Obamacare Questions

[imagep]

...now having co-pays for crap that used to be included.

That's the way insurance is supposed to be. It's not supposed to cover minor expenses that you expect, it is supposed to only cover rare and unexpected costs that would be financially catistrophic if you didn't have insurance. We don't buy food insurance because we expect to have to eat on a regular bases. Our auto insurance policies don't include gas or oil, because we expect to have to purchase gas and oil on a regular bases. Why should healthcare insurance be any different?

By the way, my policy hasn't gone up any faster than it went up before Obamacare, and I have so far received two rebate checks due to Obamacare, and thus my total insurance expenditure has come down. From my point of view, thats a good thing. If two years from now, there is any evidence that proves that the cost of insurance is going up faster than the rate that it did before, it will prove Obamacare to be a failure, but until then, you are only speculating based upon party rhetoric, which usually isn't accurate.

 

[aberrant85]

Is the $95 coming from you? I doubt it, it's probably coming from some else but you have no qualms about saying it coming from you and making it out to be a great idea.

WTF are you talking about? It's an analogy, not an opportunity to vent about "makers vs. takers."

 

[Linc]

when I leave this Earth, I hope I go see my "maker" and not my "taker".

WTF are you talking about? It's an analogy, not an opportunity to vent about "makers vs. takers."

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

WTF are you talking about? It's an analogy, not an opportunity to vent about "makers vs. takers."

Why wouldn't you make it just $1 since it's an analogy, who would refuse a $1 for free?

 

[OscarB63]

That's the way insurance is supposed to be. It's not supposed to cover minor expenses that you expect, it is supposed to only cover rare and unexpected costs that would be financially catistrophic if you didn't have insurance. We don't buy food insurance because we expect to have to eat on a regular bases. Our auto insurance policies don't include gas or oil, because we expect to have to purchase gas and oil on a regular bases. Why should healthcare insurance be any different?

By the way, my policy hasn't gone up any faster than it went up before Obamacare, and I have so far received two rebate checks due to Obamacare, and thus my total insurance expenditure has come down. From my point of view, thats a good thing. If two years from now, there is any evidence that proves that the cost of insurance is going up faster than the rate that it did before, it will prove Obamacare to be a failure, but until then, you are only speculating based upon party rhetoric, which usually isn't accurate.

good for you........

 

[cpwill]

Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN

Dave Ramsey does a pretty good job of divorcing the basic math from the partisan talking points:

 

[ashurbanipal]

Healthcare isn't a right.

I'd be curious to know why you think this. More specifically, I presume you believe there are such things as rights (feel free to correct me if that's wrong). On what principle do you count whatever those are as rights, and exclude health care? And, how will you argue for that principle, if it exists?

Healthcare is a service, not a human right...

I'd be curious about your reasons, per the above, for this as well.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'd be curious to know why you think this.

So you think a doctor must treat every person brought before them without pay? Are they slaves?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I'd be curious to know why you think this. More specifically, I presume you believe there are such things as rights (feel free to correct me if that's wrong). On what principle do you count whatever those are as rights, and exclude health care? And, how will you argue for that principle, if it exists?



I'd be curious about your reasons, per the above, for this as well.

I'm not sure what the confusion is about. Healthcare is a service. It is not a right. No more than we don't have the RIGHT to drive, we don't have the RIGHT to have a guaranteed job. It's great if you have those things, but they are not guaranteed.

 

[reinoe]

Really. It wasn't pretty. Managing one's insurance options through work is a far cry from what entrepreneurs and people who lose their jobs went through. If these people had pre-existing conditions? They couldn't buy insurance at any price.

That's the thing I don't get. A lot of these older people who worked at their job for 40 years and then retired to either medicare or post retirement healthcare have no ****ing clue and that in large part is fueling their selfishness.

I was unemployed as well and went shopping around. 5k deductibles, and 20%-->50% co-insurance afterwards. And that's not even including the premiums.

Word up on pre-existing conditions.

 

[ashurbanipal]

So you think a doctor must treat every person brought before them without pay? Are they slaves?

No, I think no such thing. I don't think you have answered my question.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I'm not sure what the confusion is about. Healthcare is a service. It is not a right. No more than we don't have the RIGHT to drive, we don't have the RIGHT to have a guaranteed job. It's great if you have those things, but they are not guaranteed.

No doubt plenty of things you might think are rights are not guaranteed either.

Do you believe it is a right to have a trial if you are accused of a crime? That's a service that taxpayers pay for. Is it a right to have enforcement of contracts? That is also such a service. Is it a right to hold fair elections? That's another service. I could go on, but hopefully the picture is fairly clear.

If the principled means by which you're separating rights from non-rights is that rights cannot be services, it seems we'll have to get rid of quite a bit. If you're prepared to bite that bullet, I suppose at least your position is consistent. But I think most people would agree that your principle is simply inadequate as a way to define rights and exclude non-rights.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

No, I think no such thing. I don't think you have answered my question.

Do we need to pay for rights or are the given freely? If we have the right to healthcare then why would a doctor expect to be compensated for their work? Do we need to pay someone for the right of free speech or freedom to practice a religion? To have the right to privacy on our person? To publish our views?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Do you believe it is a right to have a trial if you are accused of a crime? That's a service that taxpayers pay for.

Actually yes you do.

"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Sixth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I can't seem to find the part describing is as a service. Can you point it out?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

No doubt plenty of things you might think are rights are not guaranteed either.

Do you believe it is a right to have a trial if you are accused of a crime? That's a service that taxpayers pay for. Is it a right to have enforcement of contracts? That is also such a service. Is it a right to hold fair elections? That's another service. I could go on, but hopefully the picture is fairly clear.

If the principled means by which you're separating rights from non-rights is that rights cannot be services, it seems we'll have to get rid of quite a bit. If you're prepared to bite that bullet, I suppose at least your position is consistent. But I think most people would agree that your principle is simply inadequate as a way to define rights and exclude non-rights.

The Constitution tells us what our rights are. And your very first example of a trial is definitely a right secured by the Constitution.

 

[The Man]

Dave Ramsey does a pretty good job of divorcing the basic math from the partisan talking points:

Excellent clip, very well put. Dave is a great speaker.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Do we need to pay for rights or are the given freely? If we have the right to healthcare then why would a doctor expect to be compensated for their work?

As preview of my response below: if we have a right to a trial, why would a judge be expected to be compensated for their work? Why would the attorneys, court reporters, bailiffs, clerks, etc. have an expectation for compensation?

Do we need to pay someone for the right of free speech or freedom to practice a religion? To have the right to privacy on our person? To publish our views?

In some cases, yes.

Actually yes you do.

"Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

Sixth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

I can't seem to find the part describing is as a service. Can you point it out?

I think the better question is why you think it would be described as a service. Why would it? You have a right to a trial if you are accused of a crime. In order to ensure and execute that right, other people have to provide you a service. The judge has to adjudicate and give opinions based on the law and precedent. The prosecutor has to make a case about why you are guilty (a service to you in the sense that, absent the right, you could just be shot without anyone bothering to argue that you're guilty). The bailiff and court clerk have to recruit, swear in, sequester, and guard a jury, who themselves should (and do) receive some compensation for their time. Plenty of people performs services for you in the pursuit of ensuring that your right is protected and executed properly.

I see no difference at all, logically speaking, when it comes to health care. If health care is a right, then doctors perform a service to you in order to ensure your rights are protected, under such a paradigm. Again, I ask you what principled means you could adduce that would separate the cases.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The Constitution tells us what our rights are. And your very first example of a trial is definitely a right secured by the Constitution.

So, suppose Congress and the states repealed the first ten ammendments. Would we then have no right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, to bear arms, etc.? If you think so, again, your position is consistent, but not very convincing. Most people think the rights listed in the constitution are there because they are rights--not that they're rights because the constitution lists them as such. It seems to me that a pretty strong case can be made that health care is a right, but that the constitution doesn't list it for whatever reason.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

So, suppose Congress and the states repealed the first ten ammendments. Would we then have no right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, to bear arms, etc.? If you think so, again, your position is consistent, but not very convincing. Most people think the rights listed in the constitution are there because they are rights--not that they're rights because the constitution lists them as such. It seems to me that a pretty strong case can be made that health care is a right, but that the constitution doesn't list it for whatever reason.

If in some bizzarro world the first 10 Amendments were repealed we would still have freedom of speech until a law was passed prohibiting it. Then there would be no Constitutional basis to challenge it on.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

So, suppose Congress and the states repealed the first ten ammendments. Would we then have no right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, to bear arms, etc.? If you think so, again, your position is consistent, but not very convincing. Most people think the rights listed in the constitution are there because they are rights--not that they're rights because the constitution lists them as such. It seems to me that a pretty strong case can be made that health care is a right, but that the constitution doesn't list it for whatever reason.

It is a right to get healthcare but it is not a right to get it on the backs of others.

 

[ashurbanipal]

If in some bizzarro world the first 10 Amendments were repealed we would still have freedom of speech until a law was passed prohibiting it.

I'm not sure this is correct. In some situations, a person in authority could simply demand that someone not speak and take whatever actions would be necessary to stop them. No law would be necessary.

Still, let's say I grant your point, since I don't see how its especially relevant. There remain other rights in the first ten amendments that would be more problematic for your view, especially those in the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments.

The point, again, is very simple: if you say that we can distinguish rights from non-rights because the former never involve services, then it's clear that on your view we have to give up some things we traditionally call rights, because they involve services.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is a right to get healthcare but it is not a right to get it on the backs of others.

By parity of reasoning, it might be a right to have a fair trial, but only if you can pay for it yourself, no? If you're accused of a crime and you can't pay the judge, the prosecutor, and the jury, we'll just go ahead and hang you.

This doesn't seem like a very good way to run things. What you need here is some principle that distinguishes health care from other rights. It can't be that it involves getting a service, since other rights also involve getting a service. It can't be that it involves money, for the same reason.

If you (or Heebie Jeebie, or someone else) can't come up with something, my point stands: health care is a right, and one that has been too long neglected as such in this country.

 

[KevinKohler]

1) To get Obamacare, you must pay the insurance co. premiums.

2) Once you pay the premiums, Obamacare will pay for your flu shot* ++ *** ++++ ****

* - participating in-network clinics only
++ - coverage for specific vaccines, see sec A-237D55 for exclusions
*** - coverage requires following guidelines listed under sec C-2786G for "Exclusions on Preventive Care coverage"
++++ - examination for other illnesses, blood tests may not be covered. See sec D-987JUN21
**** - other restrictions/exclusions apply. See p. 873 for special exclusions

Best post in the thread.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I'm not sure this is correct. In some situations, a person in authority could simply demand that someone not speak and take whatever actions would be necessary to stop them. No law would be necessary.

Still, let's say I grant your point, since I don't see how its especially relevant. There remain other rights in the first ten amendments that would be more problematic for your view, especially those in the 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments.

The point, again, is very simple: if you say that we can distinguish rights from non-rights because the former never involve services, then it's clear that on your view we have to give up some things we traditionally call rights, because they involve services.

We can distinguish our rights because they are spelled out in the Constitution. I don't see Healthcare anywhere in it. You can't just make a right up and then say "If you can't disprove it then it must be a right".

 

[davidtaylorjr]

By parity of reasoning, it might be a right to have a fair trial, but only if you can pay for it yourself, no? If you're accused of a crime and you can't pay the judge, the prosecutor, and the jury, we'll just go ahead and hang you.

This doesn't seem like a very good way to run things. What you need here is some principle that distinguishes health care from other rights. It can't be that it involves getting a service, since other rights also involve getting a service. It can't be that it involves money, for the same reason.

If you (or Heebie Jeebie, or someone else) can't come up with something, my point stands: health care is a right, and one that has been too long neglected as such in this country.

Making absurd comments and assumptions that can't be defeated with actual logic doesn't make your point stand. Health Care is not a right.