OT - Obamacare

Thank you for the rational letter about rights. In many ways we may agree. A democracy is not good with absolute majority rule because then minority opinions are no longer considered. The Constitution's bill of rights exists to protect those who are not in the majority. Although I think the Obama administration has decided that any emergency justifies ignoring the 4th amendment. More to this subject; The decision we need to make are we willing to let people die without medical treatment, when it is available, because they cannot afford it. The government will continue to collect taxes and go into debt despite the fact people will argue yell and scream. But how do prioritize expenditures and where does providing medical care fit in.

lastlib wrote:I was hoping that there would be some discussion this board. I have just gotten on medicare. I have no supplemental coverage available. I am hoping I can get plan D coverage. But by every non biased rating the U S is last in medical care provided among first world countries. The last system did not work. Also the Republicans opposed both medicare and social security. We are the richest country in the world. The real argument is whether medical care is a right or a privilege. Doctor's could not live in the style they are used to with only the money they collect from their patients. Why do I expect the conservatives to call people names and not support their opinions calmly and rationally. To compare a country's debt to personal debt is to compare apples to ironing boards. I would like to see some calm discussion on this issue. Before I ask for this I must apologize for my previous post. There is no reason to accuse anyone of trying to kill me and I apolgoize for saying so.

There are numerous insurance companies that offer Supplemental Medicare insurance. My wife and I both have ours through State Farm. It's advisable to get "Supp F" as it pays very well. My wife had breast cancer surgery back in 2010 and she paid virtually nothing out-of-pocket.
There are also numerous companies that offer "Plan D" (prescription) coverage. My wife and I have ours through Humana.

You have a three month period before your 65th birthday to get signed up and they should have sent you all sorts of brochures about it. If you miss that, you can sign up or change providers within a 60 day period beginning October 1st.


Den

.

rd1978 wrote:

pikov22 wrote:

rd1978 wrote:The basic difference between those who support the bill and those who oppose it comes down to what role one believes the government should play in such matters. I happen to believe, as did the founders, that the federal government's powers should be limited. I'm not saying that the free market is perfect, because it clearly is not. But I have more faith in it than I do in our elected officials who pass laws knowing that they personally will never have to live under them.

Do you think that the CEOs who run the companies of the free market are any less self-indulgent than our elected lawmakers?

No, but in order to be successful they need to attract the maximum number of customers. Remove the artificial barriers that prevent companies from competing across state lines and consumers will necessarily benefit.

This is another one of the arguments that is endlessly repeated in the closed world of right-wing media and blogs, yet doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. Health insurers have no trouble operating across state lines. Here is a list, compiled by U.S. News, of the 25 largest health insurers. Start looking at their annual reports, one by one, and see what states they operate in. The largest is United Health Group. It claims to serve people in all 50 states. Number 2 is Wellpoint. According to its Form 10-K (at page 3), it is licensed in all 50 states. It runs Anthem Blue Cross, among many other companies, and the cited page lists operations in AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MO, NE, NH, NM, NY, NY, OH, TE, TX, VA, WA, and WI, with 66.5 million insureds. Number 3 is Kaiser. Its web site says that it can be found in CA, CO, DC, GA, MA, HI, OH, OR, VA, and WA. I'm not going to look up all 25, but the point is perfectly clear. Historically, states have regulated insurance, but it doesn't keep insurance companies from spanning the country. Sometimes this point is obscured by the use of different names in different places, but the giants are everywhere.

What especially bugs me about this particular criticism is that conservatives typically call for state rather than federal regulation. That was one reason Romneycare in Massachusetts was said to be better than Obamacare. But if an opportunistic argument is called for, principles go out the window, and the multiplicity of state regulation is said to be the obstacle to the free market working successfully.

Wulfman... wrote:

lastlib wrote:I was hoping that there would be some discussion this board. I have just gotten on medicare. I have no supplemental coverage available. I am hoping I can get plan D coverage. But by every non biased rating the U S is last in medical care provided among first world countries. The last system did not work. Also the Republicans opposed both medicare and social security. We are the richest country in the world. The real argument is whether medical care is a right or a privilege. Doctor's could not live in the style they are used to with only the money they collect from their patients. Why do I expect the conservatives to call people names and not support their opinions calmly and rationally. To compare a country's debt to personal debt is to compare apples to ironing boards. I would like to see some calm discussion on this issue. Before I ask for this I must apologize for my previous post. There is no reason to accuse anyone of trying to kill me and I apolgoize for saying so.

There are numerous insurance companies that offer Supplemental Medicare insurance. My wife and I both have ours through State Farm. It's advisable to get "Supp F" as it pays very well. My wife had breast cancer surgery back in 2010 and she paid virtually nothing out-of-pocket.
There are also numerous companies that offer "Plan D" (prescription) coverage. My wife and I have ours through Humana.

You have a three month period before your 65th birthday to get signed up and they should have sent you all sorts of brochures about it. If you miss that, you can sign up or change providers within a 60 day period beginning October 1st.


Den

.

I meant to add that there were NO medical history inquiries or other questions having to do with preexisting conditions.


Den

.

lastlib wrote:Thank you for the rational letter about rights. In many ways we may agree. A democracy is not good with absolute majority rule because then minority opinions are no longer considered. The Constitution's bill of rights exists to protect those who are not in the majority. Although I think the Obama administration has decided that any emergency justifies ignoring the 4th amendment. More to this subject; The decision we need to make are we willing to let people die without medical treatment, when it is available, because they cannot afford it. The government will continue to collect taxes and go into debt despite the fact people will argue yell and scream. But how do prioritize expenditures and where does providing medical care fit in.

A democracy is not good with absolute majority rule

Majority rule is never good whether absolute or weak. Even if only one person out of 320 million chooses to act a certain way, he has that right and the majority should not interfere. (Notice the rule always exists that when an individual exercises his rights, he cannot interfere with the rights of others. You do not have the right to spit on the street because you are polluting the space of others. You can spent on your own back forty as long as there is not excessive runoff into the creek.)

The decision we need to make are we willing to let people die without medical treatment, when it is available, because they cannot afford it.

You can help anyone with their medical treatment. My wife and I made this commitment years ago. We undertake many projects, small and large, to help people. Everyone has the right to help. My wife and I believe we are commanded to help. But it is up to you to decide what you want to do.

PST wrote:

rd1978 wrote:

pikov22 wrote:

rd1978 wrote:The basic difference between those who support the bill and those who oppose it comes down to what role one believes the government should play in such matters. I happen to believe, as did the founders, that the federal government's powers should be limited. I'm not saying that the free market is perfect, because it clearly is not. But I have more faith in it than I do in our elected officials who pass laws knowing that they personally will never have to live under them.

Do you think that the CEOs who run the companies of the free market are any less self-indulgent than our elected lawmakers?

No, but in order to be successful they need to attract the maximum number of customers. Remove the artificial barriers that prevent companies from competing across state lines and consumers will necessarily benefit.

This is another one of the arguments that is endlessly repeated in the closed world of right-wing media and blogs, yet doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. Health insurers have no trouble operating across state lines. Here is a list, compiled by U.S. News, of the 25 largest health insurers. Start looking at their annual reports, one by one, and see what states they operate in. The largest is United Health Group. It claims to serve people in all 50 states. Number 2 is Wellpoint. According to its Form 10-K (at page 3), it is licensed in all 50 states. It runs Anthem Blue Cross, among many other companies, and the cited page lists operations in AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MO, NE, NH, NM, NY, NY, OH, TE, TX, VA, WA, and WI, with 66.5 million insureds. Number 3 is Kaiser. Its web site says that it can be found in CA, CO, DC, GA, MA, HI, OH, OR, VA, and WA. I'm not going to look up all 25, but the point is perfectly clear. Historically, states have regulated insurance, but it doesn't keep insurance companies from spanning the country. Sometimes this point is obscured by the use of different names in different places, but the giants are everywhere.

What especially bugs me about this particular criticism is that conservatives typically call for state rather than federal regulation. That was one reason Romneycare in Massachusetts was said to be better than Obamacare. But if an opportunistic argument is called for, principles go out the window, and the multiplicity of state regulation is said to be the obstacle to the free market working successfully.

That insurance companies are free to do business in multiple states is irrelevant. What they can sell in a given state is regulated by each state. A person in VA, for example, can't buy a policy offered by the same company in OH. In fact, even within a given state, a policy issued by one insurance company may not be available in every part of that state. And even if it is, the prices vary depending upon which zip code you happen to live in.

Finally, your comment about Romneycare completely mischaracterizes the argument. The framers of the Constitution deliberately limited the powers of the Federal Govt to a specified few, leaving all others (i.e., the vast majority) to the individual states. As a Republic, each state was free to establish its own laws. In fact, each state was free to establish its own official religion, and many did. If you don't like the laws in one state, you were/are free to move to another state. By design, states were the proper place for "experimentation." Whether or not I as a Republican like Romneycare is also irrelevant. Massachusetts had/has the right to pass such laws and I, if I lived in MA, would also have the right to move. When such laws are implemented at the Federal level, however, the rights of every citizen is affected.

rd1978 wrote:The framers of the Constitution deliberately limited the powers of the Federal Govt to a specified few, leaving all others (i.e., the vast majority) to the individual states. As a Republic, each state was free to establish its own laws. In fact, each state was free to establish its own official religion, and many did. If you don't like the laws in one state, you were/are free to move to another state. By design, states were the proper place for "experimentation." Whether or not I as a Republican like Romneycare is also irrelevant. Massachusetts had/has the right to pass such laws and I, if I lived in MA, would also have the right to move. When such laws are implemented at the Federal level, however, the rights of every citizen is affected.

And the framers were wrong! Why should citizens of one state not have benefits afforded to citizens of others? I think that states should only be able to pass laws that are "geographically" relevant, and that federal law should provide equal protection for all Americans.

"Free to move" works only if opportunities exist across the country. It's a red herring! IMO, of course.

pikov22 wrote:

rd1978 wrote:The framers of the Constitution deliberately limited the powers of the Federal Govt to a specified few, leaving all others (i.e., the vast majority) to the individual states. As a Republic, each state was free to establish its own laws. In fact, each state was free to establish its own official religion, and many did. If you don't like the laws in one state, you were/are free to move to another state. By design, states were the proper place for "experimentation." Whether or not I as a Republican like Romneycare is also irrelevant. Massachusetts had/has the right to pass such laws and I, if I lived in MA, would also have the right to move. When such laws are implemented at the Federal level, however, the rights of every citizen is affected.

And the framers were wrong! Why should citizens of one state not have benefits afforded to citizens of others? I think that states should only be able to pass laws that are "geographically" relevant, and that federal law should provide equal protection for all Americans.

"Free to move" works only if opportunities exist across the country. It's a red herring! IMO, of course.

Red herring, for sure. Seriously, how many people do you know who have the ability to just pick up and move to another state, just like that. Let's try to be reasonable. It makes sense that geographically relevant needs might be better handled locally, but other things would be better handled federally.

pikov22 wrote:
And the framers were wrong! Why should citizens of one state not have benefits afforded to citizens of others? I think that states should only be able to pass laws that are "geographically" relevant, and that federal law should provide equal protection for all Americans.

"Free to move" works only if opportunities exist across the country. It's a red herring! IMO, of course.

I think that states should only be able to pass laws that are "geographically" relevant

I think you should give some quiet, thoughtful consideration to your statement - at least before you ever again vote.

Federal courts hear cases involving:

Cases that deal with the constitutionality of a law;
Cases involving the laws and treaties of the U.S.;
Cases involving ambassadors and public ministers;
Disputes between two or more states;
Admiralty law;
Bankruptcy; and
Habeas corpus issues.

State courts hear cases involving:

Most criminal cases (murder, theft, fraud, assault, rape, etc.)
Probate (involving wills and estates)
Most contract cases
Tort cases (personal injuries)
Family law (marriages, divorces, adoptions), etc

federal law should provide equal protection for all Americans.

It already does. But I think you want (something that is not equal protection) socialism, something our Constitution does not call for.

"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E

15,000 spouses of UPS employees just put the lie to that statement:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/co ... obamacare/

I'm probably in the same boat. I have coverage through my spouse's employer. The coverage my employer offers is more expensive and sucks...

Papa Foxtrot wrote:"If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Period!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E

15,000 spouses of UPS employees just put the lie to that statement:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/co ... obamacare/

I'm probably in the same boat. I have coverage through my spouse's employer. The coverage my employer offers is more expensive and sucks...

Did you read the article?

In the case of UPS, the husbands and wives of employees who don't work -- or who are not offered coverage by their own employer -- will get to stay on the UPS plan.

If you do work and have an employer who offers medical insurance, you should use your employer's insurance. It's not the fault of UPS or Obamacare that your employer's insurance is "expensive and sucks".

However, Obamacare is still a disaster.

ChicagoGranny wrote:If you do work and have an employer who offers medical insurance, you should use your employer's insurance.

Why? My post clearly explains why I do not wish to do so...

Papa Foxtrot wrote:

ChicagoGranny wrote:If you do work and have an employer who offers medical insurance, you should use your employer's insurance.

Why? My post clearly explains why I do not wish to do so...

Just because you want something does not mean that UPS should give it to you.

ChicagoGranny wrote:It's not the fault of UPS or Obamacare that your employer's insurance is "expensive and sucks".

That is the most inane statement that I've seen in a while. It is most certainly Obamacare's fault that I will pay more for less coverage - which puts me in the same boat as most of the country...

ChicagoGranny wrote:Just because you want something does not mean that UPS should give it to you.

I do not work for UPS and neither does my spouse. I'm not sure what your point is here...