Restaurant Owner to Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare, page 33

Pages: << 30 31 32 33 34 35 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times

reply posted on 21-11-2012 @ 12:48 PM by macman

reply to post by Daughter2

Because "For the Common defense" is in the Constitution.
0bamacare is not.

reply posted on 22-11-2012 @ 12:38 PM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Daughter2

Because "For the Common defense" is in the Constitution.
0bamacare is not.

Happy Turkey Day, my friend! Cheers!

reply posted on 23-11-2012 @ 09:26 AM by Merinda

The public will never accept people starving to skeletons within American borders, or an average life expectancy that lags Cuba, because people can not afford health care. So somebody has to pay for it not happening.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 09:19 AM by macman

reply to post by Merinda

So 0bamacare will feed people as well, so they don't starve to death?

When and where has someone been denied medical treatment within the US?
Please, I beg you to provide one instance of this.
Your thoughts are based on fallacies and Dem talking points.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 09:23 AM by HomerinNC

I went to Denny's yesterday with my better half, just to check out a The Hobbit menu (I love my nerdiness lol), and there was no obamacare surcharge on the bill

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:01 AM by windword

reply to post by HomerinNC

Right. It won't be imposed at all, anymore, as the Company has recently stated and denounced Mentz's comments. But, it wasn't to begin until January 2014, anyway.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:09 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman
When and where has someone been denied medical treatment within the US? Your thoughts are based on fallacies and Dem talking points.

Is it not more pertinent to ask how many have had to mortgage their homes or take on other debt in order to pay their medical bills? How many have seen their retirement funds evapourate because of sickness in their household. Those ain't talking points.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:21 AM by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
]Is it not more pertinent to ask how many have had to mortgage their homes or take on other debt in order to pay their medical bills? How many have seen their retirement funds evapourate because of sickness in their household. Those ain't talking points.

SO everyone else should be footing the bill of your hypothetical person?

They can declare bankruptcy, never pay any of the bills, which THEY incurred, and put the tax payer on the hook for it.

Still don't see where the Govt, the US Govt, has the responsibility to PAY for health care.

And no, it is not more pertinent, as there are money other things that can and have cleared a persons finances, not just paying for a bill that they owe.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:25 AM by FreebirdGirl

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Merinda

So 0bamacare will feed people as well, so they don't starve to death?

When and where has someone been denied medical treatment within the US?
Please, I beg you to provide one instance of this.
Your thoughts are based on fallacies and Dem talking points.

Read much?

A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care.

abcnews.go.com...

"I honestly don't know how much more I can endure," Elder wrote earlier this year in a Facebook message to her friend Liz Jacobs. "I am fighting for (Medicaid) and disability. I can't work I sit in bed I cry a lot. I am still fighting for healthcare and still fighting foreclosure.

As she typed the note, Elder could scarcely breathe. Her lungs had filled with fluid over several months; her respiratory system was shutting down. After visits to the emergency room and several free clinics, Elder was finally diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma.

But what makes her family bristle: Elder did not have to die.

If she had had health care, "Absolutely she'd still be here," said Jacquelyn Elder, Leslie's daughter, adding that Hodgkin's lymphoma has a high survival rate. "That is something really hard to deal with."

www.cnn.com...

A tribute to those who died because they have no health insurance
www.youtube.com...

“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

Emergency rooms serve as a place of last resort, but 45,000 Americans still die every year because they lack health insurance, or one every 12 minutes. Uninsured adults under age 65 are also at a 40 percent higher death risk. Hospitals may treat patients for emergency medical conditions regardless of legal status or ability to pay, but patients with chronic conditions that don’t require emergency interference are often unable to access needed care.

thinkprogress.org...

In the five years from 2005-2010, 3,483 Tennesseans died because they lacked health insurance, the study said.

www.commercialappeal.com...

Lack Of Health Insurance Killed More Than 26,000 In 2010:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:27 AM by Snoil

A business owner has to pass along his costs of doing business. If he/she makes no profit, the business dies. Making a particular cost transparent to his/her customers is part of what economists call exchange of information. Many other businesses have done this, it isn't new.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:36 AM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
]Is it not more pertinent to ask how many have had to mortgage their homes or take on other debt in order to pay their medical bills? How many have seen their retirement funds evapourate because of sickness in their household. Those ain't talking points.

SO everyone else should be footing the bill of your hypothetical person?

I believe it's called insurance. Everybody pays into a larger pool, and draws upon it when needed. Seems to work up here...cured my cancer for $32 out of pocket...and our standard of living is at least as good as yours.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:40 AM by pexx421

I dont know why people keep talking about "in a free market, he can" blah blah blah. We're not in a free market. Never were. Anyhow, the point of the OP is this guy is a duechebag. Not "oh, he shouldnt be allowed to do this", but just, "look at this jerk, what an A hole". And yes, the guy is obviously an A-hole. As to the people saying "this is the government taking money out of your pocket to give to others. This is what you liberals want." ,Well, my answer is, No. This is not what anyone wants. This is government business, as installed by the neo cons (thats you repubs), and by both corporatist parties (that includes you too dems) as usual. They take from the lower and middle class, and give it to corporations. Rob from the poor to give to the rich. In this case, its the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, neither of which have anything to do with health care. The insurance group is just a quick 30% skim off the top of all money we pay towards healthcare. And the pharma industry is just disease management...besides, in the US, only 8% of their profit goes to research, while 30% of it goes to advertising. We are paying massive amounts for them to advertise to us that we need their products, hey sounds great!
Long as you keep supporting republicans or democrats who get their campaign contributions from massive corporations, you will get what you deserve. Your money will be stolen from you and distributed to the wealthy. Even when they "give" money to the poor, that money is only funneled through the poor back into the hands of the rich. Meanwhile, subsidies given to the rich...do they "trickle down" and make it back to the poor and middle class?? I think not.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:51 AM by macman

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Read much?

A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care.
abcnews.go.com...

He could have gone to the emergency room to receive care. His dumb choice.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

"I honestly don't know how much more I can endure," Elder wrote earlier this year in a Facebook message to her friend Liz Jacobs. "I am fighting for (Medicaid) and disability. I can't work I sit in bed I cry a lot. I am still fighting for healthcare and still fighting foreclosure.

As she typed the note, Elder could scarcely breathe. Her lungs had filled with fluid over several months; her respiratory system was shutting down. After visits to the emergency room and several free clinics, Elder was finally diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma.

But what makes her family bristle: Elder did not have to die.

If she had had health care, "Absolutely she'd still be here," said Jacquelyn Elder, Leslie's daughter, adding that Hodgkin's lymphoma has a high survival rate. "That is something really hard to deal with."

www.cnn.com...

SO that means what?
She is sick with lymphoma, and can still get treated at the emergency room and free clinic.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
A tribute to those who died because they have no health insurance
www.youtube.com...

I don't do youtube for info.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”

Emergency rooms serve as a place of last resort, but 45,000 Americans still die every year because they lack health insurance, or one every 12 minutes. Uninsured adults under age 65 are also at a 40 percent higher death risk. Hospitals may treat patients for emergency medical conditions regardless of legal status or ability to pay, but patients with chronic conditions that don’t require emergency interference are often unable to access needed care.
thinkprogress.org...

And yet they still get treated and are not denied care.
They make the choice not to seek services, because the don't have health insurance.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

In the five years from 2005-2010, 3,483 Tennesseans died because they lacked health insurance, the study said.
www.commercialappeal.com...

No, that is a misleading title.
In the article it states that they delay treatment due to not securing health insurance.
They did not just magically die because they don't have health insurance.

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Lack Of Health Insurance Killed More Than 26,000 In 2010:
www.huffingtonpost.com...

And this article as well, states that people without insurance delay or defer care.

The Hospitals don't turn people away.
They treat people with or without insurance.

Oh, and think progress as a viable source? George Soros anyone??

Yeah, same crap, maybe you should also watch and parade as truth John Q.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 11:55 AM by macman

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

We have private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP programs and state adult programs as well.
Yet, the Govt jacks those things up as well.
So, no, there is no need for more control by the Govt.

Hey, what are the wait times you guys have for treatment for major things?

Also, wasn't there a high up in the Canadian Govt that came to the US for treatment.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:01 PM by buddhasystem

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

We have private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP programs and state adult programs as well.
Yet, the Govt jacks those things up as well.

From what I see, one major component that is "jacked up" is the private insurance premiums, to the effect that I effectively earn less year after year since I want my family (kids and all) covered. The government has little or rather nothing to do with this spiraling process of cost increase. It really is exponential. And there is no limit in sight. I'd rather the govt step in and do something than remain in the ridiculous situation where my take home pay is less and less.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:04 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

We have private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP programs and state adult programs as well.
Yet, the Govt jacks those things up as well.
So, no, there is no need for more control by the Govt.
Hey, what are the wait times you guys have for treatment for major things?
Also, wasn't there a high up in the Canadian Govt that came to the US for treatment.

Hey, there are always folks who want to jump the queue, or get boutique care. You have the dough...go nuts. But the ordinary grunt doesn't have that luxury, and that's who we're talking about. My cancer was treated within weeks of diagnosis. You have an elective therapy, you may have to wait. If it's urgent you get treated, and you don't have to mortgage your house or go bankrupt to get treatment. You can call that control if you want...I call it civilization, and so does the rest of the first world.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
From what I see, one major component that is "jacked up" is the private insurance premiums, to the effect that I effectively earn less year after year since I want my family (kids and all) covered.

Simple math...if health insurance is run on a not-for-profit basis ie money is not leeched out of the system to pay a shareholder dividend, then it's going to cost less. In this country, universal health care is a human right.

edit on 26-11-2012 by JohnnyCanuck because: ...just because, eh?

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:47 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by FreebirdGirl

If someone dies from cancer, it is not because help is unavailable. I have known many (quick count of 7) that have had cancer, received treatment, and effected a "cure" (you don't really cure many cancers, only battle into remissions of varying length) without having any insurance. Sure, there is a lot of paperwork to fill out. Some hurdles to jump. But it isn't unnecessarily difficult.

But what is the fine for not having insurance under Obamacare? Insurance for your family will run you about $500-$700/month (at least). Your employer doesn't have to pay anything, and can pass all costs on to you. And, if you do the math and decide that you would rather pay a couple thousand in "fines" than to pay $7000/year for insurance, you are right back where you started, only with less money in your pocket.

Who the hell are the people that support Obamacare? I mean, really? How can anyone think that anything good has happened? All it is is a way for you to give more money to someone other than yourself.

They have made it to where you now will see the "poor" of America having to choose to pay a fine just so that they are allowed to not have any decent medical care.

Just let that sink in for a little bit.

edit on 26-11-2012 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:51 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
They have made it to where you now will see the "poor" of America having to choose to pay a fine just so that they are allowed to not have any decent medical care. Just let that sink in for a little bit.

Is that not the compromise that had to be made to get it past the GOP?

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:51 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Well, at this point I would say that what Canada has would certainly be an upgrade to Obamacare. Obamacare doesn't do anything to reduce the shareholder profit. It just forces people to pay out of pocket for insurance that is at the exact same price: exorbitant

Typical of the US government: create a law that forces people to pay money to private industry. It is the capitalist form of "state run" business.

reply posted on 26-11-2012 @ 12:53 PM by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
They have made it to where you now will see the "poor" of America having to choose to pay a fine just so that they are allowed to not have any decent medical care. Just let that sink in for a little bit.
Is that not the compromise that had to be made to get it past the GOP?

I can't recall. That was such a circus.

Neither group is in it for The People. Look at the garbage that is passed off as legislation.

If it was about "The People" we would see the money spent on killing foreigners diverted to treating cancer patients. Instead, we just keep inventing new ways to spend more money on fancier ways to kill more foreign nationals.