Obamacare Explained in One Sentence

[DreamStalker]

"FASCISM" (corporate owned government).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Merriam does not care who you are ruled by.

And the person calling others "Sheepie" lives in Chicago?

Nope. Not just Chicago ... the sheeple are everywhere on this planet ... and this forum.

[hyperlexis]

Probably because you belong to a union.

LMFAO. How did you come up with THAT piece of fiction? NO, I do not belong to a union. I would NEVER belong to a union. I wouldn't stand having dues taken from my pay to fund liberal politicians. I don't know where you came up with THAT conclusion. And you shouldn't assume that I'm a Republican because I'm conservative.

I have an existing individual policy with Blue Cross, and I haven't received any premium increase notice.

I don't know about YOUR insurance, but MY insurance company (Harvard Pilgrim) has told us that we can expect a 50% increase in premiums due to Obamacare regulations.

And frankly, because the Insurance Exchanges have not yet come out and most states other than California have not announced proposed rates from various insurance companies, no one knows exactly what the premium costs for individual buyers in different counties will be. And for those already with group coverage the ACA shouldn't affect radical changes on existing policies.

Suddenly, we have to cover millions of people who won't be paying premiums, and somehow your liberal mathematics comes up with the fallacy that no one has to pay for it? And don't try to sell me some crap about how poor people are going to pay for it. They aren't.

And no, US congressmen and even President Obama are going to be buying their insurance on the public exchanges. They specifically included themselves as part of the law.

And they specifically EXCLUDED themselves from many of the more egregious portions of the bill. You don't get to cherry-pick your facts.

Look, I didn't join this board to argue politics, but all I need to know about this abortion of a law is what the government has done with Medicare and Social Security. Maybe YOU want the government to be in charge of YOUR healthcare, but I want my doctors to be in charge of mine.

Pardon if I mistook you for another poster who posted his union healthcare was supposedly going up. That was from an earlier post.

I have a personal Blue Cross plan that I pay 100% of the policy. I have no subsidized work plan or boss threatening to raise my personal monthly contribution from $50 to $75 as you may. I am my own boss and my Blue Cross rates aren't going up radically in 2014 -- assuming I even renew with them instead of going to a cheaper plan on the new Exchange. In fact my rates have stabilized these past two years to a relatively small annual increase amount. I don't know who your healthcare provider Harvard Pilgrim thinks they are sending out such a letter but considering no one knows what the Exchange rates for private plans will be in most states yet, I don't know how they can make such an outrageous claim. But hey, if they want all their clients to go to another, more efficient and affordable insurance company, that's HP's problem. And if you can't afford insurance (if its more than 9% of your income) you will get subsidies to help cover the expense. Now if you can afford coverage, but simply choose not to, then no one is forcing you to. You don't have to buy any insurance at all. You will pay a small increase in your taxes but that will be certainly be cheaper for you than paying Harvard Pilgrim's price increase for you.

That would certainly be the ultimate in personal liberty -- go it alone without paying for insurance and see what happens. You may never actually need medical care and it will certainly be cheaper to pay a tax penalty than pay more for HPs insurance.

Libertarianism and Darwinism at their very best.

[MastrHiram]

Look. As I said before, I didn't join this board to argue about politics. I am going to delete my posts on this thread, because I don't want any hard feelings between me and anyone else here. Let's agree to disagree, and move on.

[MastrHiram]

Hmmm. Seems like I can only delete my most recent post. If I figure it out, I'll delete them. Cheers.

[NateS]

Where are you going with this kind of argument? Hmmm, let me help you:

What right does the government have to decide that you should have a drivers license or not?

The government owns the roads. They make the rules.

What right does the government have to decide that you should have automobile insurance or not?

See above.

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay sales taxes or not?

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

What right does the government have to decide that you should pay income taxes or not?

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

What right does the government have to decide that you should wear seat belts or not?

See above

What right does the government have to decide that you should have taxes deducted in advance from your paycheck or not?

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fluoride in your tap water or not?

It shouldn't

What right does the government have to decide that you should have fire department protection or not?

The primary duty of government is to protect the people. This is really a silly point.

What right does the government have to decide that you should have police protection or not?

See above

There, do you feel better now?

Nate

Yes. Much.

BTW, none of the things you bring up above involves the federal government FORCING you to buy a product.

MastrHiram,

Please let me clarify:

Thanks for your responses to those red-inked statements, BUT …

I put those (IMHO ridiculous) statements in red ink because I was imagining what 123.Shawn T.W. thinks, not what I think.

And as it turned out, he confirmed that that is exactly what he really thinks!

Regards, Nate

[NateS]

BTW, none of the things you bring up above involves the federal government FORCING you to buy a product.

The little secret that opponents of the ACA, like Mr. Rove, don't want sheeple to really understand is that no one is actually forcing anyone to buy anything.

You do not have to do a darned thing. None at all. You will have to pay a small increase in your income taxes if you choose not to, but that's your personal choice. You can choose to rent an apartment for the rest of your life, but if you do, you will not be able to avail yourself of the home mortgage deduction and will be left with no equity when you are old. You can likewise choose to put all your money under a mattress, but you will then not be able to take a tax deduction for annual contributions made to an IRA retirement fund. Your choice. The ultimate in personal liberty.

The fact is that the ACA likewise is the ultimate in conservative ideas, and was in fact, cooked up by the Heritage Foundation itself and touted by Bob Dole. The fact is that the country cannot continue with the current system where the poor (who have no choice) and the well off -- but young and healthy (the "free-riders"/free-loaders) don't get insurance and use emergency rooms as doctor's offices, or only get insurance later in life when they are sick and old, driving up the cost for every responsible person who pays his fair share into the system.

So you either repeal Ronald Regan's law, EMTALA, that allows anyone (even illegal aliens) the right to get care in an ER regardless of the ability to pay, and tell such people or their newborns to die on the sidewalk, or you force everyone, young and healthy included, to now pay their fair shares into the risk pool -- or, perhaps, bar them from ever getting insurance ever in their lives, unless they pay back a penalty for the years they chose not to, but financially could have.

Ideally, it would be far better to just have people pay into a Medicare for all system, rather than just allow less efficient private insurers to get the money, but that was the deal they were forced to take.

So no one is forcing you to buy anything. You just have to pay slightly higher income taxes if you don't -- to at least partially make up for the fact Ronald Regan gave you the right to go to an ER regardless of your ability to even pay for it, foisting that burden on the rest of us.

Thank you for this accurate and excellent analysis!

Best wishes, Nate

[Goofproof]

The bad thing about your government, due to confidentially requirements, you aren't allowed to meet the people, that take part of your paycheck, for the rest of your life, unless you decide to quit working too.

Socialism makes us all equals, in reality it doesn't, as some are always running the show and exploiting the masses.

Maybe after the few people left actuality working at jobs that create products, if they have anything the government hasn't taken from them, can escape being mugged, and go on not meeting the people they don't know but support thru Socialism. Jim

[PST]

And no, US congressmen and even President Obama are going to be buying their insurance on the public exchanges. They specifically included themselves as part of the law.

And they specifically EXCLUDED themselves from many of the more egregious portions of the bill. You don't get to cherry-pick your facts.

Let's agree then. No one gets to cherry pick their facts and no one gets to make up their facts. If Congress has specifically EXCLUDED its members from something, then there will be language spelling it out. The section of the PPACA that requires members of Congress and congressional staff to purchase their health insurance on the new insurance exchanges is section 1312(d)(3)(D)(i). It can be found here at page 124 STAT 183 and reads:

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.-- (i) REQUIREMENT.-- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are-- (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

Let's put up or shut up. Where is it that members of Congress have "specifically EXCLUDED themselves from many of the more egregious portions of the bill"?

[CapnLoki]

MastrHiram, I know you wish you had never got into this, but I've seen this claim a lot recently and just had to comment:

Wow. You call US sheeple? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obamacare is such a wonderful and beneficent program, why did the people who pulled every dirty trick to get it shoved down our throats make sure they exempted themselves from it? The same people who didn't bother reading it before passing it.

and in another post

And they specifically EXCLUDED themselves from many of the more egregious portions of the bill. You don't get to cherry-pick your facts.

also

I'd also like Congress to have to take part in it as they think it's a great answer for the common people but have mysteriously exempted themselves.

All wrong! Here's the real story: Members of Congress and their staffs are, like most Federal employees, currently enrolled in the Federal Employee Health Benefits system, which, like most big companies, has a variety of options and comes with subsidy averaging 72%. Most Federal workers (along with most workers in the country) will see little or no change in the coverage. The Republicans felt that Congress should "feel the pain" so Tom Coburn (R) added a rule in the ACA that prevents Congress and their staff from participating in FEHB, forcing them to use the new exchanges. FEHB is highly regarded, so for some, this will be a small step down. However, the exchanges will offer a full spectrum of plans, so many will find an option that is even better suited to their individual needs.

A problem arises, however, in how to apply the subsidy Federal employees enjoy to system that is designed for people without subsidies. Moreover, there's an odd legal quirk that says that large companies can't participate in the exchanges until 2017. If it was just just the members of Congress, I'd expect little sympathy, but its rather harsh to tell a few thousand mostly low level workers that they loose a major benefit they should be titled to receive. Its important to note that the Coburn amendment didn't specifically say the workers couldn't receive the subsidy, but it turned out that seemed to be implied (for a few years) by another part of the bill. It looks like the Office of Personnel Management will rule that the subsidy can be paid, hence the claim the Congress "exempted" themselves from the bill.

In other words, it was a boring quirk of the law that was easily resolved, but it gave the right wing press a chance to whine.

[NateS]

Those singling out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a law voted into existence without the members of the Senate and Congress reading the actual bill before voting on it are displaying an extreme naiveté, if not ignorance, about the law-making process. I laugh when I see the shocked and indignant expressions on their faces when they try to disclose this "stunning" revelation to me, when the fact is that that is NOT how the legislative process works.

How many of you, when you bought a house, asked for an advance copy of the Mortgage Deed and Note days in advance of the closing and then read each and every line of it? Most of you, likely, hired an attorney and relied on him or her to know what they were doing to protect your interests and to explain the provisions to you, right? Or maybe you just relied on the lender's representations or the closing officer.

Why do you think the Senators and Congress members you elect are any different? And why do you think that they DID personally read all the other bills they vote on year in and year out, and only failed to read THIS bill?

People are shouting it at town halls. Local newspapers teem with editorials and readers’ letters demanding that lawmakers do it. Bloggers and their commenters say the same. Politicians of both parties are taunting their foes across the aisle with it.

But reading actual legislative text is often the least productive way to learn what’s actually in a bill.

Consider the House health care bill (or bills, as it were). The 1,017-page text is a tangle of references to other clauses, sections and subsections of the bill as well as numerous other statutes — some passed ages ago, all a pain to locate and search, even online: “Section 1179 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-8) is amended” by striking this and inserting that, or “the tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for the purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for the purposes of section 55.”

Got that?

“These bills are not written for even the educated layperson. They are written for specialists,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers.

There’s a whole advisory and consultative system built into the legislative process designed to help members understand legislation, said Thomas Mann, a congressional expert with the Brookings Institution.

Lawmakers, committees and caucus leaders all employ staffs of legislative and policy experts to brief members and write plain-English summaries. There are also specialized departments, such as the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office, that offer a variety of nonpartisan, expert services. Plus, a slew of think tanks and advocacy groups provide their own analyses.

Rather than asking if lawmakers are reading bills, Mann said, “the more critical questions are: Is someone reading it? Is it available in a timely way, [or] are things being written at the last minute, in the dark, with no one really aware of what’s been included?”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... Page2.html

So criticize the law if you don't like it, and criticize the Republican-majority Supreme Court that held it IS constitutional if you don't like their decision; but please don't make yourselves look silly by trying to shock us by calling it "THE law that was passed without Congress reading it!"

Regards, Nate

[deerhound]

I guess I have a little higher expectation of my Representatives. I think they owe their constituents to know exactly the outcome of a law they are passing. "Pass it to see what is in it" just isn't good enough for me. If they can take the money, they can do the job and all that it entails. It is obvious that Democrats did not know what they were voting on when they took ownership of healthcare. They now own it, problems and all.

[NateS]

I guess I have a little higher expectation of my Representatives. I think they owe their constituents to know exactly the outcome of a law they are passing. "Pass it to see what is in it" just isn't good enough for me. If they can take the money, they can do the job and all that it entails. It is obvious that Democrats did not know what they were voting on when they took ownership of healthcare. They now own it, problems and all.

deerhound, I said: "without the members of the Senate and Congress reading the actual bill."

I did not say "without the members of the Senate and Congress knowing what its provisions and effect would be."

I certainly agree that they are responsible for knowing what the provisions and effect will be of any bill they vote on.

When you are proposing to build a house, you study the architect's renderings and drawings and elevations and specs - you don't look at photographs of bags of nails and screws and piles of lumber and building materials.

I am not saying the Congress shouldn't do a better job. There is much too much influence by lobbyists and business groups, many of who actually write these bills Congress passes. I am merely saying that there is nothing special or unique about the way this bill was passed, and it is silly and misleading to try to turn people against it based up the false assertion that some shocking "shortcut" was taken for this particular vote. The politicians spreading this lie are making fools out of their own constituents.

Respectfully, Nate

[123.Shawn T.W.]

Than why did Nancy Pelosi say …

“We need to pass the bill to know what is in it”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAt54NKsRRk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQvCpNx1O0

Notice she does not deny the fact of going to jail, but shifts her answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUkzV8h3Wp0

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I posted in the thread about “Gov involvement in health care can work”

Free ain't free ... Somebody's gotta pay!

Ga. Insurance Commissioner: Obamacare to Force 'Massive Rate Increases Up to 198 percent'


In a press release today, Georgia insurance commissioner Ralph T. Hudgens warns that, because of Obamacare, "Georgia insurance companies are demanding massive rate increases up to 198 percent for some individuals." Hudgens claims this runs contrary to President Obama's promise to "Americans that Obamacare would lower rates."


As a result, Hudgens "announced today that he has requested an emergency delay of the filing deadline for Obamacare rates from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and for her to show reasons why the rates submitted by Georgia health insurers are not justified by Obamacare," his state office explains.


The commissioner of insurance office explains:


Companies opting to participate in the Exchange have provided the Department with evidence that their rates are justified and in compliance with Georgia law, citing the new Obamacare mandates as the reason.


In a letter faxed to Sebelius on Monday, Hudgens sought protection for Georgians by requesting an emergency 30 day delay of submission of his rate review to allow Department staff additional time to analyze the increases.

Hudgens adds, “I was always skeptical of Obamacare. ... But I never imagined that it would lead to rates being doubled or tripled. ... Increases of this magnitude will make coverage less affordable and increase the number of uninsured in Georgia.”

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ga-in ... 42311.html

[NateS]

Than why did Nancy Pelosi say …

“We need to pass the bill to know what is in it”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAt54NKsRRk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uQvCpNx1O0

You will find the answer to your question at:

GOP Manufactures Controversy Over Pelosi Health Care Comment
March 10, 2010 2:13 pm ET

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201003100005

Regards, Nate

[Wulfman...]

When you are proposing to build a house, you study the architect's renderings and drawings and elevations and specs - you don't look at photographs of bags of nails and screws and piles of lumber and building materials.

Respectfully, Nate

From my point of view, this was a bad analogy.
Thirty-five years ago, I built my own home (it is very energy-efficient and of minimal maintenance.....I was "green" before it was fashionable and "Mother Earth News" was one of the periodicals I subscribed to).......and I still live in it.
Anyway, I designed it, bought all the materials and know where everything is located.......because I put them there. I know where every 2x4, 2x6, 2x12, every inch of wiring and every inch of plumbing is located. I know where all the 8, 10 and 16 penny nails are and every finishing nail. That goes for everything inside and outside.

So, I guess my point is that if YOU "build it", YOU should know what's in it......every last detail.
If you contract someone to build it for you, then YOU DIDN'T BUILD IT.


Den

.