One foot in the grave for ObamaCare in 11th Circuit

Hey they make money on me too, I figure about $40K so far. Insurance works that way. The car and home owners insurance have been a negative return for me too. Thats insurance!

I guess I could go have a car accident and burn my house down and get those SOBs insurance companies to pay more! Knock on wood! Just kidding.

IMO, there is little, if any, disagreement that the situation prior to ObamaCare was inadequate (to put it mildly).

Also IMO, ObamaCare does very little, if anything, to improve the situation, and it is such a convoluted 'solution' that few, if any, fully understand it.

I would like to see ObamaCare shot down by the courts, and an open debate result to attempt to come up with a real solution to the problem. Open discussion of the advantages/disadvantages of 'single payer' (actually defined in detail), and all other proposals.

But, I realize I am a dreamer, and this is not likely to happen.

jf1acai wrote: IMO, there is little, if any, disagreement that the situation prior to ObamaCare was inadequate (to put it mildly).

Good point. I don't like the current system either. I think alot of Dems assume if you criticize Obamacare you want no changes at all and like the system we have. Not true.

I want more choices/less mandates (ala carte coverage options with prices for each coverage), better transferability of workplace plans, equal tax treatment, lower premiums, health savings accounts, more price transparency of medical costs, etc.... States could also put in regulations on age/premium ratios, pre-existing rejections/exclusions. IMO the states have always had the power to regulate insurance and haven't done a good job of it.

jmc wrote:

Joe wrote: Did you try "cover colorado" for pre-existing conditions insurance? I heard it was expensive, but they do not reject you. Again, I suggested it could be improved, but it can't be a free-for all for anyone who waits until they need it and buy it on the way into the hospital.

Yes, last resort, if Colorado did not have the option , I would have had to move. Very expensive, and they make money on me which is fine.

So I'm confused here jmc. If they are making money off of you, then it would be less expensive for you to pay for your care out of pocket than to purchase the health insurance, which is actually the case for the vast majority of those who purchase health insurance including myself. Insurance is for the "what if's" in life, not for the everyday expenses of it. Going to see the doctor once a year is maintenance, part of the everyday expenses of life. Having your blood tested on an annual basis is also a maintenance item, not an insurance item.

I don't know how else to put it other than insurance is not an entitlement that you are owed. If you have automobile insurance and you total a car every year no one is going to risk issuing you an automobile insurance policy. If you live in an area that floods nearly every year, no one is going to insure your house or your belongings from an expected flood. The way insurance works is that for a limited amount of money the company that issues the policy assumes the risk of you actually making a claim on the policy that they issued or that the number of times that you will make a claim are few and far between. If you are looking for a company to hold onto your money for when you need it, that isn't an insurance company, it is a financial institution such as a bank, or one that sells an annuity, that you are looking for. At some point in time the possibility of becoming ill becomes a likelihood of becoming ill and finally an eventuality that you will be seriously ill. That is why insurance rates go up as you get older and at some point no one will insure you.

When you reach the point where there is no doubt that you will be seriously ill, you are not looking for a company to take a chance on you for a small amount of money, you are looking for a company that will pony up the lion's share of the cost for treating you.

Neither are you entitled to the services of anyone else, they must be paid for just as your services were paid for prior to your retirement. You are no more entitled to the services of a doctor than you are to the services of the farmer who grows your food, the masons, electricians, plumbers and carpenters who built your home or the person who takes fiber and turns it into cloth for you to wear. What is so difficult to understand here? Why are you entitled to care or insurance? Because you need it to stay alive? That is eminently more true of food, shelter and clothing is it not? Those you need on an ongoing basis, but we don't have single payer for these necessities. Why healthcare? Why should it be single payer but not the others?

As far as Medicare goes, what you paid for is access to the program when you retired, not a guarantee of what would be included in the program when you did retire. The entire program was created by legislative action and the entire program could be cancelled by another legislative action. The permutations of what precisely is included in the program is also subject to legislative decisions. No jmc, you didn't pay for the Medicare that currently exists. What you paid for was access to whatever Medicare was, what the current people paying for the actual expenses of Medicare are willing to provide, when you retired. You were not paying for yourself, you were paying for others - and you knew it. You knew that the money you paid wasn't being set aside for you. You knew the money you paid was being used to provide for the care of others. What you were banking on is that the next group, and all the groups in the future, would be as foolish as you were and would be willing to do the same thing.

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote:

Joe wrote: Did you try "cover colorado" for pre-existing conditions insurance? I heard it was expensive, but they do not reject you. Again, I suggested it could be improved, but it can't be a free-for all for anyone who waits until they need it and buy it on the way into the hospital.

Yes, last resort, if Colorado did not have the option , I would have had to move. Very expensive, and they make money on me which is fine.

So I'm confused here jmc. If they are making money off of you, then it would be less expensive for you to pay for your care out of pocket than to purchase the health insurance, which is actually the case for the vast majority of those who purchase health insurance including myself. Insurance is for the "what if's" in life, not for the everyday expenses of it. Going to see the doctor once a year is maintenance, part of the everyday expenses of life. Having your blood tested on an annual basis is also a maintenance item, not an insurance item.

I don't know how else to put it other than insurance is not an entitlement that you are owed. If you have automobile insurance and you total a car every year no one is going to risk issuing you an automobile insurance policy. If you live in an area that floods nearly every year, no one is going to insure your house or your belongings from an expected flood. The way insurance works is that for a limited amount of money the company that issues the policy assumes the risk of you actually making a claim on the policy that they issued or that the number of times that you will make a claim are few and far between. If you are looking for a company to hold onto your money for when you need it, that isn't an insurance company, it is a financial institution such as a bank, or one that sells an annuity, that you are looking for. At some point in time the possibility of becoming ill becomes a likelihood of becoming ill and finally an eventuality that you will be seriously ill. That is why insurance rates go up as you get older and at some point no one will insure you.

When you reach the point where there is no doubt that you will be seriously ill, you are not looking for a company to take a chance on you for a small amount of money, you are looking for a company that will pony up the lion's share of the cost for treating you.

Neither are you entitled to the services of anyone else, they must be paid for just as your services were paid for prior to your retirement. You are no more entitled to the services of a doctor than you are to the services of the farmer who grows your food, the masons, electricians, plumbers and carpenters who built your home or the person who takes fiber and turns it into cloth for you to wear. What is so difficult to understand here? Why are you entitled to care or insurance? Because you need it to stay alive? That is eminently more true of food, shelter and clothing is it not? Those you need on an ongoing basis, but we don't have single payer for these necessities. Why healthcare? Why should it be single payer but not the others?

As far as Medicare goes, what you paid for is access to the program when you retired, not a guarantee of what would be included in the program when you did retire. The entire program was created by legislative action and the entire program could be cancelled by another legislative action. The permutations of what precisely is included in the program is also subject to legislative decisions. No jmc, you didn't pay for the Medicare that currently exists. What you paid for was access to whatever Medicare was, what the current people paying for the actual expenses of Medicare are willing to provide, when you retired. You were not paying for yourself, you were paying for others - and you knew it. You knew that the money you paid wasn't being set aside for you. You knew the money you paid was being used to provide for the care of others. What you were banking on is that the next group, and all the groups in the future, would be as foolish as you were and would be willing to do the same thing.

I am insuring myself for catastrophic only, Biggest deductible. Just don't want to go broke.
Never expected medicare before 65, just looking at a totally broken "market " There is and never will be an insurance market for the sick and elderly with out paying when young and healthy. We should have the option to pay when young and if the $ are too little give the option to pay more, we should have the choice when we enter the work force. 2.9% is not enough to fund Medicare,as is is today. I just want people to have the choice to pay higher premiums for the better benefit. I want people to be able to choose. No body should be limited by your narrow minded choices.
When young and healthy huge premiums were paid that I never saw a nickel of benefit, now all you narrow minded fools look at is my contributions to medicare. The private companies rake in the profit when we are young and healthy then pass of the liability to the Gov. when we are old and sick. PS glad you like the system, foolish.

Beyond the economic issues for providing universal single-payer health care (if you still aren't aware of or don't know how to find the information then you haven't been properly educating yourself), the most important reason is the morality in providing health care to our fellow citizens. We are in this together or at least we should be if our country is really about "We the People". It is not always about profit and "getting yours". I have had this discussion with many self-described "Christians" and it never ceases to amuse and even occasionally amaze me how little they really care about others. "Health care is a privilege not a right" they tell me. "Socialist" they call me. Hmmm, I wonder if Jesus was a capitalist? Which sick person would Jesus ignore? Do they even know? I wonder anew.

The current for-profit mode of delivering health care is unsustainable. If some of you don't realize that yet then you are dumber than dirt, ideologically blinded, or merely useful tools of the corporate undertakers.

Well, we are making progress. We have gone from "narrow minded selfishness" to simply "not properly educated, dumber than dirt". Thanks!

PrintS I think your explanation about insurance was good. Few people understand what "insurance" is, and the system we have now is more like pre-paid all inclusive health maintenance with all the govt mandated coverages. Its great if your employer gives it to you tax free. But when people lose their work coverage, they simply cannot replace it (COBRA) because it was not a basic affordable insurance plan to begin with and costs more than its value to the avg. person. I would rather see employers offer a basic hi-deductable insurance policy in your name that can be retained/transferred, and a generous health savings acct. for out-of-pocket maintenance expenses.

Okay , I will drag this conversation into the gutter, we pay the private sector insurance a fortune of profit when we are young and healthy . We bitch and moan that when it is no longer profitable to pay when we are old and sick, the burden falls to the the taxpayer. Wise the hell up!. It is a scam that pays the private industry when times are good,and penalizes the taxpayer when times are bad. A corporate free ride when times are bad. You idiots don't see that the taxpayer is subsidizing the private sector to the tune of billions.
Moronic ,

jmc wrote: I am insuring myself for catastrophic only, Biggest deductible. Just don't want to go broke.
Never expected medicare before 65, just looking at a totally broken "market " There is and never will be an insurance market for the sick and elderly with out paying when young and healthy. We should have the option to pay when young and if the $ are too little give the option to pay more, we should have the choice when we enter the work force. 2.9% is not enough to fund Medicare,as is is today. I just want people to have the choice to pay higher premiums for the better benefit. I want people to be able to choose. No body should be limited by your narrow minded choices.
When young and healthy huge premiums were paid that I never saw a nickel of benefit, now all you narrow minded fools look at is my contributions to medicare. The private companies rake in the profit when we are young and healthy then pass of the liability to the Gov. when we are old and sick. PS glad you like the system, foolish.

And what I want jmc is a system whereby the money I pay for the entirety of my working days is purchasing something for my benefit rather than having the money used for the benefit of others who are currently retired in the hopes that others will be willing to do the same for me. That latter is the same mechanism used to fund Ponzi schemes whereby the money from the newest investors is used to fund the benefits paid to the earlier investors. There is a reason that Ponzi schemes are illegal and why it was thought to be a good idea to fund the retirements and health needs of seniors in this nation upon this same principle defies any attempt at reason or common sense.

That they system will eventually collapse is not in question, it is simply a matter of how long the scheme can be kept going before that eventuality is realized - just as it is for any Ponzi styled investment scheme. We're at what, 45 years or so right now and the scheme is already pulling over 45% of its expenditures out of the general fund - and has been for a number of years now. It is, has been, and will continue to be fiscally insolvent. Every dollar it stolen from the general fund to keep the scheme operational is money that should be going to fund the functions of the federal government actually granted to it in the Constitution. Let me be perfectly clear - Medicare is a failure, it is fiscally bankrupt already and stealing funds needed to provide for the general welfare of the union to support the individual welfare of one citizen. Our bridges are collapsing and our roads are crumbling because the money that should have been used to maintain and replace these structures has instead been spent on one citizen's individual welfare rather than the welfare of everyone who uses the roads and bridges on a daily basis. That's the problem that needs solving jmc and the only way to solve it is to have Medicare resting on a firm financial foundation rather than one designed to support a Ponzi.

JMC, don't the corporate free-riders pay 1/2 of the medicare tax? And I agree, the 1.45% is too low.