It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Truth About Obamacare From Someone Who Actually Read It

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I'll admit I have not read the entire bill. *Shudders at the thought...sigh*

Yet, I have read plenty of write=ups on how Obamacare has already caused
the prices of health care plans to rise!

The truth is we did not need this, and its just one step forward in the progressive
movement, where the supposed rights of the group exceed the rights of the individual!



do you realize that this was the arguement for and against slavery?....the rights of the negro slaves as a whole group, opposed to the rights of the individual white plantation owner.




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by xuenchen
 


My doctor flat out refused to sign the Bill for Obamacare when it first came out because he didn't care for the idea of having some bureacrat regulate what treatments and medications patients obtained for their illnesses and conditions.



You mean he'd rather the insurance companies regulate what treatments and medications patients receive?

If Ron Paul was in charge, he'd let the state bureaucrats regulate what treatments and medications patients receive. You think that's much better? At least Obama is trying to take responsibility for making sure all Americans have available and affordable healthcare, no matter what state they live in.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo
 


My condolences on the loss of your wife. My prayers go out to your family.

I think this bill is the wrong thing to do. Why force Americans to have health insurance, but give illegals free medical treatment?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


According to 'Obamacare' it's illegal, right now, to deny someone insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The portion you're citing is only in effect until 2014. By that time, the law assumes that states have set up their respective exchanges and by 2015 most people should be eligible for their healthcare subsidies in order to afford health insurance.

A major problem arising right now is that most states are fighting the bill in the supreme court and refusing to set up their health care exchanges, leaving people unable to afford insurance or qualify for medicaid to fend for themselves until the SCOTUS makes a decision later this month.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


I can't believe people with half a brain in their head would trust the guberment with their healthcare??? Must be the twighlight zone here.

They think government (the same one they claim wants to deplete the population by the way), has their best interests at heart? They care about your welfare and health?? For reals???

I can't stop laughing and crying at the thought!

Chad must have fell on his head and went to the guberment for care.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tiyxx
 


An oft repeated FALSE argument....fail.....

You are not required to buy a car...it is a choice...if you want to have a car you must have insurance to protect those you might hit on the road.

You don't have a choice to have a body...so healthcare is not a choice...



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by sirjunlegun
 


I can't believe people with half a brain in their head would trust the guberment with their healthcare??? Must be the twighlight zone here.

They think government , has their best interests at heart? They care about your welfare and health?? For reals???
.


Anti-government? So you're an anarchist?

Whats even FUNNIER is the notion that if the government would just get out of the way the private health insurance companies would totally have your 'best interests in mind'.

What WERE those Founding Fathers thinking of when they set up a system of 'gooberment', anyway?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


They certainly didn't set up this system....your arguments are all false.....not wanting government in healthcare decisions does not make you an anarchist...that's a childish remark and there are other choices than government or insurance companies.....if you know so much about me you know I believe in the undoing of insurance companies also.

It should be between your dr and you.....and people should have to pay for their healthcare needs...just like you take care of your house or car....catastrophic coverage only.

Your silly black and white false arguments don't wash with me....

The founders never intended the government to make your decisions for you......what constitution are you reading? the original or the progressively warped post 1900 one?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


What WERE those Founding Fathers thinking of when they set up a system of 'gooberment', anyway?
the Founding Fathers never set up a "system of government".
what they did establish was a system of restricting government.
in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.

those who do not grasp this simple principle cannot possibly comprehend the subsequent follies we've already endured or those proposed by this nonsense called Obamacare.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
.not wanting government in healthcare decisions does not make you an anarchist...that's a childish remark and there are other choices than government or insurance companies.....


Indeed it's not. Of course, what you said was:

"They think government , has their best interests at heart? They care about your welfare and health?? For reals?"

Which implies you think the private sector can be trusted to care about our health and welfare. Which is pretty laughable.

Also, ever read the preamble of the Constitution that says the government should "promote the general Welfare"?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
 


According to 'Obamacare' it's illegal, right now, to deny someone insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The portion you're citing is only in effect until 2014. By that time, the law assumes that states have set up their respective exchanges and by 2015 most people should be eligible for their healthcare subsidies in order to afford health insurance.

A major problem arising right now is that most states are fighting the bill in the supreme court and refusing to set up their health care exchanges, leaving people unable to afford insurance or qualify for medicaid to fend for themselves until the SCOTUS makes a decision later this month.


Some states are fighting it and some already had a pool program in place.

We need to find a list showing states fighting and states already providing.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
the Founding Fathers never set up a "system of government".

what they did establish was a system of restricting government.

in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.


Your understanding of US politics and history, nt to mention the definition of the term 'government' is laughable

Lulz.What the Founding Fathers did was establish a form of Government. Perhaps you just dont know what a 'government" is. "Government, refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized". The US Constitution establishes a system of Government.

Furthermore, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Twenty six states are fighting the law and that's about how many haven't bothered to try to enact their exchanges. About 12 states have enacted their exchanges and the remaining are still debating the issue.

More info here.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Does not imply that at all......don't put words in my mouth.

And the founders meaning of general "welfare" is not the current liberal definition of welfare.

Not nice talking to you as usual....finished.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Honor93
the Founding Fathers never set up a "system of government".

what they did establish was a system of restricting government.

in a society of self-governed people, restricting government was/is a necessity.


Your understanding of US politics and history, nt to mention the definition of the term 'government' is laughable

Lulz.What the Founding Fathers did was establish a form of Government. Perhaps you just dont know what a 'government" is. "Government, refers to the legislators, administrators, and arbitrators in the administrative bureaucracy who control a state at a given time, and to the system of government by which they are organized". The US Constitution establishes a system of Government.

Furthermore, the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.



laugh all you want, try reading the Federalist papers and get back to me.
there were already 13 governments well-established and fully functioning.
the FFs sought to consolidate the events already occuring around them.

Your inability to absorb or understand the concept is not my problem but thanks for trying to make it so

and no, the US Constitution specifically restricts government, it does not establish what already exists.


the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution was not a society of 'self-governed people'.
correct, there was no such thing as the US until the Constitution was ratified and implemented.
however, there was a Confederation, there were Articles governing said Confederation and there were multiple governments actively operating long before the Constitution was even conceived or discussed as a possibility.
so yes, there were plenty of "self-governing" entities before the Constitution, they were called Colonies.

edit to add: Obamacare has nothing to do with self-governing.
under Obamacare, patients do not govern their own healthcare, their ability to afford it or their access to it.
under Obamacare, drs do not govern your healthcare, their willingness to discount it or their ability to make it more accessible ... how is this program even resemblant of any form of "self-governing"?
edit on 10-6-2012 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 






posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I haven't read Obama care, and i don't really need to because there is nothing better than Government screwing up an already screwed up system even more.

Everyone knows that.

Obama Care is unconstitutional forcing people to pay for something that if they already could,they would.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Twenty six states are fighting the law and that's about how many haven't bothered to try to enact their exchanges. About 12 states have enacted their exchanges and the remaining are still debating the issue.

More info here.


Good info !

I wonder what happens if and when some states fail to pass the exchange legislation ?

More importantly, what happens to "people" ?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Exactly!

No one is playing roulette. No one is gambling. Thise without healthcare don't have it because they can't afford it. It has absolutely nothing to do with being cheap or gambling on their life. Insurance company greed is the problem. How on Earth is forcing every citizen to pay them premiums going to help the problem?

I really don't understand. I see the need for an overhaul myself. I like the idea of all citizens having healthcare too. But when you force them to have it under under the xisting system (few tweaks here and there to entice), you're making the problem worse.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Except that if you can't afford it, then they will help you pay for it.


Premium Subsidies Households with incomes below 400 percent and above 133 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) who are enrolled in insurance plans offered through the exchanges are eligible for premium assistance financed by the federal government (Medicaid will cover families with incomes below 133 percent of FPL). In 2010, the FPL is $22,050 for family of four. The new law establishes a sliding scale of assistance based on limitations on required family contributions to the cost of coverage. For instance, at 150 percent of FPL in 2014, ObamaCare limits the amount that such households must contribute toward their health insurance premium to 4 percent of their annual income. At 400 percent of the FPL, households must contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward insurance premiums. Whatever portion of the total health insurance premium for their coverage is not paid by these households is covered by the new federal premium assistance program.


Link

Forcing people to have access to healthcare...how evil of Obama
edit on 6/10/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join