What could be positive about this Obamacare initiative?

[Republicanguy]

So yeah,

Does it really help you know, like two hundred or more people, the mega poorest in society? I guess so, at the expense of others right?:rolleyes:

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I have in-laws in another country. About 45 nieces and nephews. Very poor. They scrape by on food. They go to school with no underwear and holes in their pants.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law lost their houses when the big typhoon hit last year. Houses were destroyed and they lived under the tree for months. My brother-in-law built a temporary, makeshift hut with leaves and bamboo, but you could knock it over with your hand.

My sister-in-law stepped on nail a few months ago. Absolutely no hospital money. She likely gets sick and dies without help.

My father-in-law died last year after a long illness. We were able to extend his life because he had no insurance.

My sister-in-law lost her husband in an exceptional circumstance. She was pregnant at the time and has 7 kids. No widows benefits or SS like other countries.

My brother-in-law literally worked himself to death because of debt at age 50.

My brother-in-law fell off a motorcycle.

My infant nephew turned beet red one day.

My sister-in-law had cancer.

Cousins fall out of the coconut tree.

Other situations like this, some of which are very desperate.

My wife and I help in these situations when we can. This is in addition to our own care. I don't carry insurance. I don't really believe in insurance and work for myself anyway.

We pay our own way. We try to help extended family members. That's in addition to my family. I would like to know where these universal health care advocates get off telling me that I now have to pay their way too. These demanding and selfish little whiny asses simply use the power of government like a self-indulgent infant who has to get his way.

If you feel for people, then by all means, offer your help. Don't demand that others pay your way through the power of the sword. Men who do this are especially pitiful. Wimps.

So what is positive, you ask? Nothing for me. Maybe you should ask the selfish, lazy slobs who demand that I play father and nursemaid to them. I now have to pay an extra $95 next year and get absolutely nothing for it. Guess that money goes to the "poor" or some bureaucrat administering some dumbass program.

Hope I don't sound like I'm tooting my horn or whatever. I just get sick and tired of jealous, malcontents who simply play the income card. I don't want to sound dramatic either, but I can certainly match the stupid drama of the newz and the afternoon women's talk shows with maudlin stories about the "disadvantaged." (See; read above. I can do it, too.):rolleyes:

People look at the surface, seeing you wearing a nice suit or something, and then demand a piece of your pie. I got bills and obligations too. Your tee vee politics is a joke compared to personal, family politics. Again, if a person want to give voluntarily to others, then give. Otherwise, keep your damn trap shut already.

[Working Poor]

I think Obamacare could be waking some people up. Sorry to hear about the struggles of your family NorthCarolinaLiberty...

[Republicanguy]

I have in-laws in another country. About 45 nieces and nephews. Very poor. They scrape by on food. They go to school with no underwear and holes in their pants.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law lost their houses when the big typhoon hit last year. Houses were destroyed and they lived under the tree for months. My brother-in-law built a temporary, makeshift hut with leaves and bamboo, but you could knock it over with your hand.

My sister-in-law stepped on nail a few months ago. Absolutely no hospital money. She likely gets sick and dies without help.

My father-in-law died last year after a long illness. We were able to extend his life because he had no insurance.

My sister-in-law lost her husband in an exceptional circumstance. She was pregnant at the time and has 7 kids. No widows benefits or SS like other countries.

My brother-in-law literally worked himself to death because of debt at age 50.

My brother-in-law fell off a motorcycle.

My infant nephew turned beet red one day.

My sister-in-law had cancer.

Cousins fall out of the coconut tree.

Other situations like this, some of which are very desperate.

My wife and I help in these situations when we can. This is in addition to our own care. I don't carry insurance. I don't really believe in insurance and work for myself anyway.

We pay our own way. We try to help extended family members. That's in addition to my family. I would like to know where these universal health care advocates get off telling me that I now have to pay their way too. These demanding and selfish little whiny asses simply use the power of government like a self-indulgent infant who has to get his way.

If you feel for people, then by all means, offer your help. Don't demand that others pay your way through the power of the sword. Men who do this are especially pitiful. Wimps.

So what is positive, you ask? Nothing for me. Maybe you should ask the selfish, lazy slobs who demand that I play father and nursemaid to them. I now have to pay an extra $95 next year and get absolutely nothing for it. Guess that money goes to the "poor" or some bureaucrat administering some dumbass program.

Hope I don't sound like I'm tooting my horn or whatever. I just get sick and tired of jealous, malcontents who simply play the income card. I don't want to sound dramatic either, but I can certainly match the stupid drama of the newz and the afternoon women's talk shows with maudlin stories about the "disadvantaged." (See; read above. I can do it, too.):rolleyes:

People look at the surface, seeing you wearing a nice suit or something, and then demand a piece of your pie. I got bills and obligations too. Your tee vee politics is a joke compared to personal, family politics. Again, if a person want to give voluntarily to others, then give. Otherwise, keep your damn trap shut already.

So you'd rather that an income tax doesn't help your family members out, only themselves, and you when you can. That is pretty harsh, if I understand that correctly.

[acptulsa]

So you'd rather that an income tax doesn't help your family members out, only themselves, and you when you can. That is pretty harsh, if I understand that correctly.

I don't think we'll ever know if you understand it correctly or not. Unless you meant to talk about an income tax helping other income taxes out, that is. In which case, no, you don't get it.

[Republicanguy]

The whole point in the Affordable care act is to give by obligation all citizens access to healthcare, at least the theory goes.

In practice it doesn't do that, it is a beaucratic program to help a certain group of people in society.

Every citizen must pay for the insurance, whether they want it or not or can perhaps afford it?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So you'd rather that an income tax doesn't help your family members out, only themselves, and you when you can.


Say what?


The whole point in the Affordable care act is to give by obligation all citizens access to healthcare, at least the theory goes.

I'm required to pay $95 next year and get the same thing I got this year: nothing.


Every citizen must pay for the insurance, whether they want it or not...

Exactly. I don't want it.

[Republicanguy]

So what does $95 get you?

That by paying $95 in a tax that would contribute to a health service. I recall on the BBC's Question time that aires every Thursday at 11:35PM on BBC1 here in the UK an American in the audience back in 2010 or 2011 who mentioned that a health service should have competition so therefore a paid service all around for citizens. The then First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond may of been on the panel.

My own country's national debt, as well as the deficit is a very serious problem £1 trillion, or something. It really is never a thought for me. The labour party in opposition they claim they'd go back to 1938 spending. Ofcourse that was long before the NHS.

They kept spending under control taken on from the Conservatives and then began a spending spree well after the party's second election.

It's all such a mess. But no party is honest about this subject.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Before Obamacare Insurance companies would cover you if you had a pre-existing condition but charge you more.
After Obamacare they will not. You have to get Obamacare.

plus higher deductibles, higher premiums and higher co-pays for everyone.

and the government gets your "private" medical records that they will let law enforcement data mine. :mad:

-t

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So what does $95 get you?



It doesn't get me anything. It's a fee for not buying a product I don't want or need.

[tangent4ronpaul]

It doesn't get me anything. It's a fee for not buying a product I don't want or need.

You get punished by the extortion rackets more than that for not buying their product. They force docs with charging you more, a LOT more for everything, especially lab work or they won't compensate the doc for anything when a patient has insurance.

Some docs have revolted and have cash only practices. They charge a lot less, have lower overheads, make more and have waiting lists of people wanting to do business with them.

-t

[invisible]

So what does $95 get you?

About five pizzas, loaded with generous toppings, delivered hot and fresh to your door within 20 minutes, with plenty left over to tip the driver well. :)

[Republicanguy]

Give it a rest pal!

Honestly, how about Invisible go and work on the cloaking device I'm going to need for the Prototype spacecraft. Yeah, you Libertarians will be shocked paid for by a tax program;)

[euphemia]

So you'd rather that an income tax doesn't help your family members out, only themselves, and you when you can. That is pretty harsh, if I understand that correctly.

So you really think that families should not be helping each other? That total strangers should have their income confiscated by the government?

[Republicanguy]

Not quite, what I'm getting at is, that a system can be setup to help members of society, not everyone has many family members or has family that can help out like that.

The fact that, somebody in America may be on a welfare benefit for a few months means they can't even go to a dentist for a dental checkup?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The fact that, somebody in America may be on a welfare benefit for a few months means they can't even go to a dentist for a dental checkup?

If you're so concerned, then why do you help them instead of insisting that others do it?

[Republicanguy]

So I'm correct, that if lets say a person in their early 20's or what ever age, I guess shouldn't matter. They end up on the benefit at a job centre? They call them that there, obviously. There is no dental check up due to private healthcare etc buy your own blah blah. Here that is 18 or £20 but for the same claimant as the one in America, here in the UK for the least they get a touch of care due to low funds.

I think JC's in America they have offered computer access at them for years.

Does that brief unemployment benefit, I guess they are cheques or paid into bank accounts?

A like a Sign on procedure, were a job seeker sees an Advisor and they authorise a payment for the claimant if they have satisfied the advisor they are doing what they say they are doing, which in America people don't have the luxury to abuse a system like that, here in the UK that was a problem for many years, about ten years ago the system was open like that.

In the UK, computers are a recent addition, but with that the removal of telephones that were used to contact the head office in Scotland regarding a benefit payment error as in no payment or calls for vacancies to an employer.

That is useful, but that was removed by the Department for Work & Pensions as a cost cutting measure.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So I'm correct, that if lets say a person in their early 20's or what ever age, I guess shouldn't matter. They end up on the benefit at a job centre? They call them that there, obviously. There is no dental check up due to private healthcare etc buy your own blah blah. Here that is 18 or £20 but for the same claimant as the one in America, here in the UK for the least they get a touch of care due to low funds.

I think JC's in America they have offered computer access at them for years.

Does that brief unemployment benefit, I guess they are cheques or paid into bank accounts?

A like a Sign on procedure, were a job seeker sees an Advisor and they authorise a payment for the claimant if they have satisfied the advisor they are doing what they say they are doing, which in America people don't have the luxury to abuse a system like that, here in the UK that was a problem for many years, about ten years ago the system was open like that.

In the UK, computers are a recent addition, but with that the removal of telephones that were used to contact the head office in Scotland regarding a benefit payment error as in no payment or calls for vacancies to an employer.

That is useful, but that was removed by the Department for Work & Pensions as a cost cutting measure.


I really don't understand most of your post, but it's fairly easy to sidestep getting a job. You can basically run out your unemployment and get a job the following week.

Loopholes will always exist, regardless of time and place. One cardinal rule about big government: larger and more government means larger and more loopholes.

[Republicanguy]

The point I was making was, if somebody is unemployed, never mind what age, they can't get a dental check up if they are on a benefit for job seeking.

As for the benefit in the states, how long does it last? And that is only if the job seeker is prepared to do any role out there, I guess there is plenty of many types, and if not, then when the benefit can't be paid any further beyond a certain time it means the claimanent has nothing to help them.

In the UK, a person who is unemployed for months or years can't get employed due to a gap. So how can somebody in the states do so. It would seem the attitude there is different.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The point I was making was, if somebody is unemployed, never mind what age, they can't get a dental check up if they are on a benefit for job seeking.

Why not?


And that is only if the job seeker is prepared to do any role out there,

I never see it working that way. People always tell a person to take anything. Many people are willing to take anything, but employers are not willing to take them. McDonalds, for example, is not going to hire a laid off accountant. The person is overqualified and will leave when they find something. It just does not happen on that level with that kind of gap.



I guess there is plenty of many types, and if not, then when the benefit can't be paid any further beyond a certain time it means the claimanent has nothing to help them.


A benefit is not the only source of help.


In the UK, a person who is unemployed for months or years can't get employed due to a gap. So how can somebody in the states do so. It would seem the attitude there is different.

It's actually very similar. The longer you're out of work--the harder it is to find something. I'd guess that is a universal.

[Republicanguy]

Ah okay, but since there is supposedly a lot of employment then it isn't a certain that a citizen claims benefit for a long time.

And not everyone is capable or willing to do just anything, it also reflects on their reality what they have going for them, the last thing somebody needs is a miserable role.

As for the benefit aspect concerning health. The NHS here provides a job seeker with a free dental check up charged for the employed at £20 or so. Which is like may be $28 - 30