Oh and I'm going to enjoy my last 8 hours of freedom.
The bill is a bunch of fuzz. 6 years of service for 10 years of pay. It doesn't pay for itself.I suggest you read the bill.
No, taxpayers don't want to pay more money for nothing. Middle class workers who already have health care don't want to pay more taxes for no benefit.Taxpayers aren't against the bill. A lot of taxpayers are for the bill. That's just a false statement.
Good for them. Now they need to live within their means. If they work two jobs at minimum wage, then they will be able to afford health insurance if they cut out all luxuries.Poor people are often very productive. Some of them even work two jobs because they are poor. It is true that very sick people will often get very unproductive so they need healthcare to be able to get productive again.
So the hospital cut the bill and stuck all of those with private insurance with the bill.
I have said this before and I will say it again, it is all about cost shifting.
With the influx of baby-boomers into Medicare, the government needs more people to cost shift those people onto. The only way to do this is to mandate that everyone buys insurance even if they do not need it.
The government over promised on Medicare and now everyone is paying for their mistake.
But did it really? Or does the hospital just artificially inflate every bill to everybody because they know that the insurance companies and government agencies will only pay 10-20% anyway? And when some poor shlub who comes in without insurance gets that same bill but doesn't have the pull to tell the hospital he's going to pay 10% of the bill, ends up declaring bankruptcy?
Fact is, nobody knows what healthcare really costs.
No, taxpayers don't want to pay more money for nothing. Middle class workers who already have health care don't want to pay more taxes for no benefit.
Sure you say, you they can't be denied coverage. That's a benefit. Umm, did you really need to hand free healthcare out to the unproductive to come up with that? You can accomplish that WITHOUT giving handouts.
Good for them. Now they need to live within their means. If they work two jobs at minimum wage, then they will be able to afford health insurance if they cut out all luxuries.
ultimately, I think the bill is better than nothing... but better than nothing is a long ways away from "good"
I get the impression that a lot of the people really celebrating its passage are more excited about victory over republicans rather than its lackluster content.
I feel like all congress is doing is taking our broken system and forcing everyone onto it.
Being a middle class worker I can say that you're wrong. Insuring all the citizens while keeping premiums down is a huge benefit.
It's making sure the POOR have access to healthcare, not the "unproductive". Many poor work two jobs and are very productive.
Not true, you could cut out all luxuries and still not be able to afford it. Then there's also the people that are too sick to work. With access to healthcare maybe they can get better and be productive.
Win.
1. provision to keep "premiums down" not found
2. "access" is already available to everyone - this bill or any "mandate" does nothing to further that since all you are doing is trying to force that already "poor" person to spend money on insurance.
"It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/Issues/health-Care
No people with pre-existing conditions and those who can't afford it do not have access. Also, it's not forcing the poor to spend money on insurance. Medicaid is being expanded and there will be subsidies.
You must not have been following this very close or you're just listening to fictitious propaganda.
Those are excellent points. I appreciate the moral case for not forcing people to pay other people's bills.Why is there a mandate? Why should you force people who don't want health insurance to purchase health insurance?
Also, why do you give handouts to the poor? If you can't pay for insurance, you get no insurance. That should be the policy. Can't pay for it? Tough! That is the only sane way to reduce our health care expenses as a percentage of GDP.
Those are excellent points. I appreciate the moral case for not forcing people to pay other people's bills.
Practically, our society will not accept letting poor sick people suffer and die, regardless of any bad choices they may have made. This is an acceptable compromise to me.
How will the free clinics be paid? Also, the unions will be up in arms if you try to replace some of their rank and file with volunteer workers.I think a better solution would be free clinics offering basic care in exchange for volunteer work, but I don't think that's politically feasable.
ObamaCare is a complicated system of price controls. Price controls have been tried around the world and throughout history, many times. They've never worked yet. They always lead to shortages and rationing.Time will tell --- Change? Maybe. Hopefully. I'm pretty optimistic that Obama is leading the country in the right direction.
Unlike the rest of the nay sayers around here.
1. so you got nothing... figures.
2. Yes they do have access. You need to start by understanding that INSURANCE != healthcare. Those of you who do not understand this(either by ignorance or on purpose) will not be involved in any rational and real discussion on this topic - it just can't happen until you do.
It always tries to help people who are reckless and punishes people who play by the rules by taxing their hard earned money.
I did give you something.
No they don't have access. If you do not have health insurance and don't have money you're not going to be able to get a lot of healthcare.
If you need a bypass or dialysis or expensive meds and don't have insurance or tons of money you do not have access to the healthcare that you need. Those of you who do not understand this(either by ignorance or on purpose) will not be involved in any rational and real discussion on this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
I guess the next project solving the homeless problem is mandating homeless people buy a house.
1. still nothing
2. Yes they do. You do not need insurance to have access to healthcare. YOU might "feel" some will not be able to afford their care but it's flat out false to suggest they don't have access to it. So again, until you people understand that there is a difference between the two -there is no logical or rational discussion that can take place.
I guess the next project solving the homeless problem is mandating homeless people buy a house.
False. If you do not have health insurance and don't have money you simply will not have access to most healthcare. There's really no way to deny it. So again, until you people understand this there is no logical or rational discussion that can take place.
Oh you can get some healthcare without money but try getting angioplasty, a bypass, a transplant, regular dialysis, your daily meds, etc without it.