• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

free health care

SiempreTuna said:
Err .. no.

What I said is the rate of increase - the health care inflation rate - has gone down, not gone negative. Prices are still going up, just much more slowly than the scaremongers predicted.

That means that when you go to the doctor next year, it will still cost more, but the percentage increase will be much lower than it was between this year and last - and the year before and the year before that etc.

The point is that the scaremongers spent the last few years insisting that health care inflation rate would inevitably be much, much higher because of Obamacare but it's actually lower. They then used this - completely wrong - prediction as the basis for many more scary predictions about the affect of Obamacare on government spending. Those predictions are therefore also completely wrong.

Basically, this undermines the entire economic argument against Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Then if the rate of inflation went down, like you claim yet show no proof, costs should go down as well. Also, I doubt next year's increase will be less than last year's increase. And no, those predictions were pretty accurate. My insurance covers less now then it did last year, yet I pay more. Hey, what do I know? I just live here, unlike you... The fact is, my health insurance, and all associated costs, never went up until obamascare.
 
saptech said:
There have always been cases of "guilty until proven innocent"...
Click to expand...

Most certainly.

The press is good at trying you in the court of public opinion. If the public is given inaccurate info, you can be doomed.

Back in the days of McCarthy, just the mere suggestion that you were a communist meant the complete and utter end and total decimation of your career in Hollywood.

The CPO is a powerful court to be sure.
 
ItnStln511 said:
The fact is, my health insurance, and all associated costs, never went up until obamascare.
Click to expand...

Err .. the fact is that health care costs - like pretty much all costs - have risen over time. Even in the 1930s, they rose. In fact, for most of the last 30 years, they've risen faster than general inflation.

That's before even Romneycare (the Republican policy adopted by Obama) was implemented.
 
SiempreTuna said:
Err .. the fact is that health care costs - like pretty much all costs - have risen over time. Even in the 1930s, they rose. In fact, for most of the last 30 years, they've risen faster than general inflation.

That's before even Romneycare (the Republican policy adopted by Obama) was implemented.
Click to expand...

You really are uneducated, aren't you? The FACT is my health care rates and co-pays did NOT go up until obama started obamascare. Prior to obamascare, my wife would only pay like a $25 copay, and it has been like that for the last almost decade. Now it's $50 plus a cost share. Similar cost rises have happened with my parents' and in-law's, and various other friends' health insurances. So do NOT tell me that it has nothing to do with obamaScare! Look at my avatar, that will tell you who my health insurance company is. Like almost every other brit, you are arrogant and claim to know everything. Please, you do NOT live here, you have no idea what my health care costs are, so do not act like you do! (And I get reported in three, two, one...)
 
My healthcare insurance has risen also, but I really do not believe Obamacare have anything to do with it. The company I work for switched providers, this current year, and the current one is way higher then the old provider.


All this mean is the employer is paying less money while the employees are paying more out of pocket, along with higher deductables. I'm sure the employer is reaping some type of benefit for switching.


Alot of employers are using the Obamacare as a reason to put more of the cost on employees and do not look like the bad guys (company).
 
chrlswltrs said:
They would be all over the government working hard to give education benefits to ILLEGAL aliens
Click to expand...

Are we not illegal aliens? I recall that we forcibly took this country from Native Americans, abused and killed them, and then separated them all from their family members as a means to "integrate" them into white society - which instead of causing integration, left the Native American community in a state of disarray with a huge amount of problems, such as rampant alcoholism and drug addiction, homelessness, and much, much more.

We destroy South American countries with our drug wars and political pressure, and then cry and complain when their citizens want to immigrate to live somewhere where they can at least exist without constant fear of being killed by a stray bullet from cartels, or kidnapped and sold into prostitution, or worse.
 
mebrewsta said:
Are we not illegal aliens? I recall that we forcibly took this country from Native Americans, abused and killed them, and then separated them all from their family members as a means to "integrate" them into white society - which instead of causing integration, left the Native American community in a state of disarray with a huge amount of problems, such as rampant alcoholism and drug addiction, homelessness, and much, much more.
Click to expand...

No, you recall wrong. We are not illegal. We are here legally, for the most part. Our ancestors, most likely, came here legally as well. Some of my family came through Ellis and they did so legally.

Forget the indians and all of that because we cannot change it and we have grown up since then. We did some bad things to the indians, to be sure, but many were just as evil as we were and they had slaves as well.
 
mebrewsta said:
Are we not illegal aliens? I recall that we forcibly took this country from Native Americans, abused and killed them, and then separated them all from their family members as a means to "integrate" them into white society - which instead of causing integration, left the Native American community in a state of disarray with a huge amount of problems, such as rampant alcoholism and drug addiction, homelessness, and much, much more.

We destroy South American countries with our drug wars and political pressure, and then cry and complain when their citizens want to immigrate to live somewhere where they can at least exist without constant fear of being killed by a stray bullet from cartels, or kidnapped and sold into prostitution, or worse.
Click to expand...

So because of what happened hundreds of years ago we are supposed to leave our border unsecured and allow millions of people to come to this country illegally, mooch our system without contributing anything to it, and taking our jobs? I have no problem at all with immigrants coming here legally. I have several friends that are immigrants. They came here legally, work legally, and pay taxes. I have a problem with the criminals that are nothing but a burden on America.
 
chrlswltrs said:
So because of what happened hundreds of years ago we are supposed to leave our border unsecured and allow millions of people to come to this country illegally, mooch our system without contributing anything to it, and taking our jobs? I have no problem at all with immigrants coming here legally. I have several friends that are immigrants. They came here legally, work legally, and pay taxes. I have a problem with the criminals that are nothing but a burden on America.

So because of what happened hundreds of years ago we are supposed to leave our border unsecured and allow millions of people to come to this country illegally, mooch our system without contributing anything to it, and taking our jobs?
Click to expand...

If we are going to continue to make decisions that harm the infrastructure of these developing nations and severely compromise the safety of their citizens, then yes.

I did not mean to use the first part of my statement to relieve illegal immigrants of all of their responsibility, I'm simply stating that after centuries of injustice we should be showing a little ourselves. Spending mindless amounts of money buildings walls, as well as hiring and training armed immigration officers will do nothing but exacerbate and prolong the problems.
 
SiempreTuna said:
Bush (along with Blair and both of their cabinets) belong in front of a war crimes tribunal. Nothing to do with 9/11, rather for waging an illegal, aggressive war against a sovereign country, Iraq. The charge on which dozens were convicted at Nuremburg.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you really do not understand why those at Nuremburg were convected.
 
sntaylor said:
I'm just curious as to what the issue appears to be with the thought of free health care, it is something that I am very proud that we have over here in the UK. ..."
Click to expand...

Free health care is commonly called Single Payer. From an macro economic viewpoint its more efficient than a "Free Market" system, as Free Market Health care is an oxymoron on par with a Free Market military.

The only reason the US doesn't have Single Payer is our current bribery/extortion political system. Our current ruling criminal class spends billions to bribe public officials and create propaganda.

One possible good result of the recently passed health care reform in the US is it may give workers more mobility, as one's health is not held hostage by an employer, thus reducing the risk of changing jobs.

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Apparently, you really do not understand why those at Nuremburg were convected.
Click to expand...

Contrary to popular belief, the convictions at Nurembourg for Crimes Against Humanity relied upon the fact that Germany had waged an aggressive war:

insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity
Click to expand...
(extract from the judgement)

No-one was convicted of genocide in any international court until, I believe, the 1990s.
 
I don't understand this concept of "free healthcare".

Maybe someone can explain it to me because almost nobody does anything for free. Something has to change hands. Whether or not it is money changing hands is irrelevant...it has to be something of perceived value.

Sounds like a lot of people are living in a fantasy world. Someone has to pay for the healthcare. Our elected officials have repeatedly demonstrated that they CANNOT handle money competently. Why would you choose to give congress and our president (or any of the presidents that we have had in the past decade) even more money and power that they obviously cannot wield responsibly and effectively?
 
As has been stated plenty of times elsewhere in this thread, it's not free as it's paid for by taxes. But because it is essentially run by governments it means that the cost is cheaper, therefore the people pay much much less towards cover than they do in America through insurance. Partially because all working people pay towards it, but also because you don't have the third party insurance companies trying to make a profit off of someone's Ill health! You have little worry about if you are covered for any particular illness as the answer is almost always yes, no extra payments etc no worry of a big bill when you come out. The only issue that can happen/is an issue here in Scotland is some medication not being available, certain cancer treatments of some kind(not completely sure on all the details) the scenario here is that a woman in Scotland was going to have to move to England to get a specific medication or pay
 
sntaylor said:
As has been stated plenty of times elsewhere in this thread, it's not free as it's paid for by taxes. But because it is essentially run by governments it means that the cost is cheaper, therefore the people pay much much less towards cover than they do in America through insurance. Partially because all working people pay towards it, but also because you don't have the third party insurance companies trying to make a profit off of someone's Ill health! You have little worry about if you are covered for any particular illness as the answer is almost always yes, no extra payments etc no worry of a big bill when you come out. The only issue that can happen/is an issue here in Scotland is some medication not being available, certain cancer treatments of some kind(not completely sure on all the details) the scenario here is that a woman in Scotland was going to have to move to England to get a specific medication or pay
Click to expand...
 
chrlswltrs said:
"...It wouldn't be as bad if we could keep the insurance we already have. Instead, we don't know how we are going to pay for our daughter's medication that is currently covered with our insurance but won't be once Obamacare goes into effect."
Click to expand...

Politics aside, why do you think the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act will impact your current insurance medication coverage for your daughter?
 
sntaylor said:
As has been stated plenty of times elsewhere in this thread, it's not free as it's paid for by taxes. But because it is essentially run by governments it means that the cost is cheaper, therefore the people pay much much less towards cover than they do in America through insurance. Partially because all working people pay towards it, but also because you don't have the third party insurance companies trying to make a profit off of someone's Ill health! You have little worry about if you are covered for any particular illness as the answer is almost always yes, no extra payments etc no worry of a big bill when you come out. The only issue that can happen/is an issue here in Scotland is some medication not being available, certain cancer treatments of some kind(not completely sure on all the details) the scenario here is that a woman in Scotland was going to have to move to England to get a specific medication or pay
Click to expand...
 
It means that we(the people) pay less individually through taxes than if paying for premiums, and add on costs!

It means everyone pays essentially what they can afford for health care while everyone is then covered for pretty much all care and medication. In Scotland we have one step further and have prescriptions covered"for free".

It just means everyone has cover regardless of their financial position!
 
Lots of people on both sides distort the bill and what it means. Bloggers are clueless because 99.99999% did not read it; they are vomiting up the distortions that their readers want to read.

So let me offer you all a tip: Read the bill in its entirety. Remember, if you are told something will not happen but the bill allows it to happen, we have a problem, no matter the assurences our public officials offer.

Remember, the president DID NOT read the bill. Most senators and congressmen DID NOT READ THE BILL. 99.99999% of this forum's membership DID NOT READ THE BILL.

I read most of the bill as well as a few detailed reports detailing what is in it. Part of my job at that time.

Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass it before we know what's in it."
 
A 50% reduction in health insurance rates in New York is a start.

Affording Obamacare: New York's New Health Plan Rates | James R. Knickman

"This week's announcement of the costs of the health insurance plans that will be offered through New York State's Health Benefit Exchange brought good news: with the implementation of Obamacare, New Yorkers purchasing individual insurance policies will pay less than half of current rates. (A few months ago in this space, I wrote about the likelihood that Obamacare would actually decrease health care premiums in New York State, but even I didn't think prices would go down so dramatically!"
 
Bob Maxey said:
Lots of people on both sides distort the bill and what it means. Bloggers are clueless because 99.99999% did not read it; they are vomiting up the distortions that their readers want to read.

So let me offer you all a tip: Read the bill in its entirety. Remember, if you are told something will not happen but the bill allows it to happen, we have a problem, no matter the assurences our public officials offer.

Remember, the president DID NOT read the bill. Most senators and congressmen DID NOT READ THE BILL. 99.99999% of this forum's membership DID NOT READ THE BILL.

I read most of the bill as well as a few detailed reports detailing what is in it. Part of my job at that time.

Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass it before we know what's in it."
Click to expand...

I agree. Me and my wife have read almost all of it because we needed to find out what was coming. It is extremely bad for our family!

In fact, if it ever does get fully implemented it will be ALOT cheaper for us to keep our current insurance and pay the $2500 a year fine for not having an approved insurance plan. It would be cheaper for us even if the fine was $15-20k a year. This is going to hurt so many families with sick children!!
 
chrlswltrs said:
I agree. Me and my wife have read almost all of it because we needed to find out what was coming. It is extremely bad for our family!

In fact, if it ever does get fully implemented it will be ALOT cheaper for us to keep our current insurance and pay the $2500 a year fine for not having an approved insurance plan. It would be cheaper for us even if the fine was $15-20k a year. This is going to hurt so many families with sick children!!
Click to expand...

If you have insurance, you need not do anything. You may want to talk with your current insurance provider, rather than get worked up about unfounded fears.

https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/individual-mandate.html

"What is the penalty for noncompliance?
The penalty is the greater of:

  • For 2014, $95 per uninsured person or 1 percent of household income over the filing threshold,
  • For 2015, $325 per uninsured person or 2 percent of household income over the filing threshold, and
  • For 2016 and beyond, $695 per uninsured person or 2.5 percent of household income over the filing threshold.
There is a family cap on the flat dollar amount (but not the percentage of income test) of 300 percent, and the overall penalty is capped at the national average premium of a bronze level plan purchases through an exchange. For individuals under 18 years old, the applicable per person penalty is one-half of the amounts listed above.

Beginning in 2017, the penalties will be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment.

Who will be exempt from the mandate?

Individuals who have a religious exemption, those not lawfully present in the United States, and incarcerated individuals are exempt from the minimum essential coverage requirement.

Are there other exceptions to when the penalty may apply?
Yes. A penalty will not be assessed on individuals who:

  1. cannot afford coverage based on formulas contained in the law,
  2. have income below the federal income tax filing threshold,
  3. are members of Indian tribes,
  4. were uninsured for short coverage gaps of less than three months;
  5. have received a hardship waiver from the Secretary, or are residing outside of the United States, or are bona fide residents of any possession of the United States."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom