Just Lost My Insurance

[VMI77]

I'm sorry if I'm on the slow side of the learning curve here. I'm certainly not out to bankrupt you or anyone else. Just hold your horses so I can run the numbers myself - for my situation - and I'll be 100% forthcoming about how they turn out. If it's a bad deal all the way around, I'll stand beside you, trust me....

So then, if you're good, tough luck for everyone else?

[VMI77]

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."

[bayouhazard]

We just found out about our choices for 2014. This year we have a base plan and a buy-up premium plan. In 2014 we can buy-up to something close to the base plan, or payhalf as much for a high deductible plan.

Affordable health care Obama-style.

[VMI77]

CB1000 how is taxing the healthy to pay for the sick ethical?

Consider the alternative: We let the sick die because they can't afford to pay. Which way is more ethical?

For the sake of argument, let's say that we keep things the way that they are today as most people seem to like that idea. You have an accident and you can't afford a single life saving surgery, what happens? In most cases it gets paid for. Who pays for it? You and I do. We pay for it through taxes and we pay for it through ridiculous "non-negotiated" rates on health care expenses.

Obamacare changes that somewhat. It makes us pay up front to subside people who are sick and the people that can't afford it. On the basis of who is paying, nothing changes... We're just slightly more aware of what is going on.

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.

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:

This American government,—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we all must allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most left alone by it.

[cb1000rider]

So then, if you're good, tough luck for everyone else?

*Laugh*

No, although I leave it to you to assume that such is my immediate attitude.

Remember that I said if I'm able to figure out that it's doing more harm than good, I'll stand beside those trying to get it shut down.

I'm interested in the impact as a whole. Isolated examples of people that it hurts are not pleasant - and I have compassion for those people, especially for those on this forum who are losing homes and employer insurance over it. However, we can find examples of people that it helps too. I'm mainly interested how it will affect the "majority" of Americans and if, as a whole, it's a win or lose. You'd think, just based on the math that if they can bring enough low-risk uninsured into the market.. Well, let's call it what it is - force low-risk uninsured into the market, that this will help subsidize premiums as a whole... The interest in "what does it do to my rates" is anecdotal, but I'll publish it just to be fair.

[sjfcontrol]

So then, if you're good, tough luck for everyone else?

*Laugh*

No, although I leave it to you to assume that such is my immediate attitude.

Remember that I said if I'm able to figure out that it's doing more harm than good, I'll stand beside those trying to get it shut down.

I'm interested in the impact as a whole. Isolated examples of people that it hurts are not pleasant - and I have compassion for those people, especially for those on this forum who are losing homes and employer insurance over it. However, we can find examples of people that it helps too. I'm mainly interested how it will affect the "majority" of Americans and if, as a whole, it's a win or lose. You'd think, just based on the math that if they can bring enough low-risk uninsured into the market.. Well, let's call it what it is - force low-risk uninsured into the market, that this will help subsidize premiums as a whole... The interest in "what does it do to my rates" is anecdotal, but I'll publish it just to be fair.

So, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or the one...

Then lets take all the money from everybody worth more than, say, $100 million, and distribute it to everybody else. That would be a good thing in your philosophy?

[cb1000rider]

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.

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]

e one...

Then lets take all the money from everybody worth more than, say, $100 million, and distribute it to everybody else. That would be a good thing in your philosophy?

Trick question.
If I say that the good of the many outweigh what is good for me or you or some other individual, then I'm Socialist.
If I say that "I'm good" - doesn't affect me, then I really only care about myself.

How would you answer that?

I want a sustainable solution. I recognize an unsustainable trend. The trend that we were on will mean I work for the rest of my life if I'm to stay insured - and I'm above average means.
I don't think Obamacare is necessarily the answer, but Bush's attempt to reform healthcare failed. Basically, I'm willing to get creative and try a change. I'm not for it, I'm not against it... I just want to see the data.

[sjfcontrol]

e one...

Then lets take all the money from everybody worth more than, say, $100 million, and distribute it to everybody else. That would be a good thing in your philosophy?

Trick question.
If I say that the good of the many outweigh what is good for me or you or some other individual, then I'm Socialist.
If I say that "I'm good" - doesn't affect me, then I really only care about myself.

How would you answer that?

I would say that if it's MY decision that the good of the many outweigh the good of the few (me), and I therefore voluntarily give my wealth away toward that goal, that's called "philanthropy".
On the other hand, if somebody else holds a gun to my head, and makes that decision for me, that's called robbery.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

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.

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?

[cb1000rider]

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.

First, my omitting them isn't intentional. To be clear - and this is as I understand it, so if I'm not right, feel free to clarify:
Hospitals (public/private) cannot turn away emergency patients. That can turn them out after stabilizing them. That does not mean, however, that they have to engage in long term treatment of patients that can't afford it. I assume that means if you need chemo, but can't afford it, and are not in an emergency situation that you're not going to get it. They'll refer you to a social program designed to help you, which can take months. I'm distinguishing between immediate need and availability of long term treatment. You may not get long term life saving treatment if you can't afford the care.



[*]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.[/list]

That's an interesting point to call out. Certainly "insurance" is for asset protection. Of course, I don't think about it that way anymore. At some time in the past, healthcare stopped becoming affordable and now we need some form of "insurance" to help with it. In the last couple of years, I've paid 100% out of pocket once for "optional" stuff related to FAA licensing. Cash. That stuff, which was really an exam by a family practitioner and 4 X-rays cost me around $1000. If it was covered by my insurance, it would have run me about $50. Why are the costs out of control? Things that come to mind are subsidizing the uninsured and medical malpractice, but there is likely more.

Now my heath coverage (insurance) is simply part of a compensation package and it (the healthcare coverage) is looked at carefully. Something has fundamentally changed. I'm not saying that people don't buy catastrophic coverage anymore, as they some clearly do, but I'm not sure that's the norm for those of us working for the man... Medical care is just too expensive for even minor stuff like a broken bone.

I agree with you, if you're judgement proof, then it's easier to just skate along.. I just don't think that will work when you need long term care to properly treat an illness.

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.

It's definitely tending toward socalism, but where you make the distinction about providing insurance for those that have no assets, I think the only difference is probably providing protection for long term expensive treatments. We pay for it with or without Obamacare. It seems that Obama is shifting some of that burden to the young and healthy versus those that pay more taxes.

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?

Social justice - interesting. I understand the position and didn't like the prior trend, that's all I have to say.
2nd amendment: HA! I have a hard time looking past the reality that the 2nd amendment isn't alive in Texas. It's not the Feds that I blame for that. We have 50% of that 2nd amendment. We have the right (for now) to keep arms, but we don't have the right to bear them.

[philip964]

I will weigh in. My insurance agent called with two choices. Change the anniversary date of my policy and pay a $100 more a month for my and my wife's health insurance coverage. Or leave the current anniversary date, which will cross into Obamacare requirements and pay $500 more a month. If nothing changes between now and the new anniversary date I would owe the increase starting then, but not now. Saving the $400 increase until then. If Obamacare is revised before then, it would be back to normal. Seemed a no brainer.

So in my case Obamacare's new requirements on my current insurance increased my premium by $400 a month $4,800 per year.

I'm older so I may be higher than most.

[Kythas]

For the sake of argument, let's say that we keep things the way that they are today as most people seem to like that idea.

You've bought into Democrat propaganda, my friend.

Nobody has said to keep things the way they are. This is a lie told over and over again by proponents of Obamacare.

The fact is, Republicans have - and continue to do so - proposed numerous alternatives to Obamacare. During the Obamacare debates, Republicans proposed no less than 11 alternative solutions. All of which were summarily dismissed by Pelosi as she decried Republicans for not having their own plan. Democrats have, in fact, castigated Republicans for not having a plan while dismissing the plans Republicans have proposed.

Look into this and you'll see I'm right. Everyone knows some changes must be made. The disagreement is on what those changes look like. Should it be a socialist approach or a free market approach? I vote free market.

[mojo84]

look at the Facebook page for healthcare.gov and read the propagand they are pumping out and the read the comments.

https://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/Healthca ... 1151716292" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rotor]

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.

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.

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.