Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53

Thread: Obamacare's winners and losers

  1. #41
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    I'm a full time employee and receive healthcare from my job. Nothing has changed for me.

    I don't know about the signup process - reports are it has been sloppy. Friends haven't spoken about it, mostly don't talk with politics/personal finances with them - but it's not like I'm hearing negative impacts yet either.

    My parents are both retired and I'm the youngest of four, none of us have been affected - although I was able to stay on parents plan for a bit after college.
    I guess its easy to get so behind something when it only affects other people horribly. Or at all.

    But hey, you think its a good idea.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 10-15-2013 at 11:01 PM.

  2. #42
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    I guess its easy to get so behind something when it only affects other people horribly. Or at all.
    You work for Merck? I'm sorry that your company is struggling.

    Don't see how that is Obamacare when a third of your company's patents are about to expire and the company is retooling the R&D structure. They've cut costs and your health insurance is one of the first things that got cut.

    Furthermore, I support a public, universal system, in which case your insurance would not be tied to your job - a system in which the situation you describe would not happen.

  3. #43
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    You work for Merck? I'm sorry that your company is struggling.

    Don't see how that is Obamacare when a third of your company's patents are about to expire and the company is retooling the R&D structure. They've cut costs and your health insurance is one of the first things that got cut.

    Furthermore, I support a public, universal system, in which case your insurance would not be tied to your job - a system in which the situation you describe would not happen.
    Personally I don't think government run health care is a good thing. You can make statistics show anything but all of the stories about England and Canada's systems have horror stories about people living in pain because of bureaucracy.

    Yes this is an anecdote but a friends of mine's parents live in Canada. Father had prostate cancer and he came here to be treated because in Canada he would have waited way too long to get treatment. Good thing he has money.

    The poor already have medicaid, the old have medicare, both government run and not run well. The uninsured still get treated and the hospitals eat it or they get billed over time. IMO, we are trying to solve a problem that barely exists to give the government a lot more power. There won't be a border to cross to get the care you want if we had "universal healthcare" and the AHA is just an abomination. More bureaucracy, fewer choices, more expensive, poor implementation, thousands of pages of rules and regulations that NO ONE will be able to decipher.

    The 2 real issues are sick people getting dropped and price gouging but they could have been solved without taking the system over.

    People being dropped could have been solved by enacting a simple law that says people can't be dropped from existing coverage for a new disease and that they can't be denied from switching coverage because of a pre-existing condition if they were previously covered.

    The pricing is a product of insurance and government paying the bills and not watching costs. If the government bought your food the prices would be high and waste would be high because no one would shop around and they would take as much as they could. Take a look at the Walmart/Food Stamps issue this week. All of the sudden food was "free" and people took EVERYTHING. They didn't care what it would cost Walmart or the government to pay for that. Pricing puts a cap on how much people take and competition allows people to shop around for the best quality/price combination. Without that nothing improves, there is no reason to try to beat your competitors with lower prices or better quality. It isn't a good system IMO.

    As a pie in the sky view, perfect world scenario, sure everyone should have everything without doing anything. Once you see what the world is really about you realize that human nature sucks, someone has to pay for things and people will take advantage.

  4. #44
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    You work for Merck? I'm sorry that your company is struggling.

    Don't see how that is Obamacare when a third of your company's patents are about to expire and the company is retooling the R&D structure. They've cut costs and your health insurance is one of the first things that got cut.

    Furthermore, I support a public, universal system, in which case your insurance would not be tied to your job - a system in which the situation you describe would not happen.
    Like I said, it must be nice for you to have the luxury of "not seeing". I suspect some day you will however. Good luck with that.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    I'm a full time employee and receive healthcare from my job. Nothing has changed for me.
    Why not?

    You're certainly aware that you can choose to opt out of your employers offering, and instead choose to aquire your coverage via the ACA exchange.

    Why would you not choose that option?

  6. #46
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Personally I don't think government run health care is a good thing. You can make statistics show anything but all of the stories about England and Canada's systems have horror stories about people living in pain because of bureaucracy.

    Yes this is an anecdote but a friends of mine's parents live in Canada. Father had prostate cancer and he came here to be treated because in Canada he would have waited way too long to get treatment. Good thing he has money.

    The poor already have medicaid, the old have medicare, both government run and not run well. The uninsured still get treated and the hospitals eat it or they get billed over time. IMO, we are trying to solve a problem that barely exists to give the government a lot more power. There won't be a border to cross to get the care you want if we had "universal healthcare" and the AHA is just an abomination. More bureaucracy, fewer choices, more expensive, poor implementation, thousands of pages of rules and regulations that NO ONE will be able to decipher.

    The 2 real issues are sick people getting dropped and price gouging but they could have been solved without taking the system over.

    People being dropped could have been solved by enacting a simple law that says people can't be dropped from existing coverage for a new disease and that they can't be denied from switching coverage because of a pre-existing condition if they were previously covered.

    The pricing is a product of insurance and government paying the bills and not watching costs. If the government bought your food the prices would be high and waste would be high because no one would shop around and they would take as much as they could. Take a look at the Walmart/Food Stamps issue this week. All of the sudden food was "free" and people took EVERYTHING. They didn't care what it would cost Walmart or the government to pay for that. Pricing puts a cap on how much people take and competition allows people to shop around for the best quality/price combination. Without that nothing improves, there is no reason to try to beat your competitors with lower prices or better quality. It isn't a good system IMO.

    As a pie in the sky view, perfect world scenario, sure everyone should have everything without doing anything. Once you see what the world is really about you realize that human nature sucks, someone has to pay for things and people will take advantage.
    I trust facts better than your anecdotes.

    The fact is, we pay more per capita by about 50-70% than any other country and we do this without insuring 30 million.

    In a public system, everybody pays and has insurance, therefore hospitals don't get f***ed by having to just eat emergency room costs from the uninsured poor.

    It's not free, as everybody pays into the system - and why oh why will government make it cost more/less efficient when every other country that does this is more efficient and pays less?

  7. #47
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Why not?

    You're certainly aware that you can choose to opt out of your employers offering, and instead choose to aquire your coverage via the ACA exchange.

    Why would you not choose that option?
    Sounds like a classic case of a young worker who pays little mind to his insurance because it's just something you "get" on top of salary. His premium, deductibles and plan coverage will most certainly change this year to next, but I'm guessing he makes enough and visits the doctor infrequently enough to bother paying it much mind.

    Like I said, must be nice.

  8. #48
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Why not?

    You're certainly aware that you can choose to opt out of your employers offering, and instead choose to aquire your coverage via the ACA exchange.

    Why would you not choose that option?
    If I change careers or my healthcare coverage changes for the worst, I might, presently, I don't need too.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    If I change careers or my healthcare coverage changes for the worst, I might, presently, I don't need too.
    Who said anything about "need"?

    One would have to assume you would wish to do so, given A. your strong support of the program and B. the constant claims that it will reduce your costs.

    Why wouldn't you choose to join a program you support that would also provide better care at lower costs to you?

  10. #50
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Who said anything about "need"?

    One would have to assume you would wish to do so, given A. your strong support of the program and B. the constant claims that it will reduce your costs.

    Why wouldn't you choose to join a program you support that would also provide better care at lower costs to you?
    LOL, I support gay marriage too, do I have to get gay married now?

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    LOL, I support gay marriage too, do I have to get gay married now?
    If you were gay, and had someone you wanted to marry, yes, it's reasonable to expect someone who supports gay marriage and it's benefits to engage in what they support.

    I'll ask again, why havn't you chosen, due to preference, to shift away from your employers plan, to the better and cheaper plans offered by the ACA Exchanges?

    Is it just lazyness on your part?

    And yes, it does directly speak to the question: Why do those who support the ACA stongest, also seem utterly unwilling to USE the ACA exchanges themselves, Democrat Lawmakers, Unions and Progressives?
    Last edited by Churchill; 10-16-2013 at 11:03 AM.

  12. #52
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    If you were gay, and had someone you wanted to marry, yes, it's reasonable to expect someone who supports gay marriage and it's benefits to engage in what they support.

    I'll ask again, why havn't you chosen, due to preference, to shift away from your employers plan, to the better and cheaper plans offered by the ACA Exchanges?

    Is it just lazyness on your part?

    And yes, it does directly speak to the question: Why do those who support the ACA stongest, also seem utterly unwilling to USE the ACA exchanges themselves, Democrat Lawmakers, Unions and Progressives?
    I've already benefitted from the AHA and "used it" before I was 26 - piggybacking on my parents healthcare just out of college.

    Furthermore, the AHA is not simply the creation of an exchange - there was the patient bill of rights, the mandate, healthcare regulation and the exchanges. Simply because I do not need the exchanges doesn't mean I don't want them to be available for others, nor does it mean I'm not benefitting from the other parts of the law.

  13. #53
    The wealthy will pay for their healthcare out of pocket and the Middle Class will pay for everyone else out of their pockets plus increased taxes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us