Obamacare’s Bait and Switch Has Left Consumers Scrambling

[trendlover]

[QUOTE="gwb-trading, . Young, healthy people do not want to sign up because the premiums are far higher than their health-care costs. They rightly do not see why they have to buy a plan with pediatric dental care if they have no children, and mental-health and drug-abuse coverage if they do not need it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, but why when I buy the house in the USA I pay the property taxes that is going to the schools I do not use because I do not have children in the public school? Why do the people older in the USA pay property taxes for schools if their children are adult and not use the schools?

 

[trendlover]

When I look at my car insurance division of quote, I see (uninsured motorist protection) Why in the USA do the people pay to protect for other people that do not have insurance?

 

[gwb-trading]

When I look at my car insurance division of quote, I see (uninsured motorist protection) Why in the USA do the people pay to protect for other people that do not have insurance?

That varies by state. Ask your state legislators why they require "uninsured motorist protection".

 

[jem]

note to piezoe. Romney was in Massachusetts only. let us cast the blame properly... obamacare. As long as there is support for obamacare instead of single payer you will know the democrats and establishment republicans only care about about big crony govt and not the people that elect them.

 

[trendlover]

gwb poster, you say young healthy people in the USA do not want to pay for health insurance that have cover for care they do not need maybe now. My question is why do the some USA people have so much anger with this Obmacare/ACA requirement? Why do people have so much resistance to this ACA requirement when in the USA people for a long time pay property taxes for their home to for schools if they do not have children? Why do insurance company require (uninsured motorist protection) to protect from people with no insurance?
Why do some USA people feel so angry with Obamacare/ACA to feel like they are paying money they do not use when this is seems regular USA policy from insurance?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Why do people have so much resistance to this ACA requirement when in the USA people for a long time pay property taxes for their home to for schools if they do not have children?

Property taxes don't just go towards schools. They go towards roads, police/fire/medical services, local government costs, etc. An assessment on a house is tax deductible (from income).

Why do insurance company require (uninsured motorist protection) to protect from people with no insurance?

Uninsured motorist protection may or may not be required (depending on state). When it is required, it is there because when someone is at fault for an accident, it is their insurance that pays. If someone is uninsured, no one pays and the person hit could be liable for crushing expenses they could not cover. It is "at fault" protection, essentially.

Neither one of these examples has anything to do with forcing healthcare insurance on people, and charging those who are responsible for their own care, for someone who is not taking responsibility for theirs.

 

[trendlover]

Property taxes don't just go towards schools. They go towards roads, police/fire/medical services, local government costs, etc. An assessment on a house is tax deductible (from income).



Uninsured motorist protection may or may not be required (depending on state). When it is required, it is there because when someone is at fault for an accident, it is their insurance that pays. If someone is uninsured, no one pays and the person hit could be liable for crushing expenses they could not cover. It is "at fault" protection, essentially.

Neither one of these examples has anything to do with forcing healthcare insurance on people, and charging those who are responsible for their own care, for someone who is not taking responsibility for theirs.

 

[trendlover]

What I do not understand is why you think healthcare insurance is different than property tax part to schools, and the uninsured motorist insurance.
I understand when you are say property tax is paying more than just the schools , but property tax is include the schools tax. Everyone pay if they use, or they do not use if they purchase the house. True? So some USA citizens are have to pay for school taxes they do not use. So this is similar to health care laws.
Uninsured motorist you say
"When it is required, it is there because when someone is at fault for an accident, it is their insurance that pays. If someone is uninsured, no one pays and the person hit could be liable for crushing expenses they could not cover. It is "at fault" protection, essentially."
So really uninsured motorist is people paying to insurance companies to protect from the people with no insurance if the person cause the accident. True? So people in the USA always paying for something they do not use maybe for the health and safety of the whole community.

 

[piezoe]

note to piezoe. Romney was in Massachusetts only. let us cast the blame properly... obamacare. As long as there is support for obamacare instead of single payer you will know the democrats and establishment republicans only care about about big crony govt and not the people that elect them.

I agree with you, Jem. We won't be able to bring affordable healthcare to everyone and record profits to the health industry at the same time! Other countries consider access to health care a basic right just as we consider the right to own a gun an inalienable right . So philosophically they don't consider health care a legitimate area for unlimited private profits.

You must agree that the plan promoted by Obama and the democrats was in fact a plan very much like the one promoted by the Heritage foundation, which was based on Romney care -- or perhaps the other way around.. I don't know why they did that, but if I had to guess, I would guess it was because they thought if they went with the Heritage plan they would be able to get some support from the Republicans and that would help them get it passed. If that was their reason, it didn't work. The Obama administration had to make all sorts of compromises even to get enough Democrats on board to pass it. For one thing they had to drop the public option, and that was the main cost control feature. Obamacare, though it incorporated some much needed features, is nevertheless very fucked up.

The very first thing that would have to be done if we're going to have insurance companies involved, as in the Swiss plan, is to repeal McCarran Ferguson. And I don't see that happening. What will have to happen before the US will ever get affordable health care is that a crisis has to be created whereby, for example, the number of healthcare driven bankruptcies skyrockets, or few in the middle class can afford their healthcare premiums. Something like that will have to happen. Eventually it will get so bad that many people are going to Canada or Mexico for surgery and getting their prescriptions filled in Canada. Then finally, something constructive will be done. Of course, what that means in practical terms is that those now feeding at the healthcare money trough will have to fight it out to see who is going to make less money. When you bring down costs you bring down profits. That ultimately is what this is about from the provider's perspective . From the patient's perspective, there is a figurative gun to their head. And seen from that perspective, capitalism doesn't work well under those circumstances.

Medicare, or medicaid, for all would still let the insurance companies get their hands in the till by selling supplemental insurance as they do now for those already on Medicare. Medicare controls costs be negotiating prices and not permitting doctors or hospitals to charge more than the allowed amount. It is quite effective. This would end once and for all the insanity of handing over the young and healthy to private insurers and dumping the old and infirm on the taxpayer. I would say there is a very high probability that this is where we are headed.

 

[jem]

Have you reviewed the PBS special I linked for you.
Do you understand how our congressional leaders were purchased?
Obama did not make compromises... in the end they passed a bill without any votes from republicans. Obama and Pelosi and Reid and hundreds of democrats in congress sold Americans out.

The insurance companies literally walked into the White house and Congress and told Obama and the democrats there would be no public option and then they wrote obamacare as they saw fit.
Everything else you think you saw was kabuki. There was never going to be a public option... as long as the insurance companies owned your party. (and establishment republicans... which is why it has not been repealed)

Wall Street and the fortune 500 (wall street controls them) own congress. They got the republicans to give them Medicare part D to save drug company profits and they got Obamacare to save health care profits. Your team could have brought us the public option. They choose not to. Remember they passed obamacare without any republican votes.


McCarran Ferguson is an absolute non issue.
It allows insurance companies to be exempted from some anti trust laws... and says states can regulate insurance but Congress can prempt the states by writing laws which say they premept. Its a not an issue here. Had the democrats created single payer, we would have it.
McCarran Ferguson does not stop that.