How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[heironymouspasparagus]

How cool is that!  Gaspar and Conan both get it wrong one right after the other .

So we must add a couple points;

Health insurance should only be required if you avail yourself of the health care system of this country.

and

Health insurance is not JUST coverage on yourself - it IS ALSO coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay for that huge part of your bill due to not having insurance.  Now is around 335 to 40% of average health care bill in this country.  Has been that for decades.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Birth certificate costs money too.

Plus, it is not adequate to determine identity AND employment eligibility.  (I-9 requirements)

[guido911]

South Dakota gets it.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not all bad as an idea.  Provide for the common defense and all that jazz.  In olden days in this country, people just naturally took that path anyway - making what the anti-gunners claim to be the militia of the Second Amendment.

I would say to take it a step further.  Require practice (so many rounds per year) to qualify to some minimum level of handling skill.  Kind of like concealed carry requirements.


No, he really didn't get it.  But makes for a cute sound bite story!

[guido911]

Here is some analysis of the Florida ruling with a link to the decision.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow - big surprise there.  Republican appointed judge.  Florida.  Nods to the Tea Party.  Should be interesting.  This Judge even quotes Child Labor laws!  Do you suppose that if a child labor case were brought before him, he would set it aside, too?

Mary Brown says the individual mandate will require her to divert resources from her business and reorder her economic resources.  Much like I currently DO have to divert resources from my business and reorder my economic resources to pay the 30% or so of every medical event the occurs now to make up the difference for her.  (Sound familiar - the way WalMart does things??)

She devotes her available resources to maintaining her business and paying her employees.  Much as I do.  And I don't enjoy the extra benefit of that 30% "bonus" for my medical costs.  And believe me, I wish her very well - and the neither her nor any of her employees EVER have a sick day the rest of their lives!!
That way it won't cost me, or most of the rest of us, so much.

It IS a shame that I currently DO have to pay those costs while she gets to skate.  Well, that's what the Tea Party is all about, isn't it?  Getting their tax relief at the expense of others!

One thing that IS kind of strange is how all the RWRE talk revolves so much around personal responsibility - like taking responsibility for your own health care expenses, both insured and uninsured.  But when the practice actually becomes law, it changes so dramatically.  It becomes an unwarranted government intrusion.  Rather than stepping up to the plate BEFORE a law is needed!!

[Gaspar]

Birth certificate costs money too.

Plus, it is not adequate to determine identity AND employment eligibility.  (I-9 requirements)

Nether a birth certificate or photo ID cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Gaspar]

While you were stuck in the snow.

Quietly. . .Quietly. . .

The Senate repealed part of Obamacare yesterday.  The 1099 requirement is gone.

Good news for the American People, bad news for an administration that legislates against them.

[nathanm]

I'd be interested to see what the vote looked like. Anti-deficit Republicans are utter hypocrites if they voted to repeal the requirement. Sure, it's asinine, but it would have helped enforce the tax laws and therefore raise more revenue.

[we vs us]

While you were stuck in the snow.

Quietly. . .Quietly. . .

The Senate repealed part of Obamacare yesterday.  The 1099 requirement is gone.

Good news for the American People, bad news for an administration that legislates against them.

Obama himself has said that he's open to change on that provision.  Not exactly the dire hit against the administration that you'd like it to be.   

As a matter of fact, Obama's said he's willing to continue to tweak the legislation, so it's not as if the entire thing has to stand as is, monolithic and unchanged. 

[Gaspar]

Obama himself has said that he's open to change on that provision.  Not exactly the dire hit against the administration that you'd like it to be.   

As a matter of fact, Obama's said he's willing to continue to tweak the legislation, so it's not as if the entire thing has to stand as is, monolithic and unchanged. 

I am all for Hope and Change! 

All we need to do now is get rid of that individual mandate, menu labeling provision, Swag disclosure provision, postpartum depression disability provision, tanning tax, abstinence-only education provision, "Health Choices Commissioner" establishment, the added 3.8% real-estate sales tax for high earners, real-time access to participant financial data provision,  along with 897 pages of garbage, and we've got something to work with.

It's like taking a giant rotten tree and whittling it down to a nice sharp tooth-pick.

[Conan71]

Health insurance is not JUST coverage on yourself - it IS ALSO coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay for that huge part of your bill due to not having insurance.  Now is around 335 to 40% of average health care bill in this country.  Has been that for decades.

Whiff and a miss.

If you bring all the uninsured under the same insurance plan as everyone else, the rest of us still wind up subsidizing the cost.  It's simply shifting cost centers.  Instead of paying higher rates for the treatment due to the charge off costs which are factored in for non-payers, now you wind up picking it up on the front end with higher premiums.

[Gaspar]

Whiff and a miss.

If you bring all the uninsured under the same insurance plan as everyone else, the rest of us still wind up subsidizing the cost.  It's simply shifting cost centers.  Instead of paying higher rates for the treatment due to the charge off costs which are factored in for non-payers, now you wind up picking it up on the front end with higher premiums.

But Conan, I thought the government was going to pay for it?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Need to accelerate menu labeling.  Make it actually happen and mean something.  (IHOP has calorie info on their menus now, so I am very much more likely to eat there from time to time.)

Locally would like to see law changed so insurance companies would cover autism.  But that would probably mean they would have to eliminate the requirement to cover viagra for old fat farts to be able to relive their virile youth!

Yeah, that's what Oklahoma legislative priorities are all about.  (Look how many of those old fat farts are lawyers AND legislators!)

[nathanm]

Whiff and a miss.

If you bring all the uninsured under the same insurance plan as everyone else, the rest of us still wind up subsidizing the cost.  It's simply shifting cost centers.  Instead of paying higher rates for the treatment due to the charge off costs which are factored in for non-payers, now you wind up picking it up on the front end with higher premiums.

But you reduce that cost by removing the collections aspect, thus reducing overhead. Of course, you might put some debt collectors out of business. Theoretically, it ought to also reduce the number of people the insurance companies and hospitals/doctors need to negotiate prices, since the base rate will be more reasonably aligned with cost to provide the service to begin with.