Does everyone have to get "mnsure"? (2015, credit)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No Obamacare= no excise tax. Any money that I didn't have to pay for the out of pocket would go to savings, but no matter where it went, it is an increased cost to me.
Basically, my medical plan was turned into catostrophic coverage with no premium reduction. I was told by someone that if I liked my plan, I could keep it, but I guess that was just part of the sales pitch.
We'll see how this turns out. I believe it will be bad. Less care for more money and fewer people than ever receiving coverage.
How do you come to those conclusions? The ACA has a lot more covered than plans were required to cover in the past and EVERYONE has to have insurance now....?
How do you come to those conclusions? The ACA has a lot more covered than plans were required to cover in the past and EVERYONE has to have insurance now....?
Everyone does not have to have insurance. They have to have insurance or pay a penalty, so it remains a financial risk decision.
If the penalty is less than the cost of insurance, and a person doesn't feel they need insurance they will pay the penalty. Who would opt out? The same people who opt out of their employer sponsored insurance now, and at there are plenty of them. And since Obamacare mandates extensive coverage beyond what many people feel they need, the penalty may well turn out to be be less than the cost of insurance.
Everyone does not have to have insurance. They have to have insurance or pay a penalty, so it remains a financial risk decision.
If the penalty is less than the cost of insurance, and a person doesn't feel they need insurance they will pay the penalty. Who would opt out? The same people who opt out of their employer sponsored insurance now, and at there are plenty of them. And since Obamacare mandates extensive coverage beyond what many people feel they need, the penalty may well turn out to be be less than the cost of insurance.
What extensive coverage is mandated? It's all pretty normal things like annual physicals, vaccinations, cancer screenings, etc.
What extensive coverage is mandated? It's all pretty normal things like annual physicals, vaccinations, cancer screenings, etc.
I'm going along with what you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal
...The ACA has a lot more covered than plans were required to cover in the past...
If you want to change the words "extensive coverage" to "lot more covered than plans were required to cover in the past" to preserve your original text, I am good with that. It does not affect my point. Covering "a lot more" will cost a lot more.
And since you did not argue the point, I assume you do acknowledge that everyone is not required to have insurance.
If you want to change the words "extensive coverage" to "lot more covered than plans were required to cover in the past" to preserve your original text, I am good with that. It does not affect my point. Covering "a lot more" will cost a lot more.
And since you did not argue the point, I assume you do acknowledge that everyone is not required to have insurance.
Ok, defining what I meant--these plans pay at 100% more than ever before...preventative care, cancer screenings, etc. meaning, if you go to the doctor for your annual physical they can't charge you a co-pay or bill you for that as long as they are in your network. Coverage is pretty much the same overall--what is or is not covered/included in the plan, with minor variations from plan to plan for the "fringe" type care, hearing aids, various dental procedures (impacted wisdom teeth), etc.
Technically everyone IS required to have a plan, if they choose not to, they will pay a fine. It's not the same as not being required to have a plan.
No Obamacare= no excise tax. Any money that I didn't have to pay for the out of pocket would go to savings, but no matter where it went, it is an increased cost to me.
Basically, my medical plan was turned into catostrophic coverage with no premium reduction. I was told by someone that if I liked my plan, I could keep it, but I guess that was just part of the sales pitch.
We'll see how this turns out. I believe it will be bad. Less care for more money and fewer people than ever receiving coverage.
I tend to agree. Part of my skepticism about the ACA is focused on having to think "we'll see how it works after we implement it," just as Congress had to "pass the bill to find out what's in it." If this was an unqualified good thing, there wouldn't be any ambiguity about the need, the market, or the message. As Chris Rock once said, crack dealers don't sit around saying "what are we going to do with all of this crack?"
When President Obama said we'd all keep our plans, and keep our doctors, is it possible that was a euphemism and he forgot to hold up his fingers and do the air quotes?
I think part of the problem with the ACA is that it was sold as "health care reform," when in fact it was a health insurance tweak. There were no changes that will result in less defensive medicine. There were no changes to the medical liability system; no parallel tort reform.
I was laid off a while back, and was offered COBRA, which would have cost over $700 a month. At the time, I had no idea what I could afford, but my rent was only $500. My only choice if I was laid off now would be to throw myself on the mercy of my local exchange - although I would be, you know, unemployed, so I couldn't do what I did back when (namely, remain uninsured and hope I get a new job soon). I wonder what will happen for people transitioning between jobs, seasonal workers, or people who are temporarily laid off?
I hate to be pessimistic, but the math is pretty stark. Any amount of money is more than nothing, and if someone has earned too much in a year to qualify for price supports when they're laid off, the individual mandate is a burden. There's no other way to spin it.
Technically everyone IS required to have a plan, if they choose not to, they will pay a fine. It's not the same as not being required to have a plan.
That's a real "splitting hairs" attempt to defend a highly flawed plan. It comes down to plain and simply this: the government will mandate you make a purchase one way or another; you cannot realistically avoid paying the money and will coerce you into a lifestyle choice you may not wish to make. It is an area the government has no legitimate claim to be stepping into; my choice to have insurance or not have insurance should have no impact on how you live your life, other than we have constructed a society that pushes that liberal mindset.
What is scary is that, if the government can mandate this purchase, there is really no limit to what the government can coerce you to buy via a perverted interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The only limit is what politicians feel they cannot get away with to avoid violent insurrection among the populace.
You should have no obligation to work to provide my health care that I choose to not purchase myself - nor should I have an obligation to pay for your healthcare (which is what Obamacare/MNSure effectively is - via paying taxes for the subsidies that will inevitably follow...). To obligate I work for your benefit would be, in another frame of mind, slavery.
For those arguing the tired "you have to have car insurance", the difference is pretty simple - you are not required to own a vehicle or operate the vehicle on public roads. You can choose to not drive or you can own a vehicle that does not drive public roads and choose to not have insurance if you wish. You voluntarily choose an option that may impact another persons life and how they choose to live (by driving on public roads). In that scenario, the government can make some claim to control how you live your life and how it affects another persons life, hence requiring auto insurance.
That is starkly different from Obamacare/MNSure, which says - in effect as harsh as this will sound - you either have insurance or die. I cannot avoid paying either for insurance or taxes thanks to Obamacare/MNSure, next to either offing myself or leaving the country and renouncing citizenship.
In the end, the ACA was not really about "affordable care". If it were, Obama and Co. would not have been running as fast as possible to exempt their political friends. The ACA is about control, that the government has a right to control the most personal decisions of your life against your will- and that is what I object to most strongly.
Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) made the point very well when he said,
"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
Again, the answer in MN and in the US would have been to privatize the process and remove the regulations that, in effect, create a "crony" version of the market for the benefit of Big Government, Big Health, and Big Labor. Ironically, Big Labor is clamoring for those same exemptions being extended to Obama's friends as even Big Labor sees what a s***show Obamacare and therefore MNSure will be for the country.
Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) made the point very well when he said,
"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
If people don't agree with the course of action we as a country have decided on, then they're not obligated to stay here. After all, there are plenty of very nice nations that don't have public-funded healthcare.
Last edited by QuietBlue; 09-16-2013 at 07:39 AM..
Reason: Accuracy
If people don't agree with the course of action we as a country have decided on, then they're not obligated to stay here. After all, there are plenty of very nice nations that don't have public-funded healthcare.
What a silly response. Every citizen has a right to lobby and argue for change. You may not be familiar with this. It is from the U.S. Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Did you advocate that those who opposed the Iraq war get with the program or leave? How about those who disagreed with President Bush on other matters. Should they have left the country? Do we have a big revolving door where those who agree with the government gets to stay and everyone else has to leave?
What if Obamacare is overturned some day. Should we all expect you to start posting in the Canada forum?
If people don't agree with the course of action we as a country have decided on, then they're not obligated to stay here. After all, there are plenty of very nice nations that don't have public-funded healthcare.
Hm. I think your comments miss the point, and your perspective ignores history. How do you explain things like slavery, male-only voting, the Vietnam War, and prohibition, which "we as a country" decided on, then agreed to end? In each case, social standards changed, the political will followed the social standards, and eventually our laws changed (not always peacefully, but in each case I mention here, the change was a major improvement).
Although you seemed very clear, I certainly hope I'm misunderstanding what you said. Your post seems to say that if someone opposes this thing that was "decided on," they should leave the country. Are you really saying there's no legitimate dissenting view, not on any aspect of the law? Now that the ACA is in place, dissenters should remove themselves from this society? Wow. I wonder how you responded to the Vietnam War protesters, or how you would have responded to women marching for suffrage? I guess you would have felt that those women aren't obligated to stay here, and should move to another country where they can vote?
The Iraq war was approved by Congress. Then, aggregate public opinion shifted against the war, and the political will to end it followed. The Obama Administration changed US policy.
The ACA was approved by Congress. Now, aggregate public opinion has shifted against it. We can dispute whether people are against it because of some reason (fear-mongering by the right, confused messaging by the Administration, Fox News, the Loch Ness Monster, Area 51, whatever), but no poll shows over 50% approval.
Moreover, there have been peculiar actions involved with its implementation - set-asides, exemptions for various groups (and Congress exempted itself), and delays. Imagine the outcry today if the 13th and 18th amendments had exempted Congress.
Or heck, even better, let's look at Prop 8 in California, which was approved by the voters. Fortunately, it was overridden by judicial activity, where "doing the right thing" didn't require political will. I'm not entirely comfortable going against the express will of the people, even while I think it's a step toward equality and a positive thing.
It seems like a really simple thing to me. The scientific method requires that we hypothesize, experiment, evaluate, and repeat that pattern until something is identified as fact. Then, that fact has to stand up to future experiment/evaluation cycles. In the same way that science developed the germ theory of disease after they developed microscopes, legislative decision-making must remain open to reevaluation as we get better information about its effects.
In my opinion, every governmental action is reviewable, not just the ones we agree with or don't agree with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
