Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Let Us Hear Your Obamacare (horror?) Stories  
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3974 times:

Well, it has been here for a few weeks, so let us hear how it has been affecting you so far.

I had to renew / re-enroll in my health insurance today (I get my health insurance through my employer, so luckily did not have to endure those exchange clusterloves). For a similar plan as what I had last year (it was a pretty good plan. so I seriously doubt there was any coverage that had to be jacked up to conform to Obamacare minimum requirements) my out-of-pocket premiums are up 30% (yes, thirty percent, 3-0).

Since I only pay ~30% of my coverage (my employer picks up the rest) that would mean an extra ~$1,800 a year, for one person only (if I had a wife or kids, would have to pay an extra $1,800 / person, since my employer does not subsidize them nearly as much). I can afford my increased premiums, but will probably downgrade to a high deductible plan with a health savings account, as it is seeming like better value.

What about you? How have you been affected so far?


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
259 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2720 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Wow..... can't believe the success stories of Obamacare being posed online. People who have been denied coverage or who couldn't afford the usurious rates charged by insurance companies.

Wonderful to finally hear and read that basic medical care is now a reality.

More here.....
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ready-making-a-difference-20131016


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26863 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3862 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Wonderful to finally hear and read that basic medical care is now a reality.

Yes its great to see that the selfish people who only care about themselves are being silenced so that the less well off in their country can afford to be covered. Never understood the attitude that people would rather their fellow citizens die of cancer than agree a plan to help them get the drugs they need. Lets hope those (Horror ) stories get less and less.   

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
Since I only pay ~30% of my coverage

Count yourself VERY lucky that someone is paying your way for you !


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3848 times:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Count yourself VERY lucky that someone is paying your way for you !

Here here, it's amazing how selfish some folks really are, universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt along with education, everything else follows along behind.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3826 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):

More here.....

Was wondering where you were getting some made-up stories given the reactions have been almost universally negative (with even many liberal journalists /commentators admitting it has been "less than smooth", to use an euphemism) but then I saw it - it came from the terrorist-lovers over at Rolling Stone. At least I can congratulate you on finding the self-control not to post something from Mother Jones, I guess.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Count yourself VERY lucky that someone is paying your way for you !

Nobody is paying my way for it, I pay for it myself through reduced wages. Or are you one of those naive people who think that employer contributions to Social Security are paid for by the employer?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt

Considering I am a refugee from a country where you have to pay effective tax rates of over 70% to get it, only to have to pay out-of-pocket or buy health insurance if you want to wait less than 6 months before being seen by a doctor, couldn't disagree more.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26863 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
(my employer picks up the rest)
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Nobody is paying my way for it, I pay for it myself through reduced wages

        Which is it?


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 5):
Which is it?

He's paying for it via reduced wages.

This is likely because there are tax incentives to be paid not in money but in health coverage. If this were not the case his employer would likely just pay him entirely in cash and he could buy coverage with that cash as he sees fit.

Of course these incentives result in overspend on healthcare and healthcare being linked to employment, which is undesirable.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2376 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Here here, it's amazing how selfish some folks really are,

And while we're at it:

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-...about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?g=3


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3951 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 6):
Of course these incentives result in overspend on healthcare and healthcare being linked to employment, which is undesirable.

Not to mention discriminate against those who work for themselves / smaller employers and have to buy individual coverage with post-tax money. They had a prime chance to finally break the link between healthcare and employment (just as the one between retirement and employment should be broken) and instead they actually reinforced it.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6306 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

I have this terrible, frightening story about Obamacare. I actually think it was just a dream...nay, a nightmare. It couldn't actually have happened. But I had this dream that a few crazy nutjob Republicans actually shut the country down for half-a-month over a bill that has already been passed and backed by the USSC. That...that didn't actually happen, right guys? Right?!

In reality, I too renewed my employer-provided health insurance this week, and it went up $1/paycheck ($2/month) over last year. Ohhhh the humanity!

(I know, I'm lucky. And I'm really just in a snarky, sarcastic, end of the week mood. Go easy on me)


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Considering I am a refugee from a country where you have to pay effective tax rates of over 70% to get it, only to have to pay out-of-pocket or buy health insurance if you want to wait less than 6 months before being seen by a doctor, couldn't disagree more.

Yeah but look where you come from, it doesn't have to be as bad as that (and the truth be told it probably isn't).


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
Since I only pay ~30% of my coverage (my employer picks up the rest) that would mean an extra ~$1,800 a year, for

Was the 1800 the total increase, or your portion?

( IE you are paying 150 more for coverage, which means you were already paying 500 a month, and your Employer now pays 1500 a month?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3724 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
(if I had a wife or kids, would have to pay an extra $1,800 / person, since my employer does not subsidize them nearly as much

This is what a lot of companies have done and dropped coverage for families and covering the employee only.
Your $1,800 is in line for additional family members is inline with what I understand.
It basically will cost the employer an additional $9.00 per hour to insure family members (50wks x 40hrs =200 then 1800/200). The employee can decide if they want to pay the $9.00 per hour for their family member or go to Obamacare to get additional coverage for them.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Wow..... can't believe the success stories of Obamacare being posed online



The problem is not employer provided insurance but going to Obamacare to insure yourself or family member.
This morning the Obamacare news release is that in the first two weeks they have been able to sign up 20,000 and claiming a major success and minor problems. That is roughly 10,000 per week there are suppose to be 30,000,000 that need to sign up so that equates to 3000 weeks or 57 years before they can get the eligible signed up.
Right now it appears to be a massive out house mess but if you prefer to a call that a success then more power to you.

Lets hope we do not have to wait 57 years to get medical treatment.

Okie


User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 871 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3699 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Considering I am a refugee from a country where you have to pay effective tax rates of over 70% to get it, only to have to pay out-of-pocket or buy health insurance if you want to wait less than 6 months before being seen by a doctor, couldn't disagree more.

Don't worry, when you decide you don't want to be a refugee any more, you can come back to your homeland, and despite working overseas your whole life and never paying a cent into the system, you can have free medical care until the day you pop your clogs.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Or are you one of those naive people who think that employer contributions to Social Security are paid for by the employer?

OK.... Well, in your country, where I am an employer, it is indeed paid for by the employer. On top of that, on a €1450 monthly salary, the employee has additional tax of social security at 11%, IRS at 17.5%, supertax (bailout) tax at 3.5%, receiving €1049 nett. The employer, me, on that salary pays €303 in IRS and €501 in Social Security. So to hand the employee €1049 a month, it costs the company €2254, or about 53% to the State and 47% to the worker.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
They had a prime chance to finally break the link between healthcare and employment (just as the one between retirement and employment should be broken)

Don't forget education, defence, infrastructure etc. You shouldn't have to pay for anything at all. Countries should run themselves... for free!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Quoting OA260 (Reply 5):

You crazy lefties!  



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

Oh the horrors...

My company just announced the changes for 2014. Our rates remain the same as 2013 - which were the same as our 2012 rates. I joined the company in 2012, so I don't know about prior to that, but this means that for at least three years, we have paid the same for our coverage - and it's a very good plan, including no-cost health and wellness programs. The only significant change is our co-pay goes from $20 to $30 for services that require a co-pay.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
out-of-pocket premiums are up 30% (yes, thirty percent, 3-0).

Mines went up to but in a real $ basis it was nothing,. I think mines went up like $34 a month (yes that is 20%!!) will $34 make me start a A.net thread?

$34 is a bit over $1 a day - The tragedy!!! That single dollar, made Ted Cruz's fight in the House all worth while.

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
Since I only pay ~30% of my coverage (my employer picks up the rest) that would mean an extra ~$1,800 a year,

Damn, your company really needs to find a better insurance vendor., You guys are getting screwed!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

I was going to wait until the new year to post a similar thread, though I was going to title it "How has Obamacare Affected You", since I would have had a much better idea of its affect on me.

Good news: my premium has gone down by $300/yr. Oh wait, the reason for that: my wife got booted from my insurance plan due to Obamacare. Since my wife has not received her insurance package information yet, we don't know what her premium, co-pay or deductible will be. I'm hopeful that all that will be less than $300.00  

So, what does this mean? It means we will have 2 deductibles: one for my children and me and one for my wife. I have an HSA and I'm hearing that my wife will also have an HSA, so, the deductibles will be high. I need to check the IRS website, but I'm hearing that I can't use the HSA that will be in my name for my wife because she's not covered by my insurance. So, We will have to put some money into her HSA to take advantage of the tax benefits and to offset some of her deductible.

Speaking of the IRS...I understand that starting in 2014 I may be taxed on the fair market cost of my health insurance and, of course, my wife's. Though, I'm hearing the HSA type insurance may not meet the bar.

So, Mr. Obama: my wife was not able to keep the insurance she likes and our health care costs will go up.

Thank you.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
the reason for that: my wife got booted from my insurance plan due to Obamacare.

Due to "Obamacare" or due to you job choosing not to cover her? Sounds like you job sucks!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12082 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3652 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Wonderful to finally hear and read that basic medical care is now a reality.

Fully agree! I'm really pleased I live in a country that has free hospital health care, free dentist visits for under 18 year olds and free GP visits for 6 and unders. I simply can't understand why a country like the USA requires everyone to have insurance or pay for your hospital care. About time there is a programme that enables the poor/unable to afford insurance to receive the medical treatment any human deserves to have.

While in the USA in 2007 I required emergency eye treatment and wouldn't get seen unless I could produce insurance papers or could pay on the spot. Thankfully I was fully covered under the Visa Exchange Prgramme I was on.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
so I seriously doubt there was any coverage that had to be jacked up to conform to Obamacare minimum requirements) my out-of-pocket premiums are up 30% (yes, thirty percent, 3-0).

As you said - your health insurance has not changed to include any new coverages - so how is a price increase related to the Affordable Care Act.

It is the health insurance company ripping off you, or paying kickbacks to your employer - not Obamacare - that raised your rates.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Oh wait, the reason for that: my wife got booted from my insurance plan due to Obamacare.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
So, Mr. Obama: my wife was not able to keep the insurance she likes and our health care costs will go up.

That has nothing to do with ACA/Obamacare. Employers have been taking working spouses off their supported healthcare plans for years. Mine did that in 2007. I guess I have to blame Obama for that.

Quoting okie (Reply 12):
The problem is not employer provided insurance but going to Obamacare to insure yourself or family member. This morning the Obamacare news release is that in the first two weeks they have been able to sign up 20,000 and claiming a major success and minor problems.

You should hear the horror stories when Medicare Advantage started. Even today an estimated 200,000+ seniors every year have major issues getting signed up for the Medicare Advantage plan they want.

Yes, the ACA exchanges signup system has tons of issues. A new computer system/ program and a million people, many not technology oriented, at the same time.

Since Obamacare does not start until January, lets hope the system gets better.


User currently offlinepetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 12):
It basically will cost the employer an additional $9.00 per hour to insure family members (50wks x 40hrs =200 then 1800/200).

50 weeks * 40 hours equals 2.000 hours
$1.800 / 2.000 hours = $ 0,90 per hour.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3597 times:

I have to wonder Pyrex, did you start this thread with a genuine interest in what other people have experienced, or did you start it just to argue with everybody and bash Obamacare? Once you got to the point of calling Rolling Stone magazine terrorist-lovers your credibility pretty much flew out of the window, imo.

[Edited 2013-10-18 08:36:35]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As a reference on average my cost of insurance,same employer and very similar coverage year to year has been approx 15% a year for the the last 5 years.

So - what is different now?

Pyrex - to make a fair comparison (which is what you are obviously trying to do) tell us - what has been the average increase in your premiums in pre-Obamacare years - so we can compare properly.

Isis this the first time your premiums have gone up? The rest of us have seen them go up dramatically for a while now.

[Edited 2013-10-18 08:20:12]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8062 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting trav110 (Reply 21):
I have to wonder Pyrex, did you start this thread with a genuine interest in what other people have experienced, or did you start it just to argue with everybody and bash Obamacare?

I like the bit where he describes himself as a "refugee", somehow equating a high tax rate (that comes with universal medical care and a generous welfare state, good education and a high standard of living) to, I dunno, ethnic cleansing, or perhaps a hideous natural disaster like a tsunami.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 23):
I like the bit where he describes himself as a "refugee", somehow equating a high tax rate (that comes with universal medical care and a generous welfare state, good education and a high standard of living) to, I dunno, ethnic cleansing, or perhaps a hideous natural disaster like a tsunami.

As sheep like to say "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence".


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3667 times:

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 20):
50 weeks * 40 hours equals 2.000 hours
$1.800 / 2.000 hours = $ 0,90 per hour

whoops, Ok thanks.

So far we have heard from people who have company provided insurance.

The sign up for those who do not seems to be a bit of a massive failure.
Roughly a 13 week sign up period for 30,000,000 which would equate to about 5,000,000 should have been able to sign up by now not 20,000.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
Since Obamacare does not start until January, lets hope the system gets better

I would have expected a few problems but not this massive of a fail. They have been working on it for 3 years, I would have doubts that the problems can be corrected in a few weeks. The shorter the time frame the larger the load on the computer system will be and it appears it can only deal with about 10,000 a week.

Okie


User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26863 posts, RR: 58
Reply 26, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3658 times:

Quoting trav110 (Reply 21):
I have to wonder Pyrex, did you start this thread with a genuine interest in what other people have experienced, or did you start it just to argue with everybody and bash Obamacare?

Its all in the thread title .   ''Your experience with Obamacare'' Would have been unbiased.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 23):
I like the bit where he describes himself as a "refugee",

Indeed glad I am not the only one! Often looking back on previous threads is a good idea to get a picture.

I would rather suggest ''Economic migrant worker'' is the factual description. That is where a person can not make it in their own country for whatever reason and move to another country to better their career and lifestyle. Most people are grateful for this chance and also admit that they must pay their way to enjoy the lifestyle that they wish to enjoy. They are a guest in that country until such time they obtain US Citizenship. Just like my US branch of the Family who migrated to the USA.

Furthermore if an individual is not happy with their contract or benefits then they look for something that is more in tune with their expectations. If a person is that much of an asset then an employer may be willing to cover 85% - 100% of free healthcare along with other perks. I guess it just goes by the value the company put on your skills etc...

People should be happy with what they have and not try to claw back every $$ at the expense of others especially when they have a good lifestyle. We all have to contribute in our working lifetime for the good of the country and its citizens. I will never have kids but you dont see me bitching about tax breaks and child benefits I am paying in my taxes for.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 27, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3694 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can see how people who might have to pay more will be annoyed about that, but I can't really understand why there isn't a greater realisation of the benefit to society of doing so. Unless, of course, you actually have some serious data to show that this isn't going to significantly improve access to better healthcare for huge sections of society, I really don't think there's anything to gripe about. Also, with a bit of luck, it might lead to some private insurers pricing themselves a little more competitively, knowing that people are likely to be a little more discerning in the face of any potential price increases.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinejohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2577 posts, RR: 7
Reply 28, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 27):
I can see how people who might have to pay more will be annoyed about that, but I can't really understand why there isn't a greater realisation of the benefit to society of doing so.

Because they'd actually have to give a damn about other people in society.

Really, that's what it comes down to.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 29, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Count yourself VERY lucky that someone is paying your way for you !

Here here, it's amazing how selfish some folks really are, universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt along with education, everything else follows along behind.

Is it just me or does nobody else see the blatant hypocrisy here?

You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it. Or worse yet, deficit-spend and let our kids and grandkids pay for your healthcare.

I understand the appeal of single-payer healthcare, but don't BS us about it being less selfish. Single-payer is the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility - as opposed to a pure universal mandate (with no subsidies) which would be the legal imposition of personal responsibility.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 30, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting johnboy (Reply 28):
Because they'd actually have to give a damn about other people in society.

Really, that's what it comes down to.

Yes. But I guess the bit that I really don't get is that even if you are that selfish, the health of society as a whole is something that actually does affect everybody, economically and socially, whether directly or indirectly.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Was wondering where you were getting some made-up stories given the reactions have been almost universally negative (with even many liberal journalists /commentators admitting it has been "less than smooth", to use an euphemism) but then I saw it - it came from the terrorist-lovers over at Rolling Stone.

Read the article and you'll find those stories are just links to other stories on other websites (e.g. the first one comes from the Salt Lake Tribune). They might all be untrue, but if they are then Rolling Stone didn't make them up.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it.

Not sure who you are addressing but your argument assumes the people arguing for universal healthcare don't pay taxes. I for one pay a lot of tax- I am happy to both pay for my insurance and subsidize the insurance of somebody who can't afford to pay.

Is that selfish or not? I have no idea. Personally I think I gain immensely by living in a society that protects its weaker members rather than vilifies them to abdicate any responsibility for them, in which case one may argue that it is selfish I suppose. But in that sense everything is selfish.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
Since Obamacare does not start until January, lets hope the system gets better.

For those of us who had our premiums jacked up and our coverage modified to cope with the changes, it started in 2010.

Lets hope people will start to be honest about this. Obamacare has significantly increased the cost of insurance.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):
Due to "Obamacare" or due to you job choosing not to cover her? Sounds like you job sucks!

Petty and ignorant. If someone gets dropped its because the cost of insurance increased the employee overhead so substantially that it became financially impractical for the company to continue to pay those benefits. Anyone who thinks getting dropped makes for a poor employer does not have a single clue about how insurance works.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 33, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 31):
Not sure who you are addressing but your argument assumes the people arguing for universal healthcare don't pay taxes. I for one pay a lot of tax- I am happy to both pay for my insurance and subsidize the insurance of somebody who can't afford to pay.

Is that selfish or not? I have no idea. Personally I think I gain immensely by living in a society that protects its weaker members rather than vilifies them to abdicate any responsibility for them, in which case one may argue that it is selfish I suppose. But in that sense everything is selfish.

Absolutely spot-on with the observations there. There are many out there, myself included, who pay a large amount of tax and are nonetheless perfectly happy to work and act for the greater good, No man is an island. It's in everyone's interests to have a healthy, productive society.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 31):
Not sure who you are addressing but your argument assumes the people arguing for universal healthcare don't pay taxes. I for one pay a lot of tax- I am happy to both pay for my insurance and subsidize the insurance of somebody who can't afford to pay.

That's not the part I object to. I also believe that those who can't afford basic health care deserve some help, and it is the moral duty of those better off to provide that help. Which is why (or at least a reason) I pay my taxes and donate to health-related charities like St. Jude's

What gets up my nose is when those people who need help (or those who self-righteously advocate for them) don't ask for help, but demand it. They don't appreciate the help they get, but see it as their right to get it and call those who question the right as "selfish".



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6075 posts, RR: 29
Reply 35, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It has cost my employer and myself to pay more for health insurance. How? Now lazy dead beats who are 25 can still be on their parent's policy. Those additional people are costing my employer more. They cost their parents more too, but that part of it isn't affecting me.

Now that people can't be denied coverage that means that costs must go up to cover those people.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 27):
but I can't really understand why there isn't a greater realisation of the benefit to society of doing so

I don't have a problem with the benefit to society thing, I have a problem that the government is telling us WE MUST buy something from a private company, or anyone else. Never in history have Americans ever been required to by something, under legal penalty from the IRS. Some people want to use the car insurance analogy, but that is false because nobody makes you buy a car.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
so that the less well off in their country can afford to be covered.

There was article in the Detroit Free Press last Sunday about the thousands of Michiganders who are going to lose their insurance or have to pay A LOT more. These people are forced to buy insurance (their previous insurance didn't meet the Obama standard) and their premiums are going up a lot. Many of these people make too much money to qualify for the government subsidy.

http://www.freep.com/article/2013101...s-being-dropped-Obamacare-Michigan

Quoting photopilot (Reply 1):
Wonderful to finally hear and read that basic medical care is now a reality.

It always was. Hospital Emergency rooms were always filled with poor people who were seeking and received medical care.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Yes its great to see that the selfish people who only care about themselves are being silenced so that the less well off in their country can afford to be covered.

Lots of regular working stiffs are the ones getting stuck with higher premiums. A lot of people are sick are tired of having to work hard so we can pay for the less fortunate, who many times bring their problems on themselves.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt along with education, everything else follows along behind.

That would be nice, but the affordable care act doesn't do that.


Those of you who don't live in the USA need to understand something. The Affordable Care act is NOT universal tax payer funded healthcare, which many nations have. People are REQUIRED to purchase health insurance from private companies. If you don't make enough money you can get a subsidy. If you pay for your own insurance now your premiums will likely increase so people will be spending more on healthcare than before. This is the bill the insurance companies wanted, you must pay them and they will set their fees accordingly. Many people are the left like to make villains out of the oil companies because they get government subsidies and make huge profits. How will those same people feel when health insurance giants become even richer no that they can charge what they want and if you are poor you can have the government pay. The private insurers will become wealthier and have more sway in policy than they do now.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3528 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 12):
The problem is not employer provided insurance but going to Obamacare to insure yourself or family member.
This morning the Obamacare news release is that in the first two weeks they have been able to sign up 20,000 and claiming a major success and minor problems. That is roughly 10,000 per week there are suppose to be 30,000,000 that need to sign up so that equates to 3000 weeks or 57 years before they can get the eligible signed up.
Right now it appears to be a massive out house mess but if you prefer to a call that a success then more power to you.

Lets hope we do not have to wait 57 years to get medical treatment.

Okie

Good thing according to this doc your data is flat out wrong. Perhaps you need to post your sources instead of heresay

http://obamacaresignups.net/

363,000 sign ups (excluding everyone on healthcare.gov as the government has to release stats).

This site lists NY at 40,000 as of Oct 9 .

http://www.webmd.com/health-insuranc...ys-40000-have-applied-for-coverage


The administration is targeting 500,000 by Oct 31.

The signup will not be linear. It will be exponential as folks reach the end of the year and have evaluated their insurance needs for the year,

[Edited 2013-10-18 10:51:39]


Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 37, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 12):
That is roughly 10,000 per week there are suppose to be 30,000,000 that need to sign up so that equates to 3000 weeks or 57 years before they can get the eligible signed up.

Totally bogus logic, okie. You are presuming that 10k/week is the max that the system can do for the next 57 years, and you have no idea how many actually tried to use the system.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 16):
Oh wait, the reason for that: my wife got booted from my insurance plan due to Obamacare.

No, she got booted because your employer booted her.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Is it just me or does nobody else see the blatant hypocrisy here?

You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it.

How do you know the poster doesn't "actually" pay income taxes ???

Pretty mean-spirited post, IMHO.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 38, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 34):
That's not the part I object to. I also believe that those who can't afford basic health care deserve some help, and it is the moral duty of those better off to provide that help. Which is why (or at least a reason) I pay my taxes and donate to health-related charities like St. Jude's What gets up my nose is when those people who need help (or those who self-righteously advocate for them) don't ask for help, but demand it. They don't appreciate the help they get, but see it as their right to get it and call those who question the right as "selfish".

You say it's a "moral duty"- if it's a duty it's fair to demand that people do it in my opinion. For me personally I don't donate to charity for the thank you letter I get (which goes straight in the bin). The same applies to this.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3465 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37):
Totally bogus logic, okie. You are presuming that 10k/week is the max that the system can do for the next 57 years, and you have no idea how many actually tried to use the system.

Into the third week and nothing from what we hear has changed yet.

So my question is why would you be defending a 99+% failure rate and leaving 30M uninsured, who desperately need insurance, instead of calling for some accountability?

Okie


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 40, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3467 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 32):
mpractical for the company to continue to pay those benefits

That means that it is a crappy company to work for. Find a new a new job. Problem solved. Find a job that pays for you think your skill are worth, if you cant find a job like that. What can i say? Personal responsibility, should have chosen a better career. Its your problem - not mines.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 35):
Now that people can't be denied coverage that means that costs must go up to cover those people.

Quantify these "costs". As i said before, my insurance premiums have been going up as every year by about 15%.. This year was a tad more. What is the issue?

You guys act like healthcare cost in this country has never increased, and Obamacare is the first time that it has,.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 41, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 38):
You say it's a "moral duty"- if it's a duty it's fair to demand that people do it in my opinion.

No it is not. A moral duty is something you should want to do on your own.

You are driving down a lonely road, and see somebody stuck in the ditch. You have a moral obligation to stop and help. Should you be legally required to do so?

(assume for the scenario that personal safety is not an issue - you are a big beefy guy with a CCW and a gun at your hip)



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

Quoting OA260 (Reply 2):
Yes its great to see that the selfish people who only care about themselves are being silenced so that the less well off in their country can afford to be covered. Never understood the attitude that people would rather their fellow citizens die of cancer than agree a plan to help them get the drugs they need. Lets hope those (Horror ) stories get less and less.

Usually those who would sell their families into slavery if they could as long it meant their favorite company turned a profit. Or who wouldn't mind to return to 12-18 hours shift for workers and child labor, a la Industrial Revolution.


Of course, as long is not -them- being forced into those conditions.


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 954 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Fr8mech....you might wann read up on HSA's/FSA's. You can use your HSA monies to pay for your spouse's medical expenses. They do NOT need to be on your plan. All the IRS requires...NOT employer or insurer, is that the person has to be a tax dependent of yours. And vice-versa for her HSA.


Carpe Pices
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 44, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):

You are driving down a lonely road, and see somebody stuck in the ditch. You have a moral obligation to stop and help. Should you be legally required to do so?

Yes. If you're physically able to, and you've seen such a person in serious peril and risk of death, I believe that you should be. I believe some countries even have such laws, particularly where accidents are concerned,



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 40):

That means that it is a crappy company to work for. Find a new a new job. Problem solved. Find a job that pays for you think your skill are worth, if you cant find a job like that. What can i say? Personal responsibility, should have chosen a better career. Its your problem - not mines.

Yes. Personal responsibility. Like not having to rely on something like Obamacare for insurance right?


User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3393 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 36):
Good thing according to this doc your data is flat out wrong. Perhaps you need to post your sources instead of heresayhttp://obamacaresignups.net/

I tried that 9 different times. Massive fail. Should I try 100 times to get the correct failure rate.


Okie


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2301 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 32):
Lets hope people will start to be honest about this. Obamacare has significantly increased the cost of insurance.

My health insurance premiums (with a previous employer) were going up significantly every year long before Obama ever ran for President.

Quoting falstaff (Reply 35):
The Affordable Care act is NOT universal tax payer funded healthcare, which many nations have.

Because the insurance companies, through their lobbyists and campaign contributions, prevented any legislation that would have allowed us to move to that model.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 48, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 45):

Yes. Personal responsibility. Like not having to rely on something like Obamacare for insurance right?

This means that you agree his job suck for dropping his wife. Thank you,.Join me in telling him to find a better job.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 49, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 32):
Obamacare has significantly increased the cost of insurance.

No it hasn't. It has increased the amount of insurance people need to carry. If our capitalist friends are right, the market will correct for this.

Quoting okie (Reply 39):
Into the third week and nothing from what we hear has changed yet.

I realize the following may have been posted while you are writing, but it shows yet again how flawed your logic was:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 36):
363,000 sign ups (excluding everyone on healthcare.gov as the government has to release stats).

This site lists NY at 40,000 as of Oct 9 .

So we're over 10 times the rate your logic predicted. Keep in mind too that:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 36):

The signup will not be linear. It will be exponential as folks reach the end of the year and have evaluated their insurance needs for the year,

  

Quoting okie (Reply 39):
So my question is why would you be defending a 99 % failure rate and leaving 30M uninsured, who desperately need insurance, instead of calling for some accountability?

I hate to be the one to ask "source, please" but IMHO you really do need to provide a source for such a statement.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 45):
Yes. Personal responsibility. Like not having to rely on something like Obamacare for insurance right?

Personal responsibility is arranging to have medical coverage. It's much less responsible to walk into an emergency room without any coverage.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 46):
I tried that 9 different times. Massive fail. Should I try 100 times to get the correct failure rate.

All you have to do on this site to post a link is copy the link from your browser and paste it in.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

The Obamacare websites where all jammed up because an awful lot of people are trying to apply for service. Other than that the Tea Party insisted government shutdown and the poor mainstream Republicans who are going to get a primary challenge from Tea Party reactionaries because they didn't vote the way Heritage wanted them to vote.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

I work for a Fortune-100 company and here's what I can expect next year, January 2014.

My monthly paycheck deduction will increase by 54%.
My deductible increases 300%.
Our co-pays will increase 33% to in-network physicians.
Emergency room visit co-pays double.
Prescriptions go from $25 each to $55 each. If we go quarterly we pay $140 per quarter, per script.
I have to submit height and weight to our HR office annually.
I will be charged, up front, for all co-pays and deductibles if I or my spouse is treated in a doctor's office or hospital. I will have to write a check for a few thousand dollars before they will see me. After the bill settles I can receive a rebate if I overpaid. This may take up to 6 months for a simple procedure. (We used to go for our appointment, pay our co-pay, and receive a bill for charges that insurance didn't cover. Now I have to pay an estimated charge and wait for a refund.)

What we receive:
Free birth control pills.

Thanks, Obama. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 53, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 52):
I work for a Fortune-100 company and here's what I can expect next year, January 2014.

Seems you should 'opt out' and let the capitalist market service your needs. Changes of this magnitude are not due to Obamacare, it's due to your Fortune 100 company deciding to dump on you.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3286 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Is it just me or does nobody else see the blatant hypocrisy here?

You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it. Or worse yet, deficit-spend and let our kids and grandkids pay for your healthcare.

No hypocrisy at all I pay a massive amount of tax, I want something in return for the tax I pay and that's healthcare and education for my children. But in the US those that can and should pay more tax have a hissy fit when asked to do so.


User currently offlinemaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 35):


Those of you who don't live in the USA need to understand something. The Affordable Care act is NOT universal tax payer funded healthcare, which many nations have. People are REQUIRED to purchase health insurance from private companies. If you don't make enough money you can get a subsidy. If you pay for your own insurance now your premiums will likely increase so people will be spending more on healthcare than before. This is the bill the insurance companies wanted, you must pay them and they will set their fees accordingly. Many people are the left like to make villains out of the oil companies because they get government subsidies and make huge profits. How will those same people feel when health insurance giants become even richer no that they can charge what they want and if you are poor you can have the government pay. The private insurers will become wealthier and have more sway in policy than they do now.

Mostly true.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 40):

You guys act like healthcare cost in this country has never increased, and Obamacare is the first time that it has,.

There we go. I don't particularly like putting all the blame on the ACA for increasing insurance rates, as anyone with half a brain knows that insurance rates have been climbing since before I entered the workforce.



People, we're in the middle of the largest overhaul of a system ever. Anyone who thought that it would be smooth 3 weeks after the FIRST stage is implemented (especially when you have people who don't quite know what to do yet and companies taking advantage of that confusion for their own profits) is incredibly naive and short-sighted, and probably blinded by partisan politics.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 53):
Seems you should 'opt out' and let the capitalist market service your needs. Changes of this magnitude are not due to Obamacare, it's due to your Fortune 100 company deciding to dump on you.

Nope. We can thank Aetna for the increases. I've been on a steering committee for the past 12 months and Aetna is to blame.

I have great insurance and if I were to join an exchange it would cost me more than I pay currently. I'm stuck either way.



Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 52):
Fortune-100 company and here's what I can expect next year, January 2014.

Find a job with better benefits then. I have had no major changes for 2014.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 56):
Nope. We can thank Aetna for the increases. I've been on a steering committee for the past 12 months and Aetna is to blame.

I guess the "Fortune 100" company sucks at negotiations insurance plans then.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 58, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):
You are driving down a lonely road, and see somebody stuck in the ditch. You have a moral obligation to stop and help. Should you be legally required to do so?

If their life or safety is in danger, absolutely. If it's just for them to avoid a little inconvenience it's not a moral duty, so no.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 57):

Ah shucks. You silly kids have such an overly simplistic view of the world.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 60, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3220 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 59):
Ah shucks. You silly kids have such an overly simplistic view of the world.

It is simple. Work at a place that fulfill your needs. What is so complicated about that? No one has you tied to a company. Take responsibility and move on if you are not happy. There are plenty of other companies who do not treat their employees that way.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 60):
It is simple. Work at a place that fulfill your needs. What is so complicated about that? No one has you tied to a company. Take responsibility and move on if you are not happy. There are plenty of other companies who do not treat their employees that way.

Like I said. Such a simplistic view you have.

So do you actually have a job or a family with any responsibilities to people other than yourself or are you happy Obamcare keeps you on Mom and Pops policy until you're 26? I ask because people with real responsibilities can't just pick up and leave as you suggest. Its just a general question. I have insurance and am able to pay for the expensive changes I've encountered, but others can't so it seems to me you either don't have responsibilities other than yourself, don't have insurance that you actually have to pay for, or you simply aren't open minded enough to comprehend the problems others might encounter.

[Edited 2013-10-18 13:49:03]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 61):
Like I said. Such a simplistic view you have.

Personal responsibility is a simple concept.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5692 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3185 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 35):
It has cost my employer and myself to pay more for health insurance. How? Now lazy dead beats who are 25 can still be on their parent's policy. Those additional people are costing my employer more. They cost their parents more too, but that part of it isn't affecting me.

Thanks for making a general lump assumption and calling everyone that did that including me a deadbeat. I respected a lot of what you said up until this line...

That new law or policy, helped my parents tremendously and myself too. I am disabled and deaf as you may or may not have read about me in postings. Because the insurance required them to keep me I was able to have a life changing surgery, the cochlear implant through that. It has improved my quality of life in so many ways. I was going to college full time and working part time. I was not laying around the house milking off that and going to the doctor for every cough I had.

I am also one that had a pre existing condition, being deaf. I may be deaf and a lot of things people like to call me, but being a deadbeat is NOT one of them.

Next time re generalize and re state "some of those are people who do that, but not all of them" You really branch everyone including me into one group when it is absolutely not true.

I am 26 now, and have my own job, full time and now paying for my own insurance through my job. I am thankful for that opportunity that has me be a "deadbeat" as you claim..to have a surgery that allows me to stand on my own and work for myself.



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 62):
Personal responsibility is a simple concept.

So then I and others shouldn't have to foot the bill for Obamacare right? See. It is a simple concept.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 64):

So then I and others shouldn't have to foot the bill for Obamacare right? See. It is a simple concept.

Therefore, if you believe that, you agree that changing jobs to something that suits your need is just as simple.

[Edited 2013-10-18 13:57:43]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 66, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 17):

Yes, due to Obamacare.

Let me ask you a question:

What is the goal of a for-profit organization? Is it to employ people? Is it to provide health insurance or other benefits? Is it to be a responsible corporate citizen? Those, among other things, are what an organization does to meet its real function.

A for-profit organization has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to make as much profit as possible within the constraints created by the market, the environment and the government.

So, as much as I would like to blame my employer...and I do a little...the root cause of my wife being booted from my insurance is that the bean-counters made a determination that maintaining the bottom line (by the way, we operate on a 1.5-2.0% margin on any given year), required that eligible spouses be moved off the employee's benefits because of the constraints introduced by Obamacare.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 64):
So then I and others shouldn't have to foot the bill for Obamacare right? See. It is a simple concept.

But it's not a simple concept. Only your perception of it. If you had an idea of the way billing and costs are deployed by hospitals, you would realize how Naïve your statement is .



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 65):
Therefore, you agree that changing jobs to something that suits your need is just as simple.

Only a person who has no other responsibilities but to themselves would believe this. I don't think you believe it either. I think you just like repeating yourself.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 67):
But it's not a simple concept. Only your perception of it. If you had an idea of the way billing and costs are deployed by hospitals, you would realize how Naïve your statement is .


I really don't think you have a grasp of the context in which that was said. It was rhetorical.

[Edited 2013-10-18 14:04:25]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 70, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 68):
Only a person who has no other responsibilities but to themselves would believe this. I

Isn't that the GOP "mantra" - screw everyone.. i'm looking out for ME.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 68):
I don't think you believe it either.

Of course i dont.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 66):

So, as much as I would like to blame my employer...and I do a little...the root cause of my wife being booted from my insurance is that the bean-counters made a determination that maintaining the bottom line (by the way, we operate on a 1.5-2.0% margin on any given year), required that eligible spouses be moved off the employee's benefits because of the constraints introduced by Obamacare.

Boo hoo.. crappy company.. Quit. Look out for yourself.. Get a better job at a better company.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 71, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 69):

I really don't think you have a grasp of the context in which that was said. It was rhetorical.

How is it rhetorical, when we know that is how you feel about the ACA?



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineosubuckeyes From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 678 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3129 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 70):
Boo hoo.. crappy company.. Quit. Look out for yourself.. Get a better job at a better company.

Pickup all roots a move your family right now. Completely overhaul your whole life and all your career decisions to this point. Completely rebudget and rethink the rest of your life. Completely cut ties with all the relationships you have at your company and to an extent throw that away. Ever think that maybe the grass is not always greener? That's like telling a team if you don't like losing just go win. Its not, and never is that simple.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 70):
Isn't that the GOP "mantra" - screw everyone.. i'm looking out for ME.

No, it is having the freedom to choose, and having that opportunity of choice. Unfortunately the world is not a simple place and many people live in, or are born into situations that they cannot control. The difference between Dems and the GOP is the role of the government in protecting the basic freedoms that our country is founded on. Nobody here wants to see someone die because they don't have health coverage, but everyone has different ideas on how it should be allotted.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
Let Us Hear Your Obamacare (horror?) Stories  

My sister can now afford healthcare.


I'll admit, I have big problems with this bill. The debate should be how we can fix it, not how can we sabotage/repeal it. Maybe if the GOP helped out the last few years we'd have a pretty decent bill by now

[Edited 2013-10-18 14:15:19]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3131 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 70):
Boo hoo.. crappy company.. Quit. Look out for yourself.. Get a better job at a better company.

Wow. Awesome retort.

Yup, a crappy company that employs 400,000 worldwide. A crappy company that has been in business for over 100 years. A crappy company that has employed me for almost 25 years. A crappy company that has put me through college and entrusted me with millions.

Sorry, I have more loyalty than that.

But, I digress: the topic is 'let's hear your Obamacare stories' and you've heard mine.

I suspect that as the years go on, we will hear more horror stories as this monstrosity collapses upon itself and our most benevolent government rides to the rescue and decides that 'single payer' is the only thing that can save healthcare in the US.

But, of course, that has always been the goal.

Good luck.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3109 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 72):
No, it is having the freedom to choose, and having that opportunity of choice.

You have the freedom to choice. Accept what ever crappy insurance you are offered or don't accept it and move on. Choose to stay at a job or not.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):
Yup, a crappy company that employs 400,000 worldwide. A crappy company that has been in business for over 100 years. A crappy company that has employed me for almost 25 years. A crappy company that has put me through college and entrusted me with millions

Yet drops your wife and only run on 1.5-2.0% margin?

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 72):
Unfortunately the world is not a simple place and many people live in, or are born into situations that they cannot control.

Whaa!.. shhh you sound like a liberal .. "situations that they cannot control" - please.. You hippie!

[Edited 2013-10-18 14:26:59]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting osubuckeyes (Reply 72):
Pickup all roots a move your family right now. Completely overhaul your whole life and all your career decisions to this point. Completely rebudget and rethink the rest of your life. Completely cut ties with all the relationships you have at your company and to an extent throw that away. Ever think that maybe the grass is not always greener? That's like telling a team if you don't like losing just go win. Its not, and never is that simple.

I agree here- you can't just switch jobs at the drop of a hat. That same argument (that switching jobs is difiicult) is the one used by Democrats to advocate a minimum wage; you can't have it both ways.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 70):
Boo hoo.. crappy company.. Quit. Look out for yourself.. Get a better job at a better company.

Dude, really? Instead of acknowledging that the ACA is an imperfect bill (right?) you just assume his company sucks? When supporters of the ACA act like you just did it does nothing to improve opinions of it.

We need to see the shortfalls of it and try to fix it. People saying that the ACA won't EVER raise rates/cause employers to drop coverage/cause employers to cut hours below 30 hours are just as dishonest and ridiculous as the ones saying the ACA is a socialist construct meant to destroy the US

I realize that some companies might use the ACA as an excuse to complain or cut services, but let's not cover our ears and close our eyes to the obvious short comings



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 78, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3094 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):
Wow. Awesome retort.

Yup, a crappy company that employs 400,000 worldwide. A crappy company that has been in business for over 100 years. A crappy company that has employed me for almost 25 years. A crappy company that has put me through college and entrusted me with millions.

To be fair, while it may have been a rather deliberately simplistic and somewhat provocative comment, there is a point there. The fact that you have loyalty to a company that has serious pedigree and has treated you well is very commendable, but if their margins are too razor-thin to give you decent benefits in changeing times, where others cope and offer much better support, then that says a lot. It's easy to heap the blame on the government, but they know that governments change and conditions alter. It's a two-way street, and other companies out there are apparently able to weather the 'storm' much better. That says more about their operation than it does about government policy.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 79, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3090 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 78):
It's a two-way street, and other companies out there are apparently able to weather the 'storm' much better. That says more about their operation than it does about government policy.

True, but measures can be taken to ensure that weaker companies aren't destroyed by a measure that's supposed to help America. Like I said in my previous post, it blows my mind to see people saying "oh, tough luck, your company was weak and the ACA destroyed it (in this case, drop his spouse's coverage) but that's not the ACA's fault. Why do you hate the ACA?!"

I'd hope that the supporters of ACA would try and look for ways to alleviate the pain caused by the bill, not stand on the partisan 'the ACA is perfect' line



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 71):
How is it rhetorical, when we know that is how you feel about the ACA?

I don't like Obamacare. A lot of people don't. I don't like what it has done to my insurance. I think its a waste. It has more problems than a two legged zebra getting chased by a lion.

But guess what....It was a rhetorical question.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):
A crappy company that has employed me for almost 25 years.

Now that you're close to retirement, you should punch out. Its easy. Just walk away. Leave the house, the kids and the wife behind. No problem man!  banghead 

[Edited 2013-10-18 14:40:22]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3047 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
I don't like Obamacare.

You right not to "like" anything. I don't like Kale.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
A lot of people don't.

A lot of people do. See Election 2012.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
I don't like what it has done to my insurance

It has not done anything to mines. Sounds like YOUR problem - not mines.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
Now that you're close to retirement, you should punch out. Its easy. Just walk away. Leave the house, the kids and the wife behind. No problem man!

Thanks the same argument that is made when people complain about minimum wage employees, and how they are depend on help to make ends meet. i can hear ir now "Quit McDonalds and be a trust fund manager, make it happen - take responsibility" It just as simple

[Edited 2013-10-18 15:05:40]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 82, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
it blows my mind to see people saying "oh, tough luck, your company was weak and the ACA destroyed it (in this case, drop his spouse's coverage) but that's not the ACA's fault. Why do you hate the ACA?!"

Oh. I quite agree with the fact that it's quite understandable for people to be against it if they feel they're personally losing out, or that their employer is. On the other hand though, this is a huge change and no major changes like this can come about with breaking a few eggs for the proverbial omelette to be made.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 80):
I think its a waste. It has more problems than a two legged zebra getting chased by a lion.

It has problems, but it's the start of a journey. The first incarnation of more socialised healthcare in a country like the USA is never going to be without its issues - but it's a start.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 83, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3034 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
I'll admit, I have big problems with this bill. The debate should be how we can fix it, not how can we sabotage/repeal it. Maybe if the GOP helped out the last few years we'd have a pretty decent bill by now

I am not so sure- I think however the GOP participated we'd have ended up with what we have, namely a bill whose effects will not be fully understood for a while. We are talking about such a huge subject here- the healthcare of every individual in the US- that it's impossible IMO to predict much of anything right now.

Like you I believe the conversation we should be having is "what negative effects is this bill having right now, and how can we mitigate them in the short term until we understand its long term effects?". Then when the long-term effects are known we can have the conversation about whether the healthcare law is perfect, generally good but in need of modification, or a total loss.

Instead everybody's having the latter conversation now and ignoring the former.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 81):
Thanks the same argument that is made when people complain about minimum wage employees

Minimum wage jobs aren't careers.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 81):
A lot of people do. See Election 2012.

Wait, you think the election was won over Obamacare?  laughing 

Please keep thinking this!

[Edited 2013-10-18 15:14:19]

User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3012 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 84):
Wait, you think the election was won over Obamacare? laughing

"Obama %u201Cthinks that government can do a better job than you in the way you live your life and Obamacare is point No. 1,%u201D Romney said in Westerville. %u201CHe wants to put bureaucrats between you and your doctor. He believes that government should tell you what kind of insurance you have to have. He believes government should have a board of people who tell you what kind of care you can receive.%u201D

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81728.html#ixzz2i7AE6HZK

What the Court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States," said the presumptive GOP nominee. "And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-...eal-obamacare-2012-6#ixzz2i7AgCfwp

Romney: "Obamacare" is bad policy, bad law

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413216n

. "I'm gonna get rid of Obamacare. ... will recognize we really do need to have someone new lead this country," he told Fox News.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79):
True, but measures can be taken to ensure that weaker companies aren't destroyed by a measure that's supposed to help America.

Not weaker companies, weak companies.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 84):
Wait, you think the election was won over Obamacare?

The people that voted blue because of Obamacare are the same people who always vote blue.

I voted blue mostly because I refuse to allow "religious" homophobic asshats to deny gay couples the same rights everyone else has.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):


Yup, a crappy company that employs 400,000 worldwide. A crappy company that has been in business for over 100 years. A crappy company that has employed me for almost 25 years. A crappy company that has put me through college and entrusted me with millions.

Hate to break it to you, but your company is not the same one it was 25 years ago, much less 100 years ago. I'm sure they're proud to have such a loyal employee, but at the end of the day they cut your benefits without a moment's hesitation. Doesn't sound like they have much loyalty to you.

Just because a company has lots of employees and has been around a long time doesn't make it immune to failure. I'm not sure what school you went to or what you majored in, but a regular 1-2% profit margin does not meet the definition of successful... unless you're talking about a non-profit or are dealing with billion dollar profits on trillion dollar revenues, in which case the ACA wouldn't make a dent.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 85):
"Obama %u201Cthinks that government can do a better job than you in the way you live your life and Obamacare is point No. 1,%u201D Romney said in Westerville. %u201CHe wants to put bureaucrats between you and your doctor. He believes that government should tell you what kind of insurance you have to have. He believes government should have a board of people who tell you what kind of care you can receive.%u201DRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81728.html#ixzz2i7AE6HZKWhat the Court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States," said the presumptive GOP nominee. "And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-...macare-2012-6#ixzz2i7AgCfwpRomney: "Obamacare" is bad policy, bad lawhttp://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413216n. "I'm gonna get rid of Obamacare. ... will recognize we really do need to have someone new lead this country," he told Fox News.


Please, keep thinking this. I beg of you.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 88, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2977 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 87):
Please, keep thinking this. I beg of you.

Clearly Obamacare at least did not harm Obama enough to cause him to lose the election. That means it's less unpopular than the polls would suggest.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 89, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 88):
Clearly Obamacare at least did not harm Obama enough to cause him to lose the election. That means it's less unpopular than the polls would suggest.

I take issue with this line of reasoning and that Obamacare was somehow "elected." No, it's more than just that. The President did plenty during his first term. Yes, the ACA was his big legislation, but it wasn't 100% of his term. But more importantly, I think, is whether they wanted the President or Romney. So no, it's not as simple as "The President was reelected = the majority like the ACA."

IIRC, most polls didn't show a majority of support for the ACA back when it was being voted on and still today I don't think it has a majority. If not, it has plenty of opposition... not just from the GOP/TP. There are serious issues with it and it needs a lot of work. Maybe some can brush away all of the negatives that are going along with it but I'd rather not settle with a broken law. That doesn't mean I'm like the GOP/TP and want to kill the law, no, there is just a lot of room for improvement IMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2954 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
I take issue with this line of reasoning and that Obamacare was somehow "elected." No, it's more than just that. The President did plenty during his first term. Yes, the ACA was his big legislation, but it wasn't 100% of his term.

I think if you asked most people (including Democrats) to describe the achievements of Obama's first term, they'd probably think of killing OBL and enacting the ACA. So it's equally wrong to say that it was an insignificant percentage of his first term.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
But more importantly, I think, is whether they wanted the President or Romney.

You cannot separate the man from the policies IMO. Perhaps his achievements weren't 100% of the reason he was reelected, but again, can they be said to have been an insignificant percentage?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 89):
So no, it's not as simple as "The President was reelected = the majority like the ACA."

Naturally not- remember most Democrats don't like the ACA either, but they support the President for having made steps in the right direction. The reelection is not a mandate to change nothing and leave the law exactly as is, but it is a signal that the electorate believe the ACA is a step on the right path.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 91, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 90):
So it's equally wrong to say that it was an insignificant percentage of his first term.

Yes, I completely agree. I didn't say it was "insignificant," I even said it was his big legislation, unless something else bigger happens in this term, I believe that is what he'll be remembered for (minus the obvious, being the first black president)

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 90):
The reelection is not a mandate to change nothing and leave the law exactly as is, but it is a signal that the electorate believe the ACA is a step on the right path.

Not quite... it's completely plausible to have the President reelected and have support for the ACA under 50%. You cannot say him getting reelected means there is a majority support for the ACA. Again, it could have simply been that more people preferred to have a President Obama over a President Romney (I'm not saying the ACA didn't have anything to do with the election at all though)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 92, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 91):
Not quite... it's completely plausible to have the President reelected and have support for the ACA under 50%.

Plausible- but as far as I can see the polls don't bear that out. A minority of poll recipients seem to agree with the statement that Obamacare should be completely repealed- and that has been the case since before the election.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 93, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 92):
Plausible- but as far as I can see the polls don't bear that out. A minority of poll recipients seem to agree with the statement that Obamacare should be completely repealed- and that has been the case since before the election.

Ah, that is where it gets less certain. I really should pull up the actual polls, but I'm kinda lazy right now   but yes, the polls I have seen disagree with the total repeal of the ACA but other polls, IIRC, said most Americans are unhappy with it. Basically, there are many problems with it.

But now we are moving away from our original argument... basically, I'm contesting the notion that we "reelected/upheld the ACA." That cannot be proven, could very well be wrong, and some people interpret that as "the ACA is more or less perfect and any objection is right wing propaganda/bad businesses." The GOP/TP crying wolf all the time isn't helping but they actually do have some valid criticisms. The website's launch, for example. The GOP/TP are having a field day over it and suggesting that the individual mandate should be delayed a whole year because of it... that is way to extreme, IMO, but the retort I often hear is "oh, just some glitches." No, we need to hold that failure accountable, and how far they went over the original cost of the website too, is unacceptable.

The Democrats should be on the forefront of the ACA's fixing, IMO.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 94, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):
but other polls, IIRC, said most Americans are unhappy with it. Basically, there are many problems with it.

I don't disagree there are problems.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):
The GOP/TP crying wolf all the time isn't helping but they actually do have some valid criticisms.

Perhaps some of the GOP should listen to that liberal Newt Gingrich - Who keeps saying the GOP / TP has to do what he did to stop Clinton's health plan in the 90s - offer alternatives.

What the GOP has a problem doing is offering any alternatives. They simply refuse publicly to acknowledge that the health care system in the US is broken.

We have dropped in the past 20 years from having the best healthcare in the world to out of the top 25 nations.

Even President Bush was unable to push the party into accepting health care reform. He proposed many of the same key points as the current plan. Everyone must have insurance/ a healthcare plan. Removal of the prior existing conditions restrictions. Continuation of student/ child healthcare on the parent's policy into the mid-20s.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):
The Democrats should be on the forefront of the ACA's fixing, IMO.

Unfortunately that folks call this 'ObamaCare' because the President got less than 40% of the program he wanted. What we really have now is 'InsuranceCare' designed by the health insurance companies to maximize their profits, and pushed through under Pelosi to 'punish' the President from not letting her design the program.


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 95, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):
Ah, that is where it gets less certain. I really should pull up the actual polls, but I'm kinda lazy right now   but yes, the polls I have seen disagree with the total repeal of the ACA but other polls, IIRC, said most Americans are unhappy with it. Basically, there are many problems with it.

Both those are true. But "unhappy with it" is a bit of a vague term. Lots of Dems are unhappy because it doesn't go far enough for example; that doesn't mean they wouldn't rather have the ACA than nothing. It depends what you're comparing it to. Are you comparing it to the theoretical perfect bill, or to nothing? When you say:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 93):
But now we are moving away from our original argument... basically, I'm contesting the notion that we "reelected/upheld the ACA." That cannot be proven, could very well be wrong,

I would argue that the definition of "upheld" is the question. I think it means "believe it is better that the bill be enacted than repealed" rather than "believe it is perfect".

Quote:
and some people interpret that as "the ACA is more or less perfect and any objection is right wing propaganda/bad businesses."

I would most definitely disagree with those who interpret it that way, not least because they are as unaware of the long term consequences of the bill as its detractors are. Only time will provide all the answers.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 96, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 94):
They simply refuse publicly to acknowledge that the health care system in the US is broken.

Ah but they do. Their answer is "free market." Makes sense now, doesn't it?  
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 94):
We have dropped in the past 20 years from having the best healthcare in the world to out of the top 25 nations.

And the worst part is we have so many options to choose from. Unfortunately, you have people saying "where do the rich people go when they need the best healthcare?" True, we have some of the best doctors, but we don't have very good access for all. In fact, the fact that we have such good doctors and medical facilities really does make it sad how bad our system is... we have the potential to be so much better

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 94):
Unfortunately that folks call this 'ObamaCare' because the President got less than 40% of the program he wanted. What we really have now is 'InsuranceCare' designed by the health insurance companies to maximize their profits, and pushed through under Pelosi to 'punish' the President from not letting her design the program.

Interesting, care to elaborate? You can PM me if I want. Unfortunately I was blindly partisan during that timeframe and didn't listen too much to the debate, only to one side. Looking at other healthcare systems from around the world, the ACA does seem like a strange, less efficient and less effective way to cover people. I hear it is a compromise between universal healthcare and capitalism, but you can often times substitute the word compromise with bastardization...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13042 posts, RR: 12
Reply 97, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Right now the biggest issue is over the ADA is the huge fail of the Federal Exchanges website that many states are using instead of their own state based exchanges. Those states with their own exchanges have been much easier to access. The Federal Exchange website is full of bugs, has way too much data to download, it asks you to enroll with it's security firewalls before you can shop, mainly due to the complicated qualifications for any subsidies and to prevent fraud. You also have huge numbers of people wanting to shop to figure out if they can afford the plans or not, how much in subsidies they can get so their net premium and overall costs, there are many plans to look at and many are despite for healthcare they and their families need.
The website should have let you shop for the available plans, get the base price for age or other factors before subsidies before you register to buy. There also should have been books one can look at a public library or other public facilities to compare plans to one you have, determine estimated premiums, deductibles and overall potential costs.
There is a growing belief that the enforcement of mandates and/or the time to purchase in the exchanges will be extended for several months to make up for the website issues. Problems are that the sickest will get in earliest, those that have suddenly expected issues will get insurance in time to be covered, the less sickest will delay and many will delay to get a better feel to see if it works.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 98, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2830 times:

I agree, it has problems, why would it not? I agree with your point that it is a start, and about damn time. It is a huge undertaking, so there are bound to be glitz's. What program does not have them? So far, it does not seem to be a horror story on here. Imagine, it just might work for the good of the sick, and the poor, and the country, and us all.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 82):
It has problems, but it's the start of a journey. The first incarnation of more socialised healthcare in a country like the USA is never going to be without its issues - but it's a start.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2825 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 98):
I agree, it has problems, why would it not? I agree with your point that it is a start, and about damn time. It is a huge undertaking, so there are bound to be glitz's. What program does not have them? So far, it does not seem to be a horror story on here. Imagine, it just might work for the good of the sick, and the poor, and the country, and us all.

The big question is whether this bill will actually harm/bankrupt the country or not. It being an imperfect step forward would be one thing, but it being a step backwards is another. I read these threads in interest because I really don't know if this is an effective bill or not. I know universal healthcare can work--it does in many other countries, but is the ACA an effective system??



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 100, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
Here here, it's amazing how selfish some folks really are, universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt along with education, everything else follows along behind.

Education should take care of all of that. Funding healthcare which I don't receive benefits from is ridiculous.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Nobody is paying my way for it, I pay for it myself through reduced wages.

I wouldn't necessarily say reduced wages, but it's a legitimate portion of compensation. It's not a gift, it's part of your pay.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 13):
Don't forget education, defence, infrastructure etc.

Those are things the government actually needs to provide, which is why it's important for the government to not fritter away funds on useless programs.

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 23):
I like the bit where he describes himself as a "refugee", somehow equating a high tax rate (that comes with universal medical care and a generous welfare state, good education and a high standard of living) to, I dunno, ethnic cleansing, or perhaps a hideous natural disaster like a tsunami.

Don't be silly. A natural disaster would at least have an insurance settlement.

Quoting OA260 (Reply 26):
I would rather suggest ''Economic migrant worker'' is the factual description.

Also referred to as "brain drain."

Quoting johnboy (Reply 28):
Because they'd actually have to give a damn about other people in society.

Really, that's what it comes down to.

Why would I? What am I getting from it?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
Is it just me or does nobody else see the blatant hypocrisy here?

You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it.

Oh, the hypocrisy is very obvious. The best is when people refer to single payer as "free."

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 31):
I for one pay a lot of tax- I am happy to both pay for my insurance and subsidize the insurance of somebody who can't afford to pay.

Then you should do that and leave the rest of us alone. Or, if everyone thinks it's such a great idea, they'd do it themselves. You only have to pass a law to fight the laws of economics.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 34):
What gets up my nose is when those people who need help (or those who self-righteously advocate for them) don't ask for help, but demand it. They don't appreciate the help they get, but see it as their right to get it and call those who question the right as "selfish".

Exactly. I find that exceptionally distasteful, and makes it very easy to write people off and tell them to fend for themselves.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 40):
That means that it is a crappy company to work for. Find a new a new job.

You're not wrong, but you'd be remiss to not look at why those cutbacks were made. And if you take this stance, don't let me catch you in some other thread complaining about manufacturing leaving the US or it being impossible for dropouts to find good jobs anymore.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 48):
This means that you agree his job suck for dropping his wife. Thank you,.Join me in telling him to find a better job.

Ok, but do we also get to say the same to burger flippers complaining that their minimum wage is too low?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 54):
No hypocrisy at all I pay a massive amount of tax, I want something in return for the tax I pay and that's healthcare and education for my children. But in the US those that can and should pay more tax have a hissy fit when asked to do so.

I'm not getting anything more for my tax money. It isn't going to help me, it's going to fund more social programs.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
My sister can now afford healthcare.

Ok. Why?

Did ACA make her healthier? Younger? Eat more nutritious foods? What variable, other than government intervention, has changed to allow her insurance to become that much cheaper?

Conservatives get criticized for throwing away science, but liberals are all too happy to throw away math. The numbers don't work.

Insurance prices aren't arbitrary. There's analysis, math, and probabilities behind all of it. And there's real costs behind all of it too: doctors get paid, hospital lights are kept on, equipment is purchased, drugs are developed, and so on.

The President talked about someone with MS whose insurance went from $1200 a month to $100. Now $1200 is expensive, don't get me wrong, but it was expensive not because insurance companies just hate sick people, it's because having something like MS is genuinely expensive.

Even if the insurance company is fleecing customers and getting a 100% margin over what the coverage should cost, the price has been cut to 1/6 of what the actuaries say it should cost. To put that in perspective, that's like going to a Porsche dealer and buying a brand new 911 for about $17,000. That's ridiculous. It doesn't make economic sense, the numbers don't work.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 101, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Then you should do that and leave the rest of us alone.

I am conspicuously powerless to do anything BUT leave you alone!

But if we're playing what if, were I in a more political arena I would impose this law on you anyway because, simply put, I believe your view of the world is completely wrong. I can't pretend that everybody's opinion is equally valid, because it just isn't.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 102, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 101):
But if we're playing what if, were I in a more political arena I would impose this law on you anyway because, simply put, I believe your view of the world is completely wrong. I can't pretend that everybody's opinion is equally valid, because it just isn't.

If you take that stance, then you should 1) take whatever laws anyone wants to impose on you and 2) not complain when someone shuts down the government to keep you from doing that.

If it was such a universally good idea, people would do it themselves. The fact that you have to forcibly extract money from people to enact this is a pretty good indication that you're encroaching on someone's rights, and in such a case as taxes are, they should be severely limited to only those things which the government can solely do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 103, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Funding healthcare which I don't receive benefits from is ridiculous.

You don't get any benefit from funding the fire department either, until you need it.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 104, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 103):
You don't get any benefit from funding the fire department either, until you need it.

I'm willing to fund a fire department. But I had healthcare before. I don't get anything extra now, just more spending either to the insurance company or to the government.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7239 posts, RR: 17
Reply 105, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

2 things happened so far....well, kinda, 3 things.

We had that aforementioned flop with my insurance agency about doctor visit restraints which were cleared up...

but we learned 2 more things- Our premiums are up 7%, and my dad had to fire 10 people to be able to balance the budget.

Where my uncle works, he had to cut all internships in order to finance the rising healthcare costs for the full time workers.

My cousin had to take hours cuts in order to keep her job at the pharmacy.

My other cousin who works for Honda may have to be moved to Japan in order for them to be able to handle the rising costs in the states.

So far, so bad.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 8
Reply 106, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

I'm saving $1,644/year by switching to an ACA BCBS PPO policy. I have always had BCBS PPO. I would have saved far more if I didn't want a "platinum" policy. I am self-employed.

Also, when ACA went into effect, I went back on my dad's policy for a little bit over a year. As I said in the other thread my insurance was $450/month. So, I'm saving on two points.

I don't really understand why people are so savage and bitter, even if they do pay incrementally more. I wish people would get angrier about how much we Americans pay in taxes for the DoD. That is what is ridiculous. I'd rather have tax money going towards people in the community (health, education, employment).



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2601 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 106):

You should compare your policies in detail. The exchange PPOs are not the same. Exchange PPOs have narrowed networks and higher out of pockets. For example, if you have multiple hospital networks in your region, the best ones (which cost more) are out of network. If you go to a specialist, the office visit is $40, not $20. If you have a health issue, that gets expensive fast. Out of pockets are close to double. Prescriptions are the same typically for generics, but brand names which you may need in some cases carry penalties. It all depends on your needs, and to each their own. But the fact of the matter is, you may not really be saving.

[Edited 2013-10-19 05:37:02]

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 99):

The big question is whether this bill will actually harm/bankrupt the country or not. It being an imperfect step forward would be one thing, but it being a step backwards is another. I read these threads in interest because I really don't know if this is an effective bill or not. I know universal healthcare can work--it does in many other countries, but is the ACA an effective system??

I don't like the idea that people who already have insurance need to have their plans taxed, or if they make "x" amount they get taxed to subsidize plans for other people. That pisses me off.

(Not directed at you, just a general statement below)

I'm sick and tired of the effing handouts in this country. We reward the irresponsible and penalize the responsible. Have some personal accountability for yourself. If you can't afford a kid, keep your legs crossed or your fly zipped.

It's like this.... You aren't an effing dog. If you can't control yourself and I'm going to be forced to pay for your medical bills, then maybe we need to have a little chat about you being fixed if you feel the need to screw everything that twitches. At the end of the day, this is what drives poverty. Broken homes, unwed mothers and a life of welfare dependency. So do all of the responsible people a favor...quit f***ing.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 109, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 106):
I don't really understand why people are so savage and bitter, even if they do pay incrementally more.

You answered your own question. It's easy to see why people are mad when they're paying more now, especially since it was claimed it would be cheaper

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 108):
I'm sick and tired of the effing handouts in this country.

Are you talking about the lazy, no good tiny minority of people or a sizable chunk of people that are working very hard but are under employed? It's easy to see the worst cases and lump a bunch of people in with them.

Cracking down on welfare abuse is an area where the Democrats fail in my book, big time. They know it's there but even talking about cracking down on it is dangerous, politically, or at least that's my possibly wrong opinion on it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
Are you talking about the lazy, no good tiny minority of people


The problem is it’s not a tiny minority anymore. The number of people abusing the system these days has gotten out of hand. And no, I'm not talking about the people who are having a tough time because of the economy and are on unemployment. I'm talking about the serial abusers who are gaming the system. Its welfare abuse, disability abuse and in some instances unemployment abuse. The ACA? The abuse will be staggering.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 111, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 105):
Our premiums are up 7%, and my dad had to fire 10 people to be able to balance the budget.

And how does that relate to ObamaCare. Your premiums went up because your insurance company wanted them to go up - to increase their profits.

The people added to insurance company roles by ObamaCare are making the cost per policy holder smaller for the insurance company. If the company is raising rates - it is because the company is trying to make more money, not because of requirements of ObamaCare.

(NOTE - some policies will go up because they were not really insurance policies but 'club' programs where people got set rates for certain services from certain providers of healthcare services. Those programs have to be converted to real edical insurance policies.)


Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
Are you talking about the lazy, no good tiny minority of people or a sizable chunk of people that are working very hard but are under employed?

All the crying about entitlements is about a very small percentage of career lazy people. A group which really has not increased in size much in the past six years.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 108):
I'm sick and tired of the effing handouts in this country.

The 'huge growth' in entitlement spending is because of the working poor. The millions of people who used to make 40-70,000 per year in the US, who are now working at 'service sector' jobs for 20-30,000 per year.

From 2008 to 2012 the average income of working Americans has gone down, not up. I really thought that issue would win the White House for a Republican in 2012. I'm amazed the issue was abandoned in September 2012 by the conservative news media.

Food stamp recipients are up 77% since the 2008 recession. Yet the qualifications for Food Stamps have not changed. No changes in the program are responsible for the 77% increase. What has changed is the number of people working at lower wage jobs. Their total income is now so low that they qualify for Food Stamps.

Though part of the increase is from companies like Walmart, Target, McDonalds, Starbucks which encourage their new low wage/ low hour employees to apply for Food Stamps. The Walmart where I live even helps new employees fill out the forms for free school lunches for the kids.

Across the nation, churches, senior centers and such are helping the poorest, oldest retirees who live solely on Social Security apply for Food Stamps. The number of seniors on Food Stamps has grown tremendously since AARP started pushing seniors to apply.

The MYTH that most people are on multiple entitlement programs is just a MYTH. The study upon which that frequently quoted number is based is really weird.

Examples of 'out of control' entitlement programs in the study:

Social Security payments to retirees
Medicare payments for retiree healthcare
Government subsidies for Medicare Advantage programs
Military retirement pay
Military retiree medical programs
Veterans Administration hospitals and clinics
Veterans Disability payments
National Cemeteries for veterans
Civil Service Retirement (FERS - which includes Congressmen and Senators)

Those account for over three quarters of the people living on 'multiple entitlement programs'.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 112, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 108):
It's like this.... You aren't an effing dog. If you can't control yourself and I'm going to be forced to pay for your medical bills, then maybe we need to have a little chat about you being fixed if you feel the need to screw everything that twitches. At the end of the day, this is what drives poverty. Broken homes, unwed mothers and a life of welfare dependency. So do all of the responsible people a favor...quit f***ing.

Ok then, it'd seem the logical conclusion of your rant would be forced sterilization with some sort of 'undo' procedure for those deemed worthy of reproduction, because most humans have strong sex drives and not enough can be 'responsible' about it. How exactly do you hope to achieve that?

Without sterilization, you end up deliberately starving children who did nothing to deserve starvation. Do you want to be a part of that?

All of the above seems to require 'big government' of the worst kind.

It still amazes me that there is so much hatred for the poor. In the US they are now poorer than they have been in a century while the rich are the richest they have been in a century. The middle class is disappearing and most are focused on the poor being the reason for it, yet IMHO the biggest reason for the downfall of the middle class is that the rich have withdrawn their support of public institutions.

Somehow we turn a blind eye to all the offshore tax havens and write offs that have forced us to defund schools. Apple can say with a straight face that they have not violated any laws by shifting their tax burdens to Ireland because it's true. The real question is why is no one doing anything about it? Well, it's because the powers that be are able to keep most people focused on the poor when it turns out the rich are just as big 'welfare queens'. It should be abundantly clear that you can't solve our problems by creating more poor people yet that seems to be what most people are focused on.

See, I can rant too!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 113, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Somehow we turn a blind eye to all the offshore tax havens and write offs that have forced us to defund schools

Ryan introduced legislation to deal with that but was turned down by the Democrats. Must be because that is a source of their campaign contributions?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Apple can say with a straight face that they have not violated any laws by shifting their tax burdens to Ireland because it's true. The real question is why is no one doing anything about it?

The concept of trying to tax a global company that does business in the US for the business they do in the rest of the world is why companies leave the US and only sell products here. Apple has indicated they may bring some manufacturing to the US but have not indicated how much. You have companies like Caterpillar and John Deere that only 25% of there product is sold in the US, why pay a 19% penalty to produce in the US for the products sold to other countries, just another reason to move production to other countries.

Doing something about it would require that legislation would have to be put in place to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US to reinvigorate the middle-class. I suspect from your comments here that you would be near the front of the line complaining about the business getting special treatment if legislation was passed to create jobs for the middle-class.
How about proposing a positive solution.

Okie


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 114, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 111):
And how does that relate to ObamaCare. Your premiums went up because your insurance company wanted them to go up - to increase their profits.

Is this always the case? Because I've been hearing a ton of negative stories. I know the right is having a field day with them, but they can't all be wrong. Is there a way to fact check it all without reading the minds of insurance company CEOs?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 111):
All the crying about entitlements is about a very small percentage of career lazy people. A group which really has not increased in size much in the past six years.

Again, is there a source on this? I often say that the number of serial abusers isn't as high as it's made out to be, but I don't really have any solid numbers.

Sorry to be putting you on the spot, it would just help to reinforce the arguments.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 115, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
And if you take this stance, don't let me catch you in some other thread complaining about manufacturing leaving the US or it being impossible for dropouts to find good jobs anymore.

OK Deal!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Ok, but do we also get to say the same to burger flippers complaining that their minimum wage is too low?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 100):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
My sister can now afford healthcare.

Ok. Why?

Much bigger pool of people paying into the insurance?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 105):
Our premiums are up 7%, and my dad had to fire 10 people to be able to balance the budget.

7%? that is low. Much lower than the 15% a year than mines have been going up in pre-Obamae care year.

Seriously, for the 3rd time - you all act like this year is the first year that premiums ever come up.

And if ur dad had to fire 10 people for this - man , sorry to say he has bigger problems.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 116, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 113):
Ryan introduced legislation to deal with that but was turned down by the Democrats. Must be because that is a source of their campaign contributions?

Or because the budget as a whole was unacceptable to them?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 117, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

When the Euro got introduced over here, many companies decided to use the opportunity to raise prices, in the hope that nobody would notice. In fact the exchange rate between the Deutschmark and the Euro was 1 : 2, so something which had cost 1 Deutschmark before should have cost only 50 Eurocents after the conversion, but prices rose so that now the numbers on the pricetags are just the same as under the Deutschmark, essentially everything became twice as expensive. Of course wages and salaries did not increase by the same amount.

I expect insurance companies in the US to use the introduction of the ACA and the general ignorance of the population about it to pull a fast one and to introduce hidden price hikes.

Working poor:
Some years ago the German labour office offered to supplement the wages of low wage workers, to help them to get the unemployed back into the job market. It has now been found out that many employers used this shamelessly to their advantage by paying their staff a pitance (cases of hourly rates of less than two Euros have been noted, which makes the worker earn less than the meagre social welfare level for a fulltime job) and expecting the government to pay the difference so that they can survive.
Recently the labour office has taken action when it became aware of such an exploitation and started sueing the employers. This is also why a minum wage is on the agenda for the Social Democrats during their coalition talks with Merkel´s conservatives (who reject such an idea as being bad for the labour market). Currently Germany doesn´t have a federal minimum pay, though there exists agreements between the employers and unions in certain branches, which are threatened by low cost competition from mainly Eastern European countries.

Jan


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Ok then, it'd seem the logical conclusion of your rant would be forced sterilization with some sort of 'undo' procedure for those deemed worthy of reproduction, because most humans have strong sex drives and not enough can be 'responsible' about it. How exactly do you hope to achieve that?

Once a quarter you have to personally stop in and get your check. When you do so, you get a dose of depo-provara. Pharma also gets to work on the male equivalent so they get one too. When you're no longer dependent on taxpayers for your survival, you can do what you want.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 114):
Again, is there a source on this? I often say that the number of serial abusers isn't as high as it's made out to be, but I don't really have any solid numbers.

Most studies I've read put the number at 3-4% of the adult populous and a cost between $90 and $120 billion a year. There was an article in the NY Times recently that says the estimate for 2014 is $130 billion, this is strictly welfare, not unemployment etc..which is insurance not welfare. Section 8 housing is on the order of $100 billion a year. Other social programs related to welfare are about $150 billion a year. The problem isn't having these programs. The problem is generations of people living on them because it's been made easy to do so.

Chicago had the right idea many years ago. Set aside "projects" for single parents. Provide them with everything they need right there. The kids go to a school in the building/complex, mom or dad get job training so they can get a job. Mom or dad gets job, family moves of tor the project. You don't hear about it anymore, so it probably failed because it's still to easy to just collect a check rather than actually work.

[Edited 2013-10-19 12:25:57]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 119, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 118):
Most studies I've read put the number at 3-4% of the adult populous and a cost between $90 and $120 billion a year. There was an article in the NY Times recently that says the estimate for 2014 is $130 billion, this is strictly welfare, not unemployment etc..which is insurance not welfare. Section 8 housing is on the order of $100 billion a year. Other social programs related to welfare are about $150 billion a year. The problem isn't having these programs. The problem is generations of people living on them because it's been made easy to do so.

But what percentage is bouncing into poverty and bouncing back out, and what percentage stays in there? Those who stay in there, how many are just being lazy, and how many just don't have opportunity?

These are very important questions and determines how we fight the problem. I'm not asking for you to answer, it's more rhetorical

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 118):
so it probably failed because it's still to easy to just collect a check rather than actually work.

I do not contest that many are just chillin on government support and I think we need to crack down on it. My whole point was basically we need to take a middle of the road approach--the Dems don't touch this issue enough, and the GOP acts like there is a huge percentage that are able but unwilling to work (more than there actually are)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 120, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 102):
If you take that stance, then you should 1) take whatever laws anyone wants to impose on you

If I believe the net effect of the law will be positive, then yes. Otherwise no. There's no inconsistency here- not all points of view are equally valid.

Quote:
and 2) not complain when someone shuts down the government to keep you from doing that.

Explain why believing a bill is a good thing to enact means I am not allowed to complain when people try and block it. I fail to see the logic.

Quote:

If it was such a universally good idea, people would do it themselves.

No, they wouldn't. Most people think about short term problems and ignore long term ones. Why do you think people don't save for retirement? Do you think saving for retirement is a bad idea?

Quote:
The fact that you have to forcibly extract money from people to enact this is a pretty good indication that you're encroaching on someone's rights, and in such a case as taxes are, they should be severely limited to only those things which the government can solely do.

Again, my view of taxes and rights is different to yours.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 121, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 118):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 114):Again, is there a source on this? I often say that the number of serial abusers isn't as high as it's made out to be, but I don't really have any solid numbers.
Most studies I've read put the number at 3-4% of the adult populous and a cost between $90 and $120 billion a year. There was an article in the NY Times recently that says the estimate for 2014 is $130 billion, this is strictly welfare, not unemployment etc..which is insurance not welfare. Section 8 housing is on the order of $100 billion a year. Other social programs related to welfare are about $150 billion a year. The problem isn't having these programs. The problem is generations of people living on them because it's been made easy to do so.

The numbers of the major entitlement programs don't support the claims of rampant abuse.

Yes, $130 billion for welfare and $100 billion for section 8 and $150 billion for other programs is a lot of money.

But there have not been any changes in the programs to make it easier for people to qualify for them in the past six years.

Why are the expenses going up? Because more people are dropping below the thresholds. We have more and more people in the long term unemployed.

Yes, there is a serious issue with the generational use of these programs as a primary source of income. There needs to be reform to provide transitional assistance to people moving off these programs. There needs to be an end to the 'grandmother' problem. (A woman loses welfare and section 8 housing when her children turn 18 - so the young daughters are encouraged to have children, and the grandmother becomes the primary caretaker of the babies. Retaining an eligibility for both programs.)

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 119):
But what percentage is bouncing into poverty and bouncing back out, and what percentage stays in there? Those who stay in there, how many are just being lazy, and how many just don't have opportunity?

Those numbers are very hard to find. It takes almost the level of research for a Masters thesis to determine the reality with hard numbers.

For many states, the long term poverty group is about 50% minority and 50% Caucasian.

For many states, the loss of small town industry has left entire counties with much of their adult population in poverty. The country where I grew up was 75% of employment associated with the paper mill in some form. That is completely gone. The county population has shrunk about 15% - but about 27-30% of the adults in the county have been completely unemployed and no opportunity for real employment since 1985.

The county lost its best and brightest. A lot of those who remain will travel for jobs, and come home after the project ends.

Unfortunately a lot of people don't have the money it takes to travel for a construction, oil field or other job and the very high cost of temporary living.

I'm sitting in a RV park outside Dallas right now. About 40% of the people here are workers on the pipelines. They will tell you that while they are making a lot of money, their cost of living is very high because they have to move every couple months. They can't develop the economies a person staying in one place can to keep their costs low. (Just one example - all laundry has to be done in laundrymats - at a much higher long term cost than buying a washer and dryer. Another - with very limited storage space and almost no freezer space, they can't take advantage of food cost saving sales.)


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 122, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 106):
I wish people would get angrier about how much we Americans pay in taxes for the DoD. That is what is ridiculous. I'd rather have tax money going towards people in the community (health, education, employment).

Oh? First of all, defense is something the federal government explicitly needs to do and cannot practically be done by any other entity. Healthcare has been mostly non-governmental for a very long time.

And when you talk about defense funds not benefiting people in the community, am I to believe that your community has no reservists, interstates, or internet access?

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 108):
I'm sick and tired of the effing handouts in this country. We reward the irresponsible and penalize the responsible.

  

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 111):
The 'huge growth' in entitlement spending is because of the working poor. The millions of people who used to make 40-70,000 per year in the US, who are now working at 'service sector' jobs for 20-30,000 per year.

There would be no growth in entitlements if there were no entitlements. Problem solved.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
It still amazes me that there is so much hatred for the poor.

That take money. That's reason enough to not think too highly of them. The sense of entitlement and personal irresponsibility displayed by many doesn't help.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
IMHO the biggest reason for the downfall of the middle class is that the rich have withdrawn their support of public institutions.

First, why would the rich not decide they are done supporting institutions that do not provide them sufficient benefit? Secondly, if having the cliched "strong middle class" requires them being bankrolled by money from the wealthy, shouldn't that cause a re-evaluation of who is really more important?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 112):
Somehow we turn a blind eye to all the offshore tax havens and write offs that have forced us to defund schools.

If you defunded some entitlement programs you have plenty more money for schools. More importantly, it isn't turning a blind eye, it's a recognition of personal freedom. You can send your money where you want. America should have to earn that business. Telling Americans and American companies they must keep their money here or be punished for sending it offshore is an intolerable assault of property rights.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 115):
Much bigger pool of people paying into the insurance?

That doesn't make a ton of sense since insurance companies aren't sure how many extra people they'd get and many of those people would be higher risk, but they can't charge prices that reflect that.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 120):
Why do you think people don't save for retirement?

I do save, so I don't really care. If I had to guess, I'd say stupidity plays a big role.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 120):
Again, my view of taxes and rights is different to yours.

Yep. Yours is wrong.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 123, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2403 times:

Are there any good articles on the unintended consequences of Obamacare?

I mean obviously as with any government programme there are going some and Obamacare seems to be an absolutele mishmash of a proposal (to the degree where it's difficult to pin down just exactly what it's all about) on an already wildly over regulated and distorted industry.

From what i understand insurances companies are no longer allowed to discriminate on pre-existing conditions?

Isn't that (A) going to send the cost of insurance sky-high. And therefore (B) stop people actually getting insurance until they get a pre-existing condition? Doesn't that just completely undermine the point of insurance?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 120):
No, they wouldn't. Most people think about short term problems and ignore long term ones. Why do you think people don't save for retirement? Do you think saving for retirement is a bad idea?

People probably don't save for retirement because the government punishes savers so firmly via the inflation tax. Saving for a retirement should be a doodle. Money earned at the start of your career should pay out about 10 times that in the last. But let's say somebody doesn't save for retirement? Well, why should society bear that cost and not the person

[Edited 2013-10-19 14:33:22]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 124, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
First of all, defense is something the federal government explicitly needs to do and cannot practically be done by any other entity.

True, but does it need as much spending as it currently gets? That is very open to debate. I don't think anyone is talking about defunding or privatizing the military

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Healthcare has been mostly non-governmental for a very long time.

And?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2370 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
I do save, so I don't really care. If I had to guess, I'd say stupidity plays a big role.

In part. Also a lot of people can't afford to, because their job can always be done slightly cheaper by somebody who chooses not to save. But regardless, it should show you that the old "if it were so great then everybody would do it" argument simply doesn't hold water.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):
Yep. Yours is wrong.

That's exactly what somebody who was wrong would say  
Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
Are there any good articles on the unintended consequences of Obamacare?

I mean obviously as with any government programme there are going some and Obamacare seems to be an absolutele mishmash of a proposal (to the degree where it's difficult to pin down just exactly what it's all about) on an already wildly over regulated and distorted industry.

I think you answered your own question there- it's almost impossible IMO to tell what the consequences will be right now. It's just too far reaching a bill to be able to tell.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
From what i understand insurances companies are no longer allowed to discriminate on pre-existing conditions?

Isn't that (A) going to send the cost of insurance sky-high. And therefore (B) stop people actually getting insurance until they get a pre-existing condition? Doesn't that just completely undermine the point of insurance?

That's the point of the individual mandate. By incentivising younger healthy people to pay for insurance who otherwise wouldn't, the costs of the premiums will be kept low. So goes the theory at least. I worry though that the penalty for not getting insurance is so low this won't happen (I believe it's $95).

The other thing to note is that the bill prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to preexisting conditions- it does not mandate that those people pay the same as those without pre-existing conditions. So if you have a pre-existing condition and sign up for a plan you will pay more, as many have found out recently.

The biggest problem with the old system is that if you got a long term illness (say your kid got leukemia) the insurance company would pay the bills until the insurance came up for renewal, then they'd classify it as a pre-existing condition and deny further coverage. Not all insurers did this but it is part of what this clause is meant to fix I believe.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
People probably don't save for retirement because the government punishes savers so firmly via the inflation tax.

Yeah- also I found when I was doing my tax this year that a couple of properties I sold were liable for capital gains tax even though in real terms I had lost money on them. Couldn't believe you can't adjust for inflation  
Quote:
Saving for a retirement should be a doodle. Money earned at the start of your career should pay out about 10 times that in the last. But let's say somebody doesn't save for retirement? Well, why should society bear that cost and not the person

I agree, if that person was able to afford to save. Not everybody can. But anyway- we're going off topic; my only point about the saving was to demonstrate that people do not always make choices which are best for them.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 125):
The biggest problem with the old system is that if you got a long term illness (say your kid got leukemia) the insurance company would pay the bills until the insurance came up for renewal, then they'd classify it as a pre-existing condition and deny further coverage. Not all insurers did this but it is part of what this clause is meant to fix I believe.

I've never understood why is this the case though. Who would sign an insurance policy if the insurer wouldn't cough up for the duration of the illness? I certainly wouldn't, that's like insuring against nothing! I don't think this clause really "fixes" that anyway, it's sort of like fixing a bridge in need of routine repair by demolishing it.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 125):
I worry though that the penalty for not getting insurance is so low this won't happen (I believe it's $95).

Apparently it's 1% of earnings, rising to 2.5% eventually.

Also are you sure about the rates? According to Wiki (i know), they have to charge the same regardless of conditions. Or that just a one off thing?

The law also requires insurance companies to cover all applicants within new minimum standards and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

If it's true that the "tax" will only be 2.5%, and you pay the same rates with insurance then it's not hard to see that a lot of people will simply pay the "tax" and wait until they get ill to sign up for insurance. The problem there is insurance companies will just have a load of ill people on their books and have to increase premiums which will cause more healthy on policies to leave. Then that vicious cycle continues until the only people who have insurance are the ill people, meaning the cost of insurance will just cost the same as it would to treat the disease and insurance would essentially no longer exists.

Maybe i'm missing something.

[Edited 2013-10-19 15:43:03]

User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 127, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
From what i understand insurances companies are no longer allowed to discriminate on pre-existing conditions

Correct, which most would argue a good thing in some respects. It trapped people in existing jobs for themselves or family members with pre-existing conditions. Some were moved to high risk/high cost insurance or uninsurable for pre-existing or not covered for that medical condition.
Simple legislation would have covered that although at an increased cost for insurance.
That came into effect a couple years ago hence the 15% increases along with inflation for the last 2 years which equates to about a 30% increase in rates.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 123):
Are there any good articles on the unintended consequences of Obamacare?

Those are going to be hard to come by as you can tell from this thread.
Lots of distortion.
We have posters claiming 90,000 signed up when it was 90,000 hits on the web site only 20,000 signed up.
The sign up process is appearing to be an absolute out house mess at this point.
We have stories surfacing now that those who have looked at the government web-site for insurance are receiving $95.00 fines for declining when they do not have to sign up for 10 more weeks nor sign up on the government site.
The web-site according to the insurance companies is providing faulty and inaccurate information making it impossible for them to issue policies.
The web-site apparently lost the passwords for the applicants for about the first 10 days not allowing the purchasers any way to access their accounts.

The unintended consequences so far is that the burden of Obamacare is on the 25-40 year olds that are healthy which do not require much healthcare to pay for everybody else. So far that age group has shunned signing up the only consequence at this point is a $95 fine but this is just getting started.

As far as what companies are going to do I can only speak for 4 of about 7-8 that I deal with that I have knowledge.
2 dropped back to employee insurance only.
1 dropped below the 50 employee threshold, employee insurance only, and offered 30 hour week for the remaining 35 or so employee's (I would suspect some of those will move on if they can find a full time job)
1 dropped below the 50 employee threshold, employee insurance only, offered "preferred contractor" status for about 5 of the 12 laid off.

The Obama administration is promoting the 50 employee threshold and a "big boon" for small companies. From what I see it is really hammering those companies trying to grow. This is a massive threshold or leap to add 1 employee over the 50 threshold. Probably should of had some type of proportional sliding scale.

Okie


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 128, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting okie (Reply 127):
It trapped people in existing jobs for themselves or family members with pre-existing conditions.

This to me appears to be a massive problem with the system as i alluded to earlier in the thread.

There's absolutely no reason why health insurance should be linked to jobs and removing that connection should be top priority for any reform imo.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5234 posts, RR: 25
Reply 129, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
For a similar plan as what I had last year (it was a pretty good plan. so I seriously doubt there was any coverage that had to be jacked up to conform to Obamacare minimum requirements) my out-of-pocket premiums are up 30% (yes, thirty percent, 3-0).

Unless you've live in a cave over the last decade, you know that health insurance have been rising year after year. My insurance premiums have risen each of the last 8 years. It's hardly Obamacare that's causing them to rise, but then I know you're aware of that...

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
it came from the terrorist-lovers over at Rolling Stone

I am at a loss for words...

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
At least I can congratulate you on finding the self-control not to post something from Mother Jones, I guess.

 
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 3):
universal taxpayer funded healthcare should be a top priority for any govt along with education, everything else follows along behind.

  

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
Considering I am a refugee

The refugees I know escape ethnic cleansing, war zones, etc. You lived in a country with a high tax rate? And since you've previously stated you completed at least part of your studies in the US, you probably either paid briefly or more likely not at all into that system. Oh the horror. However do you sleep at night having had to suffer living in Portugal?  
Quoting cedarjet (Reply 23):
I like the bit where he describes himself as a "refugee", somehow equating a high tax rate (that comes with universal medical care and a generous welfare state, good education and a high standard of living) to, I dunno, ethnic cleansing, or perhaps a hideous natural disaster like a tsunami.

  

Quoting trav110 (Reply 21):
I have to wonder Pyrex, did you start this thread with a genuine interest in what other people have experienced, or did you start it just to argue with everybody and bash Obamacare?

I think we all know the answer to that...

Quoting trav110 (Reply 21):
Once you got to the point of calling Rolling Stone magazine terrorist-lovers your credibility pretty much flew out of the window, imo.

Yeah uh I have no words for that one.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 29):
You complain about people selfishness, yet you want taxpayer-funded healthcare - i.e. you don't want to have to pay for it yourself - but let others (specifically those who actually pay income taxes) pay for it. Or worse yet, deficit-spend and let our kids and grandkids pay for your healthcare.

Are you trying to imply the 47% crap? Many of us are taxpayers, and will glad pay into such system because we benefit as well. It's highly presumptuous of you to assume that those in support of universal healthcare are deadbeats.

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 31):
Not sure who you are addressing but your argument assumes the people arguing for universal healthcare don't pay taxes.

  

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 34):
They don't appreciate the help they get, but see it as their right to get it and call those who question the right as "selfish".

One can make the argument that healthcare is one of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what did that pinko Thomas Jefferson know...

Quoting falstaff (Reply 35):
Now lazy dead beats who are 25 can still be on their parent's policy.

Right.   Never mind parents who actually want to keep their kids on their plan even when their kids are working themselves so those kids can save a bit on healthcare as they transition to adulthood. They're all just lazy deadbeats.

Quoting Boeing717200 (Reply 45):
Yes. Personal responsibility. Like not having to rely on something like Obamacare for insurance right?

 
Quoting maverick623 (Reply 55):
Anyone who thought that it would be smooth 3 weeks after the FIRST stage is implemented (especially when you have people who don't quite know what to do yet and companies taking advantage of that confusion for their own profits) is incredibly naive and short-sighted, and probably blinded by partisan politics.

Come now. Partisan politics? How can you suggest such a thing...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 73):
I'll admit, I have big problems with this bill. The debate should be how we can fix it, not how can we sabotage/repeal it. Maybe if the GOP helped out the last few years we'd have a pretty decent bill by now

Stop it! The sensible arguments are hurting my brain.  
Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 74):
But, I digress: the topic is 'let's hear your Obamacare stories' and you've heard mine.

I'm pretty sure the topic is "tell us how much Obamacare sucks and confirm my belief that Barack Obama is the antichrist."

Quoting maverick623 (Reply 86):
Hate to break it to you, but your company is not the same one it was 25 years ago, much less 100 years ago. I'm sure they're proud to have such a loyal employee, but at the end of the day they cut your benefits without a moment's hesitation. Doesn't sound like they have much loyalty to you.

      

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 122):

Your libertarian paradise is all well and good, when you're 16-20 or possibly in your early 20's. Abject selfishness is now way to build a functioning society. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps makes for a great soundbite, but it ignores reality. It's easy for many in this thread to blame the poor and just consider them lazy, but the reality, as with most things in life, is far from black and white.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 130, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 129):
Abject selfishness is now way to build a functioning society.

That is no way to build a functioning society, it's a way to build a great society even though ironically it means ignoring "society." Working together is great, but only if it benefits all participants. Having to pass laws and forcing people to contribute for no benefit is a destructive way of doing business.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2989 posts, RR: 3
Reply 131, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 128):
This to me appears to be a massive problem with the system as i alluded to earlier in the thread

That part could have been handled with simple legislation.

The main issue with Obamacare is going to be if the healthy 25-40year olds sign up, the whole program is designed with them carrying a largest part of the burden.
Assuming the number of companies trying to get under the 50 employee threshold does not cause serious problems to the economy with lay offs and part time employee's. I have no idea what that number will be.
From what little sampling I have seen you are probably going to have to jump immediately from 50 to near a 100 employee's to distribute the additional cost and stay competitive, but I do not have any real numbers to back that up just what few companies I do business have done.

Okie


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1265 posts, RR: 3
Reply 132, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2308 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):
I've never understood why is this the case though. Who would sign an insurance policy if the insurer wouldn't cough up for the duration of the illness? I certainly wouldn't, that's like insuring against nothing! I don't think this clause really "fixes" that anyway, it's sort of like fixing a bridge in need of routine repair by demolishing it.

The insurance companies take great care to obscure such policies. If you ever ask your insurer in the USA "will X be covered?" it's practically impossible to get a straight answer.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 126):
Also are you sure about the rates? According to Wiki (i know), they have to charge the same regardless of conditions. Or that just a one off thing?

No- you're right; I misread an article. They can't charge a greater premium.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7239 posts, RR: 17
Reply 133, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 111):
And how does that relate to ObamaCare. Your premiums went up because your insurance company wanted them to go up - to increase their profits.

Nooooooo, they went up BECAUSE of Obamacare.....it's not like insurance companies have extra insurance laying around in a store room....this is not commodity trading. This is basic supply and demand.

And profits....omg you leftists are so ignorant when it comes to understanding the economy and how profits actually work.

Profits are GOOD for a company....profits LOWER prices, especially with banks and insurances, because they have extra money laying around. Profits also enable companies to HIRE people! You people are a circus. The only reason why your prices would go up is because there isn't enough money in the coffers to begin with.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 115):
7%? that is low. Much lower than the 15% a year than mines have been going up in pre-Obamae care year.

That is not low. Any percentage raise is somewhat exponential on a 3 person family plan with a young man (me) with frequent surgeries, a mom who has heart trouble, and a dad who has stress issues. My premiums therefore shot through the roof. I have to seriously cut back on spending nowadays, which for sure is not good for an economic recovery.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 134, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2229 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 129):
Are you trying to imply the 47% crap? Many of us are taxpayers, and will glad pay into such system because we benefit as well. It's highly presumptuous of you to assume that those in support of universal healthcare are deadbeats.

Did I say all? No. And I also pointed out that I support universal healthcare. But the attitudes of many proponents of entitlements and income transfer are frankly very offensive.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 129):
One can make the argument that healthcare is one of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what did that pinko Thomas Jefferson know...

You know, not long ago my niece who recently graduated (public) high school told me that in her all her high school history classes, they spent only 1 day discussing the Constitution, and another day discussing the Declaration of Independence, and that no time whatsoever was dedicated to John Locke and other philosophers who strongly and directly influenced the Founders, nor the Federalist papers which also help explain the background and rationale behind those documents.

A few generations ago, these would have been the subject of at least an entire semester. For whatever reason (the arrival of the Dept of Education, perhaps), the modern school curriculum has decided that people have no need to understand the Constitution. And your statement really shows the effect of this change.

Let me put it in as simple terms as possible. The inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, along with all the others listed in our founding documents, such as free speech, right to trial etc etc, all have ONE thing in common. They all stem from our Natural Rights, and taken all together, they embody the concept that people have the right to be left alone, and to specify the limitations imposed on the government regarding how they can mess with you (warrants, due process etc.)

Universal healthcare, along with other social safety net programs may well be justified for a number of reasons that we can debate, agree and disagree on. But in no possible logical way can you intelligently compare Natural Rights with entitlements and socialized services.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 135, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 134):
But in no possible logical way can you intelligently compare Natural Rights with entitlements and socialized services.

Actually, I think the Preamble in the Constitution can be argued for Universal Healthcare. Not exactly what you are saying, but pretty close. This is what we declare the overall mission of the government to be:

Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Sorry if I'm going in a different direction than what you were talking about



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 136, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):
That is not low

Mines has been going up 15% a year for the last 5 years!!. You are complaining for 7%? really.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):
Any percentage raise is somewhat exponential .

What does that mean? Mathematically i think that is impossible..

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):
My premiums therefore shot through the roof.

7% is not "thru the roof". How much have premium gone up prior to ACA. Funny how no one can tell me

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):
I have to seriously cut back on spending nowadays, which for sure is not good for an economic recovery.

Why would the US care? you spend would be in Japan anyways (is that were you are now, as frequently noted in your posts?)



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 137, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2090 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 135):
Actually, I think the Preamble in the Constitution can be argued for Universal Healthcare. Not exactly what you are saying, but pretty close. This is what we declare the overall mission of the government to be:

It is related. Anyone who has studied the Constitution and the Philosophy of the founders would know that "General Welfare" was never intended to including giving money or services to individuals, but rather as a general statement of purpose. It is not an enumerated power. A broad reading of the General Welfare clause would render the enumeration of powers pointless. There would be no specific limitation to Federal power. Instead, it would only require an argument that any action was for the general good. This was not the intention by those who created the document.

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinemaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5573 posts, RR: 6
Reply 138, posted (9 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):
this is not commodity trading. This is basic supply and demand.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 133):

Profits are GOOD for a company....profits LOWER prices, especially with banks and insurances, because they have extra money laying around.

I'm a little confused: do the principles of basic supply and demand exclusively affect prices, or are there other factors (such as what qualifies as "profit" and "money laying around"?


Which, BTW, are both stupidly simple concepts that have little meaning in this discussion.

It's like claiming that because you've learned the Pythagorean Theorem, you now have a complete grasp of calculus and anyone who disagrees with your application of a^2+b^2=c^2 in describing the area under a curve is stupid.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39721 posts, RR: 75
Reply 139, posted (9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
What about you? How have you been affected so far?

All of us expats working outside the federal government in the private sector must report our foreign income to the IRS Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Income under $95,000 (USD)approx. isn't taxed. However our visits back home to the United States is limited to just 35 days and if we stay a day longer, we can be taxed for the entire year. If it's determined that our health-care plan that we use in the country we reside doesn't satisfy the 2700+ page 'Affordable' Care Act, we can be penalized (taxed) and that penalty (tax) is determined by how much money you make.
The insidious taxation laws on expats started before Obama but his 'Affordable Care Act' adds teeth to that law and is another variable that could be stacked against someone when audited by the IRS and can lead to imprisonment. It's best for us expats to fly to Mexico and sneak across the boarder and get free everything and not worry about any of this.
So that is how I have been affected.


I had no idea I belong to the wealthiest 1%.

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 52):
Free birth control pills.

Same here. Of course that is of great use to me.   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 140, posted (9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104):
I'm willing to fund a fire department. But I had healthcare before. I don't get anything extra now, just more spending either to the insurance company or to the government.

YOu're under 26 so you should be under your parents policy, isn't that allowed now, I'm sure you probably are.

Just remember taxes pay for a hell of a lot of things you never use, and get no benefit for, so I don't see a problem with universal healthcare of free education. People can still have private healthcare if they want to pay extra and they can send there kids to Ivy League or private colleges.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 141, posted (9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 140):
Just remember taxes pay for a hell of a lot of things you never use, and get no benefit for

That would be a good argument to have less taxes, certainly not more.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7239 posts, RR: 17
Reply 142, posted (9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 136):
Mines has been going up 15% a year for the last 5 years!!. You are complaining for 7%? really.

Why the hell was yours going up? Mine went down from 2005-2009, and remained steady from 2009-2012.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 139):

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 52):
Free birth control pills.

Same here. Of course that is of great use to me.

Pills are medication. There is no "free" medication unless you are getting your other meds for "free" under a program.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 143, posted (9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 141):
That would be a good argument to have less taxes, certainly not more.

Sometimes you have to think of the greater good.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2013, 1427 posts, RR: 3
Reply 144, posted (9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 143):
Sometimes you have to think of the greater good.

I am thinking of the greater good. I want a vibrant economy for all people to thrive in. Not a parasitical economy that's taxed to death.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 145, posted (9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1862 times:

But... but... but... Obama said...

Quote:
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.

The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are canceling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

...

But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/thousa...ce-cancellation-notices-8C11417913



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 146, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145):
But... but... but...
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145):
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010.

But...but.... Read your own quotes.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7239 posts, RR: 17
Reply 147, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145):
But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.

From NBC no less, eh?


He broke a promise....for the umteenth time. He said no cancellations. Boom.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1222 posts, RR: 3
Reply 148, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1831 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144):
I am thinking of the greater good. I want a vibrant economy for all people to thrive in. Not a parasitical economy that's taxed to death.

More like a vibrant economy to thrive in for those who can afford proper high quality education as dramatically reduced tax rates would automatically lead into worsening and less equal education system.

Really the choice is nearly always between lower taxes and human welfare, which one you value more.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 145):
But... but... but... Obama said...

Good, I think Democrats should continue and get rid of the existing system completely and switch to superior European model.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8795 posts, RR: 24
Reply 149, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 146):
But...but.... Read your own quotes.

Irrelevant. He said you could keep your old plan if you wanted it. True or false.

And here's the insideous part.

Quote:
Some receiving cancellations say it looks like their costs will go up, despite studies projecting that about half of all enrollees will get income-based subsidies.

Half of all enrollees to get subsidized by the US government. Wonderful. Just what we need - another set of entitlements, and to half the population. It's kinda like the local crack dealer near a school - give away some samples and then the victim is hooked.

And of course the purpose of the subsidies is to instill the fear that once you are on a subsidized plan, and you hear of plans to make any sort of changes to Obamacare, you worry that your subsidy might go away, so are pushed to vote Democrat. The same strategy that was used with food stamps, welfare, etc.

The Democrat Party - buying votes with other people's money since 1933.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7150 posts, RR: 3
Reply 150, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 144):
I am thinking of the greater good. I want a vibrant economy for all people to thrive in. Not a parasitical economy that's taxed to death.

And here I was thinking you (like BMI) were all about the rich getting richer of the backs of the poor, which as far as I can see in the US the rich are parasites eating off the poor.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4510 posts, RR: 2
Reply 151, posted (9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1818 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 149):

Irrelevant. He said you could keep your old plan if you wanted it. True or false.


It's no wonder the tea party exists. Logically stunted folks need a place for confort . Why would you want a health plan that doesn't cover you to the minimum requirements? It is like buying a seat belt out of silly string. But if that satisfies your innate HATE for anything with Obama in it, go for it. Your absoluteness and selective quoting is what dooms the Tea Party.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 149):
The Democrat Party - buying votes with other people's money since 1933.

And this is why the Tea Party and GOP are doomed . The tax policies and economic policies of the GOP create highly inequitable divides between the rich and the poor. Bumper sticker statements and absolutist statements by the GOP are untenable. There has to be a social net to support the poor, otherwise there would be many other issues.

This health issue can affect people regardless of work experience or age. People that want to do better will still do better.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 152, posted (9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1815 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 142):

Why the hell was yours going up? Mine went down from 2005-2009, and remained steady from 2009-2012.

If true, you would be the only person the US whose premiums behaved the way they did. Specially if you had all teh medical problems you listed.

Wouldn't it be funny if my premiums went up to pay for your medical bills?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 149):
Half of all enrollees to get subsidized by the US government. Wonderful. Just what we need - another set of entitlements, and to half the population.

Half of the enrollees? or half of the population? pick one to foam at the mouth over.