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.

 

Almost all of your questions about "Obamacare" Answered here. :)

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by The Old American
 


No "truth" there.

Just more cold-war, commie-bashing.

Baby boomers. Ick.


I'm not a baby boomer. And there's no hint of Socialism/Communism here.

But let's break down what I said, and tack some facts onto it.


Good thing we have Obamacare to fill their pockets, then!

Absolute fact. Obamacare will fill the pockets of big insurance corporations and even bigger pharmaceutical corporations. With a mandate that every U.S. citizen now carry healthcare, those corporations will get more of our money. By law. When a government is run by corporations and forces its citizens to support those corporations, it is fascism. This has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.


The amount you make for yourself doesn't matter. Keeping anything for yourself is selfish and cruel, anyway. As long as you are starving so that your neighbor lives, you are a good little citizen.

I put a spin on my wording, admittedly. However, it really doesn't matter how much this person makes. It doesn't matter if he needs every single dime for himself, because now, by law, he must give his money to insurance corporations and pharmaceutical corporations to make sure that other people can be forced to pay for the health care that they can't afford, either. Otherwise he will be fined...or taxed...Obama hasn't made up his mind yet.

So, which part was not factual?

/TOA




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
So more of my pay check is going to be taken away?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Let's take a look backwards for a moment.

Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

So far:

1.) Contributions to Social Security are mandatory.

2.) Maximum Social Security Tax rates are over 10% for the first $110,000

3.) You cannot deduct what you pay in Social Security taxes from your income tax.

4.) Under Johnson's administration, the Independent Trust Fund was put into the General Fund, so Congress could spend it.

5.) People receiving Social Security checks today may note that they are taxed up to 85% of the money the Government "put away" for them.


So perhaps someone could answer this question for me. What guarantee do we have that some future Administration or Congress won't gut the entire Obamacare package? Taking out all of the "positive" things, but still forcing people to buy insurance? If the insurance companies can bribe enough congressmen and judges to get this through, why won't they use the huge profits that this legislation will generate to bribe even more people to further increase their profits?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )



Sham


It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 )


If they are private companies, let them choose who they want... if they still have customers, then they stay in business.


It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )


How do people think insurance companies make money? Although there's much more to that... admittedly.


Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )


Outrageous! Don't give me no crap about young adults not being able to afford health care.


Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )

Although the government forcing this... is over the line, as if there is one.

I'm not gonna lie, this site is not very impressive... but I haven't read it through yet. Still reading


I'm 27 and am paid $8.25/hour. I cannot afford healthcare.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
why to people not understand, insurance is not a health plan?

Imagine this, you buy home owners insurance with the usual requirements. The insurance company makes money by NOT paying out claims, so they fight every single claim - rightly so. Then one day, you decide that the backed up sewer line MIGHT one day flood the house, so you demand the insurance company fix it. The tell you to jump of a cliff, not flood, no money. You are pissed because the won't pay, they're the insurance company.

Now, you buy health insurance IN CASE you get sick. The insurance company makes money by deny your claims as much as possible, as their DUTY is to the shareholders and to increase shareholder value through profits made by DENYING your claims. One day you think you might have cancer someday and due to your irrational fear you demand they pay to remove a body part now. They say jump off a cliff, when you get the cancer they'll think about it then. Worse yet, the system will over "cover" what it deems is real health care. I will NEVER set foot in a western medicine office, as the answers they provide fail nearly all the time, so my form of medicine is NOT covered, ever. So, pay for everyone else's addiction to meds, which I am totally against, and can't get my herbs paid for.

Definition of INSURANCE
1
a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril


Insurance is NOT a health plan, and mandating that people give money to a FOR PROFIT system is nuts. Even worse, mandating that system be more health friendly is even more nuts. Doctors are capitalists, Big Pharma are capitalists, insurance companies are capitalists: their mandate, MANDATE is to make as much money as possible and that means denying as many claims as possible.

How is making people get this an improvement? How is making the system bigger, more unwieldy an improvement? How is simply adding more requirements, more things to comply with, more forms, more oversight, more taxes, more investigators, more checks being issued an improvement? The country doctor worked perfectly, BlueCross blah blah blah works by accident only and not by design - see above part of the rant.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Well said, cranky. Everybody who is thrilled about this really doesn't understand what it truly means or how much it is going to really cost each and every one of us.

I read the OP and was wondering, where is the part where it is AFFORDABLE for the average, middle-class American? Where is the part that states that it is not going to cost my husband and myself $2000 a month, like they want to charge us now (hence we have no health insurance)?

Show me the part that says that people will be able to afford this without it severely impacting their monthly budget. All the rest of this is insurance reform, plain and simple, which should have been done anyway, without making us all pay through the nose for it. Then show me the section that says what our tax penalty will be, since we can afford neither insurance nor the penalty.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


Well said, cranky. Everybody who is thrilled about this really doesn't understand what it truly means or how much it is going to really cost each and every one of us.

I read the OP and was wondering, where is the part where it is AFFORDABLE for the average, middle-class American? Where is the part that states that it is not going to cost my husband and myself $2000 a month, like they want to charge us now (hence we have no health insurance)?

Show me the part that says that people will be able to afford this without it severely impacting their monthly budget. All the rest of this is insurance reform, plain and simple, which should have been done anyway, without making us all pay through the nose for it. Then show me the section that says what our tax penalty will be, since we can afford neither insurance nor the penalty.



This is true. people also don't seem to understand that to GIVE to the insurance companies is to TAKE from another. There is no give to all, so now, the hand wringing begins: money to insurance companies in case they cover the sickness I might get, OR feed myself and risk being fined and possible jail time when I can't pay the fine? Pay the fine, or pay the gas to get me to the crappy job that pays the food but not the fine? Close my company or fire people to get below the limit where I don't have to cover? Hospitals are profit centers, there are a few altruistic ones, but by and large they are there to make money hand over fist and there is little to no concern for anyone's health.

The medical industry kills 100k people a year through prescription drug ERRORS, and another 150k due to hospital or doctor ERROR. There is no statistic to cover death by insurance fraud or withholding care, but I'm sure it's up there. Why the hell do I want to give these death merchants money because their profits are high enough and they are EXTREMELY good at talking people into giving the money by hiring the best PR their, your, money can buy?

And when they aren't making enough money due to ALL the claims they have to pay out due to the new regulations, how long before the rate increases show up? More hand wringing, as you can't give without taking in a fiat currency world.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


You ask..."Are you on their side?" meaning the side of the insurance companies. Of course we should be on their side. They are our friends and neighbors. They are trying to run a business. Insurance is not a charity run by imaginary do-gooders- it is business run by people just like you and me. They collect money, invest it and pay claims. If you take away their ability to collect money...then their is no money to pay claims.

I find it truly outrageous that 19-26 year olds want to be on their parents insurance. What kind of generation are we raising...absolutely pathetic.


Our friends and neighbors, eh? Obviously, you've never been told to screw off after being doubly covered, after having paid in for years, and then being flat out denied for "a pre-existing condition" when you literally had no prior medical history. Then having to fight for over a year to get a 100K+ bill finally paid, having to do administrative work for countless hours while you should be focused on recovering (which they should have done) to get the situation taken care of because they flat out say "we will not communicate with other insurance companies". Their goal being the entire time to delay payment and responsibility as long as possible so that eventually the hospitals will accept a much lower payment.

They are "for profit" not "for you." Get a clue. They need regulating, they need transparency-inducing pressure, and they need other entities making sure they are not colluding. Why? Because there are plenty of greedy exploiter scumbags in the world, that's why.
edit on 6/29/2012 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
There is no question that people are passionate about their views of Obamacare. I find myself dealing with a unique einigma relative to this issue.

For over 20 years, I worked as a corporate insurance consultant and contrary to what many people think, they were a large portion of brokers who truly cared and made recommendations to our clients which were in their best interest as opposed to the insurance industry's or our own selfish profitability. We cared about the employees we advocated for and on more occasions than not, we were able to have coverage approved or claims paid that wouldn't have otherwise ended in such a positive fashion. Obamacare has decimated our industry and whereas many people who don't understand the difference between a broker (who works on behalf of an indivual client such as you and me) and an insurance agent (who works on behalf of an insurance company) many people are happy because they consider anyone associated in any way with the nsurance industry, even the middle man who had no allegiance to anyone other than his/her client, to be a blood sucking leech but this is largely a misnomer.

This is wherein my own dilemma lays; I am also an American with some serious per-existing conditions who lives in a state that is currently allowed to cherry-pick only healthy insureds. This unsavory practice will contine past 2014 if Obamacare does not proceed. Right now I'm covered under my employer's plan and would have 18 months of overly-expensive, yet adequate coverage should my insurance end. If ObamaCare proceeds as planned, come 2014 I will not have to worry about obtaining insurance yet I'll be living with constant job insecurity as our industry becomes more and more decimated. So the question is, which side do I align myself with? To continue within a career I've spent my lifetime building - one that benefited a myriad of peple over the years - or be relieved that insurance coverage will always be available to me? Do I give in to my capitalistic and yes, altruistic side or do I defer to my American side which feels all citizens should have access to affordable and guaranteed coverage?

I want to tell you that I continue to struggle with this question even though there is no doubt in my mind that ObamaCare is destined to eventually fail for some very specific reasons:

1. There is nothing in the law that stems the ever-increasing costs of healthcare which means that,
2. with all of the enhancements to basic levels of insurance, the carriers will need to charge tremendous premiums to cover the rising costs of healthcare, even with the MLR rules.

Yes, there are certain admirable and positive portions of the law, but it is a double-edged sword; unless legislation is passed that slows down the outrageous costs of healthcare, ObamaCate is destined to fail. It doesn't matter that insurance will be available to all If the premiums are too high for the majority of the population to afford. That fact, coupled with the "tax" the Supreme Court sided with, with create a society of uninsured bitter folks who are "taxed" because they can't afford the insurance being offer. How can that possibly make sense?

ObamaCare is not the panacea many think it is - you never get something for nothing and unless something is done to limit medical and pharmaceutical costs, just how good is ia law that, for many, will force us to choose insurance over putting food on our tables?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 



Outrageous! Don't give me no crap about young adults not being able to afford health care.


Uhhhhh How do you expect 19 year olds to have insurance on their own?

I'm 20 and there is no way I can afford insurance on my own. You expect people that make minimum wage or slightly above it to be able to purchase healthcare? Especially since most of them work PART time because many places will not hire you on full-time due to the economy.

Do you really want young people to get sick and be thousands of dollars in debt if they do? Or not be able to afford medication if they need it? Or go to a hospital uninsured, never pay the bill and the cost is then passed on to YOU?


edit on 29-6-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Lol stereotype much? well it looks like you will have OC if you like it or not, Oh and why do you always go on about my Queen when you want to diss us Brits? she doesn't have any power at all she is our slave.
Yes the NHS have to make tough decisions on which drugs to buy etc, and I understand that if a person can live 3 months longer by taking certain drugs but they cost 100k for the treatment we have to draw a line and say "Sorry you can not have them".
Heck but with your medical system as it is now Iam sure the insurance companies would pay for those drugs....



Oh and crappy NHS? according to the WHO it is better than yours...

www.photius.com...

Thats right your one place behind costa rica.....



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I just don't get how anyone can be against free healthcare for those who can't afford it. What's wrong with that?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scope and a Beam
I just don't get how anyone can be against free healthcare for those who can't afford it. What's wrong with that?


Please explain, because I'm confused: who's offering free healthcare? Wherever it is, I'll pack up and move there immediately.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by crankyoldman

I read the OP and was wondering, where is the part where it is AFFORDABLE for the average, middle-class American? Where is the part that states that it is not going to cost my husband and myself $2000 a month, like they want to charge us now (hence we have no health insurance)?




I do not care about middle class people. I am not one and since I am 43 and dirt poor I know I will NEVER be one. So the hell with them. They can afford those huge SUV's and giant houses and speed boats and beach trips. They should have to suck it up and pay for healthcare. The poor, people like me, are the ones who will benefit from this new law and I am starting to think it was a good idea. None of the new taxes will apply to me. I will be getting truly free healthcare out of this, so it's cool.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Nearly all wealthy 1rst world nations.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
This is an old thread and I'm surprised it didn't get any farther than two pages. I'm speaking as a person who does not have health insurance - on purpose! I retired early last year from the school system here in Texas and was sick of seeing so much of my paycheck go to insurance we never used. We actually get a discount for paying for our doctor visits here and it's a lot less than what we'd send to BC/BS for some false security. It's a black hole that we shouldn't have to throw money in to unless we want to - not at the point of a gun either! Now, from what estimates I've found so far I'm going to have something like $1,400 added on to the top of my taxes either next year or in 2014. I'm sorry but I don't think it ought to be this way - and to show you the reasoning behind it take a listen to this:

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-12-2012 by Ollie769 because: Video link didn't work.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join