effort that designated a small amount of contributors' money as "their money" (anathema to liberal sensibilities. It's "ALL" the government's money). Even until today, you can watch replies to this post and lies will pour in about "privatization" and "ENRON!" etc. At a worst case scenario, even if those managing "their money" screwed up and lost it all, it would have only amounted to about $25 to $50 a month less in their monthly checks.

On the upside, when people died "their money" could help the surviving family members with burial costs, or leave some sort of small inheritance. Now? It's all the government's.

It's ironic looking back on the scare tactics they used then, for a babystep proposal.... and now they complain that we're using scare tactics today against the complete and comprehensive overhaul of the entire health care system.

When people die, their SS contribution is the govts? Who knew?

 

[Althea]

annie, the young invincibles are not screwed as you entertain but if so then only by themselves. I've had insurance paid for by me and covering myself and my children and step-children since I was 20 years old. Insurance was all I had to keep my head above water. I thought everybody understood that is what insurance is all about. In the overall scheme of things I've no doubt paid much more in premiums throughout my life than have ever been returned to me in benefits but that's the price of the insurance. Others have cost my carrier all I could ever pay in 100 lifetimes. It's insurance. Law of averages and sharing an otherwise devastating burden.

Petula

Because before Reagan, hospitals weren't forced to treat us for free. We never had that as our primary care option. Get rid of the EMTALA mandate on hospitals, and see how the nation's view on insurance changes.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Because before Reagan, hospitals weren't forced to treat us for free. We never had that as our primary care option. Get rid of the EMTALA mandate on hospitals, and see how the nation's view on insurance changes.

I agree. End that government imposed problem.

 

[Taft2016]

When people die, their SS contribution is the govts? Who knew?

And, as long as we're on the subject, your employer matches all of those contributions throughout your working life... so twice as much of your money becomes the government's.

 

[Taft2016]

Because before Reagan, hospitals weren't forced to treat us for free. We never had that as our primary care option. Get rid of the EMTALA mandate on hospitals, and see how the nation's view on insurance changes.

Or even just rework it.

You know those 16,000 new IRS agents hired to police the individual mandate? Instead, send them out to collect emergency room bills from deadbeats. To garnish their paychecks. Repossess their cars. Withhold their earned income tax credit. Turn off their cable TV, turn off their iPhones, etc.

 

[Dantès]

Looks to me like a Ponzi scheme that will collapse if young healthy people opt out.

Then the liberals will say the only alternative is Socialized medicine. I think that's been their goal all along.

Let's define out terms shall we: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going"


So whatever else the healthcare reform is, it probably isn't a Ponzi scheme, since it counts on everybody being in. In the first place health insurance is not an investment any more than car insurance is. In the second place there are no returns high or otherwise for investing in health insurance. The companies that provide the service are going to get the profit not the people who buy the health insurance. So I would take this illogical malarky to task on two counts. In the first place whatever the ACA is; it is probably not a Ponzi scheme. Second, if it was deigned to fail, it was designed by the insurance companies to fail since one of their own lobbyists wrote the bill and was duly thanked for doing upon passage by Senator Max Baucus. So it would be the first time in history that a capitalist industry designed their own destruction in order to erect a socialized version of their profit engine. That you got others to agree with this illogical and nearly irrational tripe is testament to a devastating lack of common sense or knowledge of the bill and what it was designed to do. That you think this was designed to fail, and create socialized medicine is a testament to either gross ignorance or some propaganda that has destroyed you ability to reason. Perhaps you should educate yourself before repeating what you heard on TV or heard from Glenn Beck!

 

[Taft2016]

annie, the young invincibles are not screwed as you entertain but if so then only by themselves. I've had insurance paid for by me and covering myself and my children and step-children since I was 20 years old. Insurance was all I had to keep my head above water. I thought everybody understood that is what insurance is all about. In the overall scheme of things I've no doubt paid much more in premiums throughout my life than have ever been returned to me in benefits but that's the price of the insurance. Others have cost my carrier all I could ever pay in 100 lifetimes. It's insurance. Law of averages and sharing an otherwise devastating burden.

Petula

Suppose there was a system in place that offered you the option of taking a catastrophic type policy, which covered hospitalizations, emergencies, surgeries, etc. But when you went to the doctor's office for a checkup, etc., you paid out of pocket?

And that by taking this $1000 option offered by your employer, instead of the more expensive $8K more comprehensive policy .... you were allowed to put the $7K difference into a tax free medical savings IRA-type account? So by the time you arrived at Medicare age your dependency on the government largesse would be dramatically reduced?

Sound good?

Of course, I just explained why it will never happen; it will reduce dependency on government largesse.

 

[Taft2016]

So whatever else the healthcare reform is, it probably isn't a Ponzi scheme, since it counts on everybody being in.

Yeah, smart people can opt of out Ponzi schemes. In true Ponzi schemes, only the suckers get duped.

Obamacare compels everyone to get screwed.

 

[Dantès]

Because before Reagan, hospitals weren't forced to treat us for free. We never had that as our primary care option. Get rid of the EMTALA mandate on hospitals, and see how the nation's view on insurance changes.

Before Reagan there were actually hospitals that operated outside the profit model and treated indigent people for free. That option is nearly gone. Reagan made sure that all hospitals would be paid for all the work they did. And that drove charity out and opened the door for exploitation, because all capitalism is exploitation. Indeed in the last paragraph of Capital (1867) Marx notes that: "the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property as well, have as their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker."

It can't save you it is out to exploit you through the most destructive mechanism; selling to the people of this nation at their moment of dying, healthcare for profit. No other industrialized nation allows this level of crassness and indecency!

 

[Dantès]

Suppose there was a system in place that offered you the option of taking a catastrophic type policy, which covered hospitalizations, emergencies, surgeries, etc. But when you went to the doctor's office for a checkup, etc., you paid out of pocket?

And that by taking this $1000 option offered by your employer, instead of the more expensive $8K more comprehensive policy .... you were allowed to put the $7K difference into a tax free medical savings IRA-type account? So by the time you arrived at Medicare age your dependency on the government largesse would be dramatically reduced?

Sound good?

Of course, I just explained why it will never happen; it will reduce dependency on government largesse.

Except your little hypothetical policy doesn't seem to include any details like how much it pays for "hospitalizations, emergencies, surgeries, etc.," and how much the co-pay is. Under the current medical system $7,000 dollars isn't even the co-pay on a mild surgery, let alone a major medical procedure. And to pretend that having even a few hundred thousand dollars is going to be your redemption at the end of your life when even one heart surgery can take all of it, is ridiculous in the extreme. That is why people such as yourself create these rosy scenarios that are designed to lull people who don't know how much medical care costs into believing that they can have it all and not have to pay for it. They can't! And this example is just another pile of steamy propaganda rolled out to lure the gullible.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Before Reagan there were actually hospitals that operated outside the profit model and treated indigent people for free. That option is nearly gone. Reagan made sure that all hospitals would be paid for all the work they did. And that drove charity out and opened the door for exploitation, because all capitalism is exploitation. Indeed in the last paragraph of Capital (1867) Marx notes that: "the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property as well, have as their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker."

It can't save you it is out to exploit you through the most destructive mechanism; selling to the people of this nation at their moment of dying, healthcare for profit. No other industrialized nation allows this level of crassness and indecency!

Wait poor people were getting treated for free without the gobblement? You mean there is another way? Say it ain't so.

BTW did you know that it is against the law to charge anyone less than you charge Medicare? It's true. Free is less than Medicare.

 

[Taft2016]

Except your little hypothetical policy doesn't seem to include any details like how much it pays for "hospitalizations, emergencies, surgeries, etc.," and how much the co-pay is. Under the current medical system $7,000 dollars isn't even the co-pay on a mild surgery, let alone a major medical procedure. And to pretend that having even a few hundred thousand dollars is going to be your redemption at the end of your life when even one heart surgery can take all of it, is ridiculous in the extreme. That is why people such as yourself create these rosy scenarios that are designed to lull people who don't know how much medical care costs into believing that they can have it all and not have to pay for it. They can't! And this example is just another pile of steamy propaganda rolled out to lure the gullible.

Policies vary, people can pick the one that's right for them. Not everyone is as simple-minded as you. If you know your general health status, you can wisely select what's right for you, instead of the government deciding for you.

And the medical savings accounts are not in place of Medicare, just a supplemental coverage for later in life.

And you're not even addressing WHY medical care is expensive. It's because people don't pay. And even the people who do pay, don't pay, their insurance does.

As Obama would say, people need to get some skin in the game.

 

[Phantasmal]

As a boomer, I disagree and you don't speak for me.

The young are screwed under Obamacare and likely will be its undoing. Rightly so. Unlike the poster you responded to, most don't hate their parents or grandparents.

Something will come together to make it easier for families to care for their elderly and the newest generations, this isn't it.

I am personally tired of the youngsters that go to the emergency rooms for treatment and don't pay their bills, running up charges for the rest of us. This is a HUGE problem, so it is either forcing them into health insurance or refusing to treat them? Which is your preference?

 

[Taft2016]

I am personally tired of the youngsters that go to the emergency rooms for treatment and don't pay their bills, running up charges for the rest of us. This is a HUGE problem, so it is either forcing them into health insurance or refusing to treat them? Which is your preference?

Third option: Forcing them to pay. Garnish their paychecks. Reposses their fancy cars. Withold their tax returns.

They're young, they have a lifetime to pay it all back.

 

[Big Money]

I'm predicting that many young Americans will take one look at the premiums and say "fuck that"...and the Obamacrash Ponzi scheme will fall...and the taxpayers will get stuck with the bill for all the old sick people Obama forced the exchange to cover at subsidized rates.

 

[kiki]

Looks to me like a Ponzi scheme that will collapse if young healthy people opt out.

Then the liberals will say the only alternative is Socialized medicine. I think that's been their goal all along.

During the GOP presidential debates, Ron Paul asked the audience if a 30-year-old uninsured employed man was in a coma should he be treated promptly or left to die? The Teabillies in the audience shouted let him die.
Freedom is taking a risk with your health, but what about the innocent children?

 

[Liberty]

I am personally tired of the youngsters that go to the emergency rooms for treatment and don't pay their bills, running up charges for the rest of us. This is a HUGE problem, so it is either forcing them into health insurance or refusing to treat them? Which is your preference?

What about the illegals? I hear their numbers are greater than all others combined.

 

[Big Money]

what about the innocent children?

The ones liberals want aborted?