TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

rotor wrote:It's not "insurance" if the rates are the same for everyone no matter what their condition. All real insurance is based on risk adjustment. You own an expensive car you pay a higher rate. You own a Yugo you pay a lower rate. You don't expect to pay the same for a $250,000 house versus the guy down the street with a $100,000 house. The ONLY way you can charge everyone the same rate is to overcharge everyone. So, the healthy individual is not rewarded for being healthy- he/she will be overcharged to make up for the 3 pack a day smoker down the block. And why buy insurance at all. Pay the stupid fine, when you get sick you buy insurance because they can't deny you and they can't charge you more. Everything is free- why worry- they will take care of you- your taxes will go down and you will have the same medical care that Obama gets. Sure!

Exactly. I just wish I could save on home and car insurance too by only buying it AFTER the fire or the accident. After all, if I buy insurance after my house burns down, it's a "per-existing condition."

The problem is, they CAN deny you, for a period of time. I specifically asked my insurance agent that question. My wording was: "So, if I just opt out, and then 6 months from now I get angina, I can just opt in then, right?"

His answer: "No."

Here's why....... excluding the next few months, there will only be one open enrollment period each year, lasting 2.5 months. That open enrollment period will run from 10/1 to 12/15, and people who enroll will be ensured as of the subsequent 1/1. There is currently a ONE TIME ONLY extension of that 2.5 month enrollment period because they are trying to get as many people signed up as possible. That one time only extension lasts until 3/30/14, so the current open enrollment period is 6 months instead of 2.5 months.

So, if I opt out now, and I get angina at my wife's birthday party on 6/2, I am out of luck until 10/1, when I will be able to enroll again. My agent told me that was written into the law specifically to prevent those people who have preexisting conditions from opting out until they need the coverage.

So the blackmail is doubly evil. If I opt out, I have to pay the fine. If I get sick, I still have to pay the fine, and I can't opt in.........and I can't buy a commercial product outside of the exchanges.

Heck of a thing when official government policy is to crap on the aging.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Wow....so, because of decisions other people make, I have to expend my labor for their care and existence --making me, in essence, their slave? So, money should be taken from me at gunpoint and used to treat some gang banger that got shot in a drive-by? That's your idea of ethical? What you propose is not only evil, but counterproductive. There are a substantial number of human beings on this planet and in this country who are not going to work and make themselves afford things like medical care when they can get it for free. It's a law of the universe: when you pay for something you get more of it. When you pay people not to work you get more people not working.

Your example is extreme. Certainly I wouldn't *choose* to support some gang banger that was shot by someone acting in self-defense. However, that gang-banger is going to be taken to a hospital, where a doctor who swore an oath to treat all people is going to treat him, regardless of how the issue occurred. Someone has to pay for that. The alternative is that someone gets to make a decision about who gets life-saving treatment an who doesn't based on very limited (and often incorrect) facts. You ready to make that call?

The gang-banger gets treated with tax dollars also. That stinks. It's not just, but I don't want to be the one deciding who is in and who is out... Sounds too much like a "death panel" to me.

Let's try a less extreme example. Lets say that I'm 20, I go to school and work to better myself. I don't have insurance as I don't have a full time job and my parents can't cover me. All of a sudden, I've got cancer. I didn't choose cancer. I don't smoke and I'm not lazy.. Stuff happens. Cancer treatment, assuming it is treatable, can run $100k/year. What should happen to this guy?

There are all sorts of stories in between. And sure there are lazy people who want a hand out. But do admit there are not-so-lazy people who can't afford the $12-$14k in insurance costs that I quoted for a family of 4.

The way it worked pre-Obamacare is that the taxpayers would cover it in some form or fashion. Maybe through taxes. Maybe through ridiculous "walk-in" medical costs. Regardless, the costs have gone so high over the last 10 years that it's clearly unsustainable.

VMI77 wrote: You've totally bought into the notion that the government solves problems. There never has been such a government on this planet, and never will be. The government creates problems...and outside of a functioning justice system (which we no longer have), and a military to defend our borders (which it no longer does), that's all it does...create problems and make life worse for the majority, while enriching the elites who rule over us. That's all any government has ever done. Henry David Thoreau could already see it over 150 years ago:

I think that there are problems that the government tries to solve and does a poor job of... on that, you and I agree...
Course, we, the sheep, tend to elect people who promise to give us hand-outs and provide for us at no cost to us, paid for by other people. When is the last time you voted for someone who said that they were going to raise our taxes to pay for the things that we already bought and decrease our benefits? Wait.. No one runs on a platform like that.

cb1000rider, you conveniently leave out some salient facts. These are FACTS, not invented.......

1. Denial of Care: until Obama's death panels, nobody has been denied care, including your 20 year old cancer patient. We have had public healthcare for generations now to cover the medical needs of people of small means. IF people did not take advantage of it, that is on them, not on the system. I worked in healthcare for a number of years.....in a private hospital, no less. We never turned away a patient. Did we eventually transfer destitute patients to public hospitals? Yes, we did; but NOT until they were stable to transfer without risk to their health. Those are facts. Those destitute patients, treated by doctors who get paid, have always gotten treatment, and the doctors always got paid. The cost of providing this public healthcare is an iota of a fraction of the cost of Obamacare, and it was paid for out of the taxes you and I were already paying.
2. Assets: the purpose of health insurance has NEVER been to provide for your healthcare (see above....it's all provided for if you have no money....), it was to protect your assets, which includes bank accounts, real estate, and other possessions. Ask any insurance agent. Insurance is about asset protection. If you have assets, then the insurance protects you from having to liquidate your assets to pay for your healthcare. If you don't have assets, then you don't absolutely need the insurance. The only reason for a person without assets to have health insurance is to be able to afford "cadillac" medical care.......which has less to do with whether you get the latest in treatment than it has to do with whether or not you can have a private room, or whether you can stay in a private hospital versus the public hospital. But without it, you will STILL get the healthcare, and without assets, there is nothing to take away from you to pay for it......which is why the state pays for it already, through the taxes you and I already pay.

Obamacare punishes those with assets to protect but for whom the plan rates are unaffordable, and takes money from them in the form of fines assessed for not being either too rich or too poor, and gives that money to people who either have no assets to protect, and therefore do not need the asset protection of insurance, or it gives that money to people still make $51,999/year (in other words, NOT poor) in order to protect their assets.

Obama calls that social justice. He also says he respects the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. You tell me, does he have values that you want to associate your own integrity with?

TAM, I stand corrected then on "just buy insurance when you get sick as they can't deny". You can still do it though but only during open enrollment which is still better than social security disability as that takes 2 years and apparently open enrollment in obamacare is 10/1 to 12/15. So you have to time your illness now.

This forum has two groups on it. The lefty side that loves obamacare and the right leaning side that hates it. I don't understand how anyone who supports the freedom we have with the second ammendment would also support the freedoms we lose with Obamacare, compulsory fine and penalty for being born. A tax on our first breath. The stupid argument about taxpayers paying for ER visits for uninsured patients. There are people that pay their own bills when they go to the ER, just as there are people who pay their dentist (me) and pay their vets for animal care. I grew up at a time where there was no insurance or medicare. Nobody was on welfare. My family worked to pay for housing, food and medical bills. I see nothing wrong with doing such. I also see nothing wrong with inexpensive high deductible catastrophic insurance, my wife's BC plan is $220 a month and who knows what it will become with Obamacare. Last hospitalization for her cost me $5,000 (the deductible). I am on Medicare and with a supplement and drug plan it's not cheap and not very good. Medicare is going broke, so will Obamacare.

It's not "insurance" if the rates are the same for everyone no matter what their condition. All real insurance is based on risk adjustment. You own an expensive car you pay a higher rate. You own a Yugo you pay a lower rate. You don't expect to pay the same for a $250,000 house versus the guy down the street with a $100,000 house. The ONLY way you can charge everyone the same rate is to overcharge everyone. So, the healthy individual is not rewarded for being healthy- he/she will be overcharged to make up for the 3 pack a day smoker down the block. And why buy insurance at all. Pay the stupid fine, when you get sick you buy insurance because they can't deny you and they can't charge you more. Everything is free- why worry- they will take care of you- your taxes will go down and you will have the same medical care that Obama gets. Sure!

cb1000rider
The affordable care act as written put congressional staff into the exchanges. They should have read what they wrote because they would no longer have received the huge financial support from the taxpayer to pay for their insurance. This was the Grassley ammendment. These are not low income workers on food stamps. The exemption they get is that they still have over 70% of their premiums covered by the taxpayer. They can afford to get the best plans available because we pay for it. The legislature did not pass any laws which created this great benefit for congressional folks. Obama just dictated that it be done. So they are able to get the top health plans available, payed mostly by you and me and in violation of the law they passed. True, before Obamacare they had those benefits paid for by you and me but they are now getting those benefits by exemption because it was not in the law as passed with the Grassley ammendment. How about some nice exemptions for the rest of us working slobs. As written though congressional staff would have paid for their own insurance. Come to think of it I have been doing that for the last 30 years. So when by dictum alone you give one group an exemption from the law as written I call that--- an exemption. Now let's see if the unions get their exemptions. As Pelosi said, we have to pass it-etc. We may be just debating semantics now and I don't deny that the Grassley ammendment put congressional staff on an "unfair" footing compared to the pre-Obamacare but much of Obamacare is unfair. By law when you are born and take that first breath you are taxed- you must have insurance or pay the tax. You are taxed because you live. Lots of things are unfair. But as far as congressional staff, they are exempt from Obamacare as written because by law they should not get any of their insurance covered by the taxpayer. When a large company cancels insurance and tells it's employees to buy their own at the exchanges those individuals are on their own unless their employer decides to pay part of the expense. I would bet that most don't do that. I doubt that a middle class individual will end up with a policy as good as the congressional staffer unless he/she is independantly wealthy. I hope this clarifies that congressional staffers are exempt from obamacare as written without any actual legislative change in the law. Our monarch just declares it to be so. Come to think of it, isn't that what happened to the author of this thread? Where is his exemption so that 70% of his premium will be paid for by someone else?

Correct. We are the peons. They are the monarchy. As Marie Antoinette supposedly said of the starving masses, "let them eat cake". No matter what they will end up with the gold plan and you will end up with the "smelly brown" plan. And you will supplement their cost for that plan. We are not just talking money- the care you receive is the deciding factor of whether you live or die with that heart attack, stroke, or cancer. Our rulers will for sure get the best care, the most skilled doctors, no restrictions on the cost of medicines, access to the best facilities. So, it is not just a money issue but a survival issue. But you will have your obamacare card that you can take to the grave with you. Do I sound like a bitter old man? Is the NSA scanning this?

In response to cb1000rider

Not correct. You are not exempt because you have an employer. Congress and their employees are exempt. When you have an insurance card which you are now mandated to have that does not mean that you have either affordable care or quality. All you have is a card. If that card grants you Medicaid status then you can kick your rear end goodbye when you get sick because the cream of the crop docs will not be seeing you. I am in the medical field. I deal with this all the time. As far as I am concerned, cash is king. Good insurance (and the emphasis is good because much is not- Ae**a is one of those not so good) is queen. Medicare only gets you in on referral from a doctor and Medicaid doesn't get you in at all. Obamacare is a giant Medicaid. There are some docs that see everything- you really don't want one of those as your private doctor. When you have to wait three months to get in to see someone do you think you are getting quality care? Look at other "civilized" countries like England. They have age cut offs for dialysis, cardiac surgery and everything else. Can take years to get scheduled for a hernia repair. What happens if you are at that age ( and we consider that young here) you die because you don't get the care. Who sets the guideline- the accountants. Money always talks whether it be guns or medical care. He who has gets the best. Pellosi is worth hundreds of millions- she and hers get in their private jet and go anywhere. You didn't see that in Obamacare? You have to pass it before you know it's there. You with your dinky Obamacare card will be at the bottom of the totem pole, somewhere close to me as I am on Medicare. My pets get better care without delay, cash is king, no outside government interference, when they need surgery there are no delays, when they need to be put to sleep it is done with dignity and love ( we call that humane but it is not for humans- only pets), and they always see a doctor as their caregiver while you will probably see a nurse (if you even get that high up in the medical scheme).

cb1000rider wrote:

Vol Texan wrote: I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

That is a point of view that I can understand.

The alternative is "do nothing". The course of doing nothing leaves the vast majority of Americans on a track that would mean they can't afford to be old or sick, unless they're substantially wealthy. There would be mass migration to Canada... :-)

Actually, the migration has been from Canada to the US. When it takes a year to get a CT scan in Canada (unless it's for your pet because there is no wait for that), the Canadians have been coming to the US. What happens after the insanity of Obamacare is another question. If it gets so bad that Canada is better we are in deep you know what. I see nothing wrong with paying for my care and having a high deductible insurance policy for "Disasters". I pay for my dental care that way and my three dogs get excellent care from their vet docs at a reasonable price and I pay for that without government intervention. Nothing that the government does is done well or efficiently. And if Obamacare is so great why do the politicians and their staff get exempted?

Those of you that think you can look at the insurance plan and so called "benefits" have forgotten the most important part of the plan, do they have any physicians signed up? Are the hospitals signed up? Just because you have a wonderful appearing plam for $150 a month doesn't mean squat if none of the doctors will see you and none of the hospitals are signed up. Essentially that's what medicaid is, a plan that covers everything except that there are no docs that will see you and maybe the hospital will accept it. Let's also understand something else, there are docs out there that will sign up for an insurance plan if it is printed on soiled toilet paper- these might be your providers in these new plans. Dig a lot more and find out who is in the network. People in my community have all found out that many docs will not sign with Aetna let alone medicaid. Believe me, unless you are an experienced health insurance salesman you will not know how to evaluate the plans. The people pushing the plans have only taken a brief course and are like the people giving out Obama phones, they work on commission and don't know anything. Shop at your own risk!