Why so much fuss over Obamacare?

[fuzzybabybunny]

I don't know that this is necessarily true. Yeah, there is (and always will be) high demand for healthcare, but demand would probably drop if health insurance was only for catastrophic illness/emergency. People (like many I know) wouldn't go to the doctor multiple times for a cold to get antibiotics that aren't actually going to help. I think demand would go down if people had to pay out of pocket for lesser illness. If you look at healthcare segments that aren't typically covered by insurance (ex. plastic surgery, LASIK), prices in the market have dropped quite a bit as time goes on.

The deductible.

A deductible of $6,000 means that people won't be using insurance to pay for every little thing, since every little thing up to $6,000 will be out of the *customer's* pocket.

Insurance doesn't pay out or start helping with the costs of a person's frivolous visits until the person has paid out $6,000 of their own money. That helps keep people from unfairly gaming in system.

BUT there should be better policies towards preventative services. I think there shouldn't be a deductible for things that are preventative in nature. And what exactly those services will be will be left up to the insurance companies to decide. Free STD checks every month or whatever would be good. As well as cholesterol checks, physicals, etc.

 

[piasabird]

People in the USA pay a lot of different types of taxes. Not just Income Tax. If you buy gasoline, there is a federal tax on that. Cigarettes and alcoholic beverages also have federal Taxes.

Then there are state taxes. Property taxes for real estate, Sales Tax, Gas Taxes, Car Registration and title, and maybe also cigarettes and alcohol.

There are also taxes on many other things like Phone services, Tires, and all kinds of misc. items. Then there are county taxes and city taxes.

Every time there is a tax that elevates the costs of goods and services, so you can increase taxes for employers or businesses, but the consumer ends up being the one punished.

Now there are also taxes for Obama care. If you dont get insurance you are taxed. If you get insurance as required you have to pay for the insurance. People that make more money pay a higher tax for Medicare. If you own a lot of property and die or leave a large inheritance that is also taxed after you die.

Tax Tax Tax.

 

[Ksyder]

The understanding of macro nutrition, back in the 80's and 90's, isn't what it is today.

Back then they didn't know better, and didn't understand about how excess glucose gets dumped into building up glycogen in your liver and triglycerides in your adipose, as well as stressing your pancreas from producing so much insulin (not to mention the necessity of activating glucagon and the value of ketones / growth hormones from periods when glucose gets low and the body starts tapping into glycogen reserves).

The old food pyramid is obsolete, which is why there was the big push to change it to something that made sense, which is why they changed it to a plate.

I definitely am of the opinion that insulin/glucagon balance are not things are are on the mainstream's radar as far as I can tell. These ideas are more common in the fitness/nutrition community.

I know the plate is better than the pyramid, but my point was that many in the older generation were eating too many processed foods for too many years and now they are obese. I see many 40-50 year olds that clearly have been eating junk and its going to be hard for them to reverse the damage.

The other problem with the plate is that it implies that all of these macronutrients should be eaten at every meal, which is not necessarily true.

Younger people and those that are into fitness have a better chance now that better information is more available.

 

[jackstar7]

People in the USA pay a lot of different types of taxes. Not just Income Tax. If you buy gasoline, there is a federal tax on that. Cigarettes and alcoholic beverages also have federal Taxes.

Then there are state taxes. Property taxes for real estate, Sales Tax, Gas Taxes, Car Registration and title, and maybe also cigarettes and alcohol.

There are also taxes on many other things like Phone services, Tires, and all kinds of misc. items. Then there are county taxes and city taxes.

Every time there is a tax that elevates the costs of goods and services, so you can increase taxes for employers or businesses, but the consumer ends up being the one punished.

Now there are also taxes for Obama care. If you dont get insurance you are taxed. If you get insurance as required you have to pay for the insurance. People that make more money pay a higher tax for Medicare. If you own a lot of property and die or leave a large inheritance that is also taxed after you die.

Tax Tax Tax.

Don't you also complain about the people who pay no taxes? Or am I confusing you with someone else?

Yes, we pay taxes on many consumables as well as income and then some. We have a lot of things that need to be funded in order to maintain order. It's important for the economy, too, because tax money gets spent. It never sits idle.

 

[AViking]

People in the USA pay a lot of different types of taxes. Not just Income Tax. If you buy gasoline, there is a federal tax on that. Cigarettes and alcoholic beverages also have federal Taxes.

Then there are state taxes. Property taxes for real estate, Sales Tax, Gas Taxes, Car Registration and title, and maybe also cigarettes and alcohol.

There are also taxes on many other things like Phone services, Tires, and all kinds of misc. items. Then there are county taxes and city taxes.

Every time there is a tax that elevates the costs of goods and services, so you can increase taxes for employers or businesses, but the consumer ends up being the one punished.

Now there are also taxes for Obama care. If you dont get insurance you are taxed. If you get insurance as required you have to pay for the insurance. People that make more money pay a higher tax for Medicare. If you own a lot of property and die or leave a large inheritance that is also taxed after you die.

Tax Tax Tax.

Welcome to society. Ever since we started living in villages together with other families back around 11,000 BC there has probably been taxes.

 

[piasabird]

Yes, we pay taxes on many consumables as well as income and then some. We have a lot of things that need to be funded in order to maintain order. It's important for the economy, too, because tax money gets spent. It never sits idle.

Why exactly are you saying? "We have a lot of things that need to be funded?" This seems like communism to me. The problem is the amount of waste in the government when it is centralized at the federal level. About 1/3 of all tax money is wasted.

 

[AViking]

Utilizing tax dollars correctly is very important. I feel that the US wastes nearly all of our tax dollars since I have nothing to show for them. That's not a good reason though to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and not collect taxes or spend them. If anything less waste, maybe more taxes, and spending them correctly is the answer. It works for all the other 1st world countries out there.

 

[shortylickens]

Utilizing tax dollars correctly is very important. I feel that the US wastes nearly all of our tax dollars since I have nothing to show for them. That's not a good reason though to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and not collect taxes or spend them. If anything less waste, maybe more taxes, and spending them correctly is the answer. It works for all the other 1st world countries out there.

Yeah I wouldnt necessarily mind higher taxes if I knew ALL the money (old and new) were being used much better.
Obamacare as it stands does not qualify as well-spent.

 

[jackstar7]

Why exactly are you saying? "We have a lot of things that need to be funded?" This seems like communism to me. The problem is the amount of waste in the government when it is centralized at the federal level. About 1/3 of all tax money is wasted.

Where are you getting your 1/3 number from? And if 2/3 isn't being wasted, what is it you don't consider a waste?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Yeah I wouldnt necessarily mind higher taxes if I knew ALL the money (old and new) were being used much better.
Obamacare as it stands does not qualify as well-spent.

How do you go about finding if the money is actually being spent well? I'm talking about actually tracking the money itself, looking at accounting documents, etc.

As the ACA stands now the money isn't being spent well? Considering that the ACA hasn't even started moving yet...

 

[OGOC]

I think there's a fundamental disconnect here that you're not getting.

You have a written set of standards (the Constitution, in our case).

By itself, the Constitution is a piece of paper that holds no power.

It is up to *people* (Supreme Court in our case) to interpret the standards and to agree to its meaning.

It is up to *people* to then enforce that interpreted standard.

The fundamental disconnect here is you not understanding The Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can't just "interpret The Constitution" and say you can kill your neighbor or that you have no right to be secure in your person. If it did, then the Supreme Court itself would be considered unconstitutional due to people having certain inalienable rights.

If you want to say people can do whatever they want if they can get away with it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

 

[OGOC]

No, no tax is universal for everyone, including the ACA. They're all at least situational.

http://ccf.georgetown.edu/all/individual-mandate-exceptions/

I would suggest doing more research on the ACA before commenting.

It's hard to have a good debate when the people debating are lacking very critical pieces of information.

I agree, it's hard to have a good debate with you when you are lacking very critical pieces of information, and I think you should do more research before commenting.

The ACA is a universal tax. Just because you don't have to pay that tax if you meet certain exemptions doesn't mean it's not a universal tax because the tax is requiring you to do something to not have to pay it. Other taxes are the opposite; you have to do something before having to pay them. Obamacare taxes you just for existing.

I am taxed, therefore I am.

 

[OGOC]

Who cares? Seriously who gives a shit? If you work you pay taxes. Nobody is paying taxes who isn't working.

People who care about freedom give a shit. Will the government require everyone to buy a Chevy Volt next? Maybe you'll give a shit then.

In order to survive as an adult in this country you will need to pay sales tax at a minimum, (sans Delaware!), income/payroll taxes are also extraordinarily likely.

The only way to truly avoid all these taxes would be to simply not buy anything. The only way I see someone doing that would be by not having any money, but in that case you would be covered by the Medicaid provisions of the ACA anyway so you wouldn't have to pay anything then either.

Your own post gives an example of where sales tax is not used. Sales tax also gives you the choice of how much or how little you choose to buy.

ACA taxes you just for existing.

I already said ACA would be fought less if they just passed universal healthcare and then paid for it out of regular taxes. But that's not what they're doing. It may be considered somewhat of a fine line since so many taxes are everywhere, but it still is what it is.

 

[OGOC]

The old food pyramid is obsolete, which is why there was the big push to change it to something that made sense, which is why they changed it to a plate.

Anyone remember that big news story four or so months ago about some study finding some new thing in red meat they said is the real cause of heart disease? It was front page stuff.

Except, for all the media attention, no one pointed out the real story. And that story is that, if that study is to be believed, then that means the government has been wrong for decades about fat and cholesterol and heart disease. No major news outlet thought that was news, I guess.

People who do some research on that subject already know the government and that theory is wrong, but it was amazing to see this big news story saying the same thing while the only part anyone focused on was using it to have another way to say red meat is bad.

 

[jackstar7]

In case you have nostalgia for the time of the Founders... as so many do:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

So this existed within the first dozen years since the passage of the Constitution.

Here's a link to the Act itself: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798

As mentioned in the article, the program started at that time to tax private citizens and then give them healthcare still exists in another form to this day. And now we have the ACA, its successor for all citizens.

I imagine this article and its part in the larger debate will amount to not much. Much as I imagine this post will to this thread. So it goes.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I agree, it's hard to have a good debate with you when you are lacking very critical pieces of information, and I think you should do more research before commenting.

The ACA is a universal tax. Just because you don't have to pay that tax if you meet certain exemptions doesn't mean it's not a universal tax because the tax is requiring you to do something to not have to pay it. Other taxes are the opposite; you have to do something before having to pay them. Obamacare taxes you just for existing.

I am taxed, therefore I am.

I'll try again. You continue to contradict yourself and prove you've got your logic completely mixed up.

" The ACA is a universal tax. Just because you don't have to pay that tax if you meet certain exemptions doesn't mean it's not a universal tax because the tax is requiring you to do something to not have to pay it."

The fact that you don't have to pay the ACA tax if you meet certain exemptions means that it is *not* universal.

Universal means you pay it no matter what. No exemptions. None. There are exemptions to the ACA. Therefore it is NOT universal.

If you don't do anything, have no income, and simply exist in the United States "eating sand" as you put it, you won't get taxed by the ACA.

You say that "Other taxes are the opposite; you have to do something before having to pay them. Obamacare taxes you just for existing."

The ACA is exactly the same, not the opposite. You have to at least earn income above a certain threshold to be taxed. The ACA does NOT tax you just for existing. You have to be a citizen and earn a certain amount and meet certain other requirements in order to "qualify" for the taxation.

You have to buy something in order to "qualify" for sales taxation. You have to earn a certain amount in order to "qualify" for income taxation. Same with the ACA.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

The fundamental disconnect here is you not understanding The Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can't just "interpret The Constitution" and say you can kill your neighbor or that you have no right to be secure in your person. If it did, then the Supreme Court itself would be considered unconstitutional due to people having certain inalienable rights.

If you want to say people can do whatever they want if they can get away with it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it constitutional.

I see you still have the disconnect.

"Interpret" does not equal "completely ignore" as you seem to think it means.

You said:

The Supreme Court can't just "interpret The Constitution" and say you can kill your neighbor or that you have no right to be secure in your person.

But you really said:

The Supreme Court can't just "completely ignore The Constitution" and say you can kill your neighbor or that you have no right to be secure in your person.

You can't debate or discuss effectively by taking a word, completely ignore its actual meaning like you did in the post above with the word "universal," and then go ahead and use it with the incorrect meaning as the basis of your argument.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

And this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+interpret

 

[OGOC]

If you don't do anything, have no income, and simply exist in the United States "eating sand" as you put it, you won't get taxed by the ACA.

You have to buy something in order to "qualify" for sales taxation. You have to earn a certain amount in order to "qualify" for income taxation. Same with the ACA.

You have to buy something to be hit with sales tax.
You have to earn something to be hit with income tax.
You have to not buy something to be hit with the Obamacare tax.

And the government reserves the right to change the ACA qualification.
They could drop the exemptions and subsidies entirely if they want. This means everyone is affected by the law, only that some people currently don't have to pay a tax because the government is currently slightly nice about it.

ACA taxes everyone just for existing because it requires you to buy a product, and if you don't, you get taxed. Low and no income people may be exempt or subsidized, but the government still reserves the right to change that. Eliminating all exemptions from income tax still wouldn't force you to earn an income or be taxed if you don't.

If you want to argue what the definition of "universal" means, that's fine, but here's the important stuff:

The government is forcing people to buy something. Sales tax does not force people to buy something. They could change the rate and exemptions all they want, you still wouldn't be forced to buy something. Income tax does not force people to earn something. They could change the rate and exemptions all they want, you still wouldn't be forced to earn something. ACA forces people to buy something simply because they exist. Just because the government happens to currently exempt or subsidize some people is beside the point.

Like I've said, if the government used general tax money to pay for universal health care, this would be a different discussion.

Let's change it to a Chevy Volt.
The government says since you are alive you must own a Chevy Volt.
If you do not own a Chevy Volt, you will be charged a tax every month.
People with zero income are exempt at this time, but that can change if the government feels like it.
Is this the same as a sales tax?
Is this the same as an income tax?
Do you think the government should have the power to force you to own a Chevy Volt and charge you a tax every month if you don't?

 

[OGOC]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...dicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

As mentioned in the article, the program started at that time to tax private citizens and then give them healthcare still exists in another form to this day. And now we have the ACA, its successor for all citizens.

I imagine this article and its part in the larger debate will amount to not much. Much as I imagine this post will to this thread. So it goes.

Not the same.

http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/02/an-act-for-the-relief-of-sick-and-disabled-seamen/

So the Act is totally dissimilar to the Obamacare mandate. In the 1798 Act, the government imposes a tax, collects all the tax revenue, and spends the revenue as it chooses. This is a good precedent for programs in which the government imposes a tax and then spends the money on medical programs (e.g., Medicare), but it has nothing to do with mandating that individuals purchase a private product.

The Act certainly did not order seamen to purchase any form of private insurance, nor did it order them to purchase any other type of private good.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

You have to buy something to be hit with sales tax.
You have to earn something to be hit with income tax.
You have to not buy something to be hit with the Obamacare tax.

You have to earn something to be hit with ACA tax.

And the government reserves the right to change the ACA qualification.
They could drop the exemptions and subsidies entirely if they want. This means everyone is affected by the law, only that some people currently don't have to pay a tax because the government is currently slightly nice about it.

Does not exist. You're arguing for something that doesn't exist currently.

ACA taxes everyone just for existing because it requires you to buy a product, and if you don't, you get taxed. Low and no income people may be exempt or subsidized, but the government still reserves the right to change that. Eliminating all exemptions from income tax still wouldn't force you to earn an income or be taxed if you don't.

Again, you're arguing for something that doesn't exist currently. I'm not going to argue "reserving the right" scenarios. The government technically "reserves the right" to amend the Constitution into anything it wants. The government reserves the right to remove all exemptions to income tax too by you rline of thought.

If you want to argue what the definition of "universal" means, that's fine, but here's the important stuff:

I'm not arguing the definition of "universal." I'm telling you what it is. It's a clearly defined word. There's no argument about it's meaning.

The government is forcing people to buy something. Sales tax does not force people to buy something. They could change the rate and exemptions all they want, you still wouldn't be forced to buy something. Income tax does not force people to earn something. They could change the rate and exemptions all they want, you still wouldn't be forced to earn something. ACA forces people to buy something simply because they exist. Just because the government happens to currently exempt or subsidize some people is beside the point.

Again, the government will force you to buy something like the ACA if you (list of all qualifications). If you don't meet these, you don't have to buy. Income tax does not force people to earn something. You can earn nothing and therefore pay no income tax. The ACA also doesn't force people to earn something. You can earn nothing and therefore pay no ACA tax. They could change the rate and exemptions all they want, you still wouldn't be forced to earn something. Because the government currently exempts or subsidizes some people is entirely the point because that is the actual, hard reality of the policy. Again, are we debating things that *are* or things that are *what ifs*?

Like I've said, if the government used general tax money to pay for universal health care, this would be a different discussion.

Let's change it to a Chevy Volt.
The government says since you are alive you must own a Chevy Volt.
If you do not own a Chevy Volt, you will be charged a tax every month.
People with zero income are exempt at this time, but that can change if the government feels like it.
Is this the same as a sales tax?
Is this the same as an income tax?
Do you think the government should have the power to force you to own a Chevy Volt and charge you a tax every month if you don't?

Bad, way oversimplified example.

Do I think the government should have the power to force everyone to own a specific product (with no real reasoning behind it)? No.

Do I think the government should have the power to force everyone to buy from a bunch of different competing venders a class of service or products that will benefit the whole of society to a very large degree? Absolutely.

Say that the US is full of air pollution and society is in tremendous danger with rampant lung cancer and whatever. If we don't do something we will spiral downwards. Government sets regulations that every car needs to meet a zero emission standard. This directly affects the vehicle that I will have to buy. If I drive, I must buy a car that has zero emissions and I have a choice between the current offerings on the market. If I don't drive, I'm exempt. If I continue using a normal car I will be charged a tax. The government could just take our tax dollars and provide zero emission government cars to everyone, but it doesn't.

I would definitely support it.

It preserves some semblance of a free market. It is for the good of society (at the end of the day, government needs to balance personal freedoms with overall societal benefit). And it can drive positive growth and development in technology and services, something capitalism isn't guaranteed to do.

See bolded.

 

[AViking]

This is such an absurd line of reasoning from OGOC.

You could complain that the government is FORCING you to buy food and FORCING you to pay tax on that food since a few states still charge sales tax on groceries.

The point you are missing is that food and healthcare are not optional. You need both to live. You don't need a car. You don't need a TV. You don't need a lot of things but healthcare is not one of them.

Since the US is not going single payer then this is what we are left with. Get the stupid insurance companies out of the equation and we'll be much better off but that's not going to change the fact that EVERYONE NEEDS HEALTHCARE and it COSTS MONEY.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not everyone needs healthcare and one can choose how to cover the cost of healthcare that they need.

The ACA removes both of those choices.

It is forcing the insurance requirement on you to pay for your care.
It is forcing you to get the insurance even if it is not needed.


It cost me $75 cash to see my MD
But I would have to pay $600/month under the ACA to not see him and an additional $20+ to see him.

The need for insurance is a gamble that one takes.
For myself the $7200 / year is better spent on a $2000 catastrophic coverage with a $10K deductible.

I am not provided with that option

 

[AViking]

EK I understand that. What you're trying to overlook though is that healthcare is far more expensive than $75 and is not optional unless you have a death wish or are looking forward to bankruptcy.

Examples:

Broken foot, compound fracture, 2 days in the hospital with surgery, $40,000
Broken leg, 4 days in the hospital with surgery, $100,000
MRI $5000
Sprained Ankle: $1600
Cancer treatment: Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not going to doctor:

Breast Cancer: Death
Colon Cancer: Death
Prostate Cancer: Death

Nobody should be "gambling" with their health. Everyone needs healthcare. The above examples are things I have direct experience with. I don't know what percentage of Americans can afford those bills without insurance but it's not going to be many.

The moment Americans realize that your health is super important the moment we'll probably go to single payer and start funneling people into free clinics for preventative care. Until then though we have the ACA.

The problem isn't the ACA. It's the waste in our healthcare system that is still not being addressed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The moment Americans realize that your health is super important the moment we'll probably go to single payer and start funneling people into free clinics for preventative care.

So when the government screws up the simple why am I supposed to have faith in them getting the infinitely more complex right?

How about the veterans who have been waiting years for services due? What is this almost religious faith based on? Something happening somewhere else?

 

[jackstar7]

So when the government screws up the simple why am I supposed to have faith in them getting the infinitely more complex right?

How about the veterans who have been waiting years for services due? What is this almost religious faith based on? Something happening somewhere else?

I'm no zealot, I simply see no other option being presented. Whereas with single payer, we can look to other countries and other programs that do work.

So while it might not be may not be ideal, it beats the unimagined.