Finally. Good riddance to Obamacare.

[Koldo]

I think you misunderstood. Read the above first statement by Nowhere Man
I'll simplify it for you. The forced purchase of a service is not free market.

If you go back further than that though...

You know, it's not the idea of healthcare itself. Its the way it's structured.

Structured? You mean free market?

No. The forced purchase of a service.

That's not a free market.

In other words, he said: You know, it's not the idea of healthcare itself. Its the forced purchase of a service.

 

[Curious George]

If a person is poor. Yes. Still have to file.

Obamacare, no.

No, if your poor enough you don't have to pay for healthcare...and if you make below a certain amount you don't even have to file taxes.

 

[Koldo]

Same as funding schools with choices available for privatization through a voucher program with an opt out for those who don't actually need or require health insurance, and allowing free market competition to continue lowering costs, rather than artificial price controls that places undue dependency upon the Goverment to pick up the slack creating bailouts and higher deficits that inevitably will spiral out of control.

If a person is poor. Yes. Still have to file.

Obamacare, no.

I don't understand.Are you suggesting that in the case a person is poor enough, and in that case only, they should be able to opt out of ACA ? Or are you suggesting that it is possible to fund schools all around the country even by letting everyone that doesn't need them to opt out of paying the taxes that fund them ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't understand.Are you suggesting that in the case a person is poor enough, and in that case only, they should be able to opt out of ACA ? Or are you suggesting that it is possible to fund schools all around the country even by letting everyone that doesn't need them to opt out of paying the taxes that fund them ?

My point was how in the world did healthcare insurance services itself get declared a tax?

It was well acknowledged that Obamacare was determined unconstitutional as it stood, so of course they declared the purchase as a "tax" this making it "constuitional".


I know of no Goverment service that requires a purchase of a private sector service like that of insurance as being remotely a component of taxation. People don't have mandatory school insurance imposed as a prerequisite for a basic education, It dosent exist.

To do it right, imo, healthcare would need it's infrastructure to parallel that as public schools are funded and run.

If course under federal tax codes, people can apply for exemption from paying tax under specific conditions. While under obamacare, that provision still applies, but insurance services has nothing to do with healthcare services itself in a direct sense.

To me, Obamacare sets a presidence for financial acquisition of people's money that falls far outside the tax system itself that can go far beyond healthcare if left unchecked. They can just declare anything's a "tax", and it's a tax.

It's not healthcare itself I hate, it's the erosion of free enterprise and free markets at the expense and freedom of a country's citizenry and creating more Goverment controlled dependency down the road.

Something Democrats seem to like.

Really bad stuff when you see the forest through the trees.

 

[habiru]

Trump plans issue of executive orders to put this horrid monster called Obamacare to rest.

Good bye to bad rubbish

Trump plans to quickly issue executive orders on Obamacare

Hopefully bipartisan teamwork can produce something everyone can live with and not just those who feel privileged or entitled.

Thoughts?

 

[habiru]

Obama care was created by Big Pharma/ Monsanto/ George Soros because of the sudden hike of all sorts of illnesses. Pretty soon the government would of have become bankrupt because of the sudden increases of ailments. They had put foods that is out on the market that is causing these illnesses. But instead of taking it from off of the shelves, they want to make money from off of it. And they doesn't want to hand out freebies as well. And so they created this health insurance that the people will be responsible for everyone's health. That is why Hillary had soaked into our minds of that old philosophy about that it takes a tribe to raise a child, but not government tax dollars. But the Taxes are meant for the villagers to raise up the politicians and their luxury lifestyle...
But Big Pharma is making sure that they are making a large profit.
The more illnesses, the more our premiums goes up. And it is going to get even more larger than what it is.
I believe that these politicians has investment in these products as well. That is their retirement fund.

 

[esmith]

I didn't have insurance when the ACA kicked in. So, for me, there was no "keeping," it was only gaining.
That's pretty much how it'd be under a single payer system, which is what we should be doing.

That isn't what I asked and you know it. You said you knew some Dutch guy who knew everything about the Dutch plan and that it was what the ACA would be like and he was "educating" everyone about it. Now I'm not saying you are totally incorrect but even those that wrote the damn thing didn't know everything.
Now to the point I made and you dance away with another answer. Let's try again and I will be more specific and you can try and answer.
Did this Dutch person know and tell everyone that:
"everyone was not going to be able to keep their doctor, that not everyone would be able to keep their current health plan, that people in many states would have only one provider to choice from, that many doctors would either leave the profession or opt out of the plan."
Now if this Dutch person didn't tell you or even know what would happen your statement is somewhat exaggerated.
Now I'm not trying to get on your case, I'm just pointing out that sometimes we all make a statement that is not totally factual.

Keeping up with current events that aren't coming out of an echo chamber and listening to people with relevant experiences is no reason for snide remarks. Are you jealous that I knew things you didn't?

And what I said is not coming out of an echo chamber they are facts and they were accurate and are current. Yes, I understand that the ACA was what you needed, and I agree with that. It is just that relevant experiences do not fully explain the current issue.
I could have cared less what the ACA was or was not, it wouldn't affect me or my wife in any manner. There are a lot of things that I don't know about or shouldn't know about and I have no issue with someone else having that knowledge unless they do not have the need to know.
No just being sarcastic

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That isn't what I asked and you know it. You said you knew some Dutch guy who knew everything about the Dutch plan and that it was what the ACA would be like and he was "educating" everyone about it. Now I'm not saying you are totally incorrect but even those that wrote the damn thing didn't know everything.
Now to the point I made and you dance away with another answer. Let's try again and I will be more specific and you can try and answer.
Did this Dutch person know and tell everyone that:
"everyone was not going to be able to keep their doctor, that not everyone would be able to keep their current health plan, that people in many states would have only one provider to choice from, that many doctors would either leave the profession or opt out of the plan."
Now if this Dutch person didn't tell you or even know what would happen your statement is somewhat exaggerated.
Now I'm not trying to get on your case, I'm just pointing out that sometimes we all make a statement that is not totally factual.

That is entirely different than your earlier implication that it was going to be a "roll of the the dice" and we just wouldn't know much at all about it until it took effect. In reality we knew what most of the ACA was going to do, up until pretty much insurance companies and Republican states decided to not cooperate.

 

[esmith]

That is entirely different than your earlier implication that it was going to be a "roll of the the dice" and we just wouldn't know much at all about it until it took effect. In reality we knew what most of the ACA was going to do, up until pretty much insurance companies and Republican states decided to not cooperate.

That's called States Rights. You may not like it but each State is different and situations are different. What is good for some states may not be good for others.
One of the scariest things one may hear is "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the scariest things one may hear is "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help".

And instead of trying to fix that, for over 30 years now you haven't tried to really fix that "I'm from the Federal Government...." Shouldn't Reagan have done the responsibly and logical thing if he believed and removed himself with office? There's many, many things in life I'm way more concerned about than the "scary Fed," and unlike you, I don't see that as a reason to antagonize it but to fix it and make it better.

 

[Koldo]

My point was how in the world did healthcare insurance services itself get declared a tax?

It was well acknowledged that Obamacare was determined unconstitutional as it stood, so of course they declared the purchase as a "tax" this making it "constuitional".


I know of no Goverment service that requires a purchase of a private sector service like that of insurance as being remotely a component of taxation. People don't have mandatory school insurance imposed as a prerequisite for a basic education, It dosent exist.

To do it right, imo, healthcare would need it's infrastructure to parallel that as public schools are funded and run.

If course under federal tax codes, people can apply for exemption from paying tax under specific conditions. While under obamacare, that provision still applies, but insurance services has nothing to do with healthcare services itself in a direct sense.

To me, Obamacare sets a presidence for financial acquisition of people's money that falls far outside the tax system itself that can go far beyond healthcare if left unchecked. They can just declare anything's a "tax", and it's a tax.

It's not healthcare itself I hate, it's the erosion of free enterprise and free markets at the expense and freedom of a country's citizenry and creating more Goverment controlled dependency down the road.

Something Democrats seem to like.

Really bad stuff when you see the forest through the trees.

Does this mean you wouldn't mind a single-payer healthcare system ?

 

[esmith]

And instead of trying to fix that, for over 30 years now you haven't tried to really fix that "I'm from the Federal Government...." Shouldn't Reagan have done the responsibly and logical thing if he believed and removed himself with office? There's many, many things in life I'm way more concerned about than the "scary Fed," and unlike you, I don't see that as a reason to antagonize it but to fix it and make it better.

As long as there are those that think government is the answer for everything then it will not ever get fixed. And it appears that the "we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it" crowd is winning the battle.
I stand firm on my commitment and there is nothing you can put forward that would every convince me that a large centralized federal government is the best option for the country.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As long as there are those that think government is the answer for everything then it will not ever get fixed.

Who's saying it should fix everything?

And it appears that the "we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it" crowd is winning the battle.

Who's saying we want it now and someone else to pay for it?
It seems like you're focusing on a microcosm of the population and trying to blow it up into a larger group than it actually is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was well acknowledged that Obamacare was determined unconstitutional as it stood, so of course they declared the purchase as a "tax" this making it "constuitional".

Which in itself makes no sense, because where are people complaining over mandatory auto insurance?

 

[esmith]

Which in itself makes no sense, because where are people complaining over mandatory auto insurance?

No auto insurance is not mandatory if you do not own a car.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No auto insurance is not mandatory if you do not own a car.

Unlike a car, everyone does get sick though. And there is still the fact it is mandatory to have it to be legally driving.

 

[esmith]

Unlike a car, everyone does get sick though. And there is still the fact it is mandatory to have it to be legally driving.

No if you do not have to have insurance to drive a car if it is not yours in all states; it varies state by state.
What happens if I am willing to pay for my annual physicals and only want insurance to cover catastrophe events? Should I be required to purchase the plans now required under the ACA?

 

[Curious George]

No auto insurance is not mandatory if you do not own a car.

And health insurance isn't mandatory if you don't make any money.

 

[esmith]

And health insurance isn't mandatory if you don't make any money.

True, never disputed that. Actually you are exempt if you are unable to afford it even if you make money.

 

[Curious George]

True, never disputed that. Actually you are exempt if you are unable to afford it even if you make money.

So, this is similar to auto insurance?