Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:49 PM
 
8,896 posts, read 5,375,111 times
Reputation: 5697

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
They have been paying this for many many years...it's called medicaid and it been around for ages. It''s not new for Obamacare.

What's new for Obamacare is the 'exchanges'. These allow regular folks to PURCHASE health insurance without having to rely on their employer for this. Someone that is 62 and retired and has enough money where they don't need to work. But they can't get medicare until 65. They'll pick a health plan from the exchange, sign up for it and then pay the monthly premium. It similar to having a list of health plans every year like your employer lets you choose from. But there will be many more choices.

The states are supposed to set up these exchanges and this is separate from the medicare expansion issue as ruled by SCOTUS. If the states don't set up the exchanges, the feds will step in and offer this for the state's residents. Basically the exchanges are lists of health insurance plans and costs and ways for you to sign up and then you get billed and you pay the premium.
Funny, I managed to do this all on my own, without BO's help.

Didn't need a governmentr-run exchange to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:54 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,716,559 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
NOT. Florida does not really give a hoot about Rubio. He' too new and really hasn't done anything. He just talks fast and sounds like he is reading. He goes on national TV shows. He's not well liked in the state like some former FL politicians. He won the senate with 49% of vote less than 2 years ago. that whole time he has been groomed for VP and treated like the next big thing just because he is young and dashing and hispanic. He'll fall flat on his face and will ensure a landside win for Obama. He's about as smart a VP choice as Palin was. All talk, no experience, good attack dog, looks nice. Nothing more. Oh, Palin is a much more charismatic speaker than Rubio. He cannot energize and audience...he puts them to sleep.
Yes, Rubio is just to appease the hispanics who want unlimited immigration and amnesty for all hispanic illegals. He's not about the American people, he is about the La Raza agenda of having no immigration laws of any kind at least toward the people of Latin American nations.

I don't see Bobby Jindal promoting unlimited immigration for his ethnic group and rewarding those from a particular country their easy US citizenship because they chose to break the laws of this country.

Jindal is a far better candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,646,641 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
My healthcare plan is the one provided by my employer.

Now answer one for me - why should the middle class pay for healthcare for those that DON'T pay?
Would you much rather pay to bury people who die from not getting needed health care? Doing that surely wouldn't cost so much to taxpayers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,646,641 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Mon View Post
What I'm trying to say is that his plan is actually no plan at all. You cannot promise ending lifetime caps on benefits or coverage of pre-existing conditions without rigorous price controls and a way the pay for them. Also, selling across state lines would automatically trigger commerce clause regulation and wouldn't work without federal oversight or administration. Otherwise you end up with the health insurance companies moving to the states with the weakest coverage and responsibility regulations.
Then how does Geico sell car insurance across so many state lines that it advertises on TV all the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 06:58 PM
 
16,376 posts, read 22,494,081 times
Reputation: 14398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
Funny, I managed to do this all on my own, without BO's help.

Didn't need a governmentr-run exchange to do it.
Me too, FOR NOW. Through my employer.

But I want to retire before 65 and will have enough money to retire. Just need health insurance in order to retire early. If I quit my job to retire early, then I lose access to the health insurance that my employer offers.

Once I retire, I will pay the entire health insurance myself. Just want to be able to quit working because the ONLY reason for working would be to have access for the employer sponsored health insurance. Because of Obamacare, the exchanges will not decide to deny a claim if i get sick and the exchanges won't turn me down from getting insurance if I happened to get some illness (preexisting condition), such as the big C or diabetes or something else. (prior to Obamacare, individual policies purchased from insurance agents ( outside of employer sponsored plans) could deny coverage for preexisting conditions or deny a claim when you get sick even if you have been paying premiums for years. This makes these policies pretty worthless and as good as "no insurance")

Obamacare means i can retire before 65, when medicare health insurance kicks in. This is HUGE for me. HUGE. Who wants to work until 65 if you have enough money to retire earlier, but simply need access to health insurance. Lots of other folks are in this same boat.

Last edited by sware2cod; 06-29-2012 at 07:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:00 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,716,559 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
Would you much rather pay to bury people who die from not getting needed health care? Doing that surely wouldn't cost so much to taxpayers.
I haven't been to a doctor in many many years and I'm not dying.

I didn't have insurance when I was in college -- but I didn't die. I didn't need doctors back then either. It's a myth that many believe that anyone without health insurance is automatically going to die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,646,641 times
Reputation: 9676
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
So what about the uninsured? What plan does romney have for them?
Whatever it is the well paid lobbyists working for health insurance companies must first approve of it first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:02 PM
 
8,896 posts, read 5,375,111 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod View Post
me too, FOR NOW. Through my employer.

But I want to retire before 65 and will have enough money to retire. Just need health insurance in order to retire early. If I quit my job to retire early, then I lose access to the health insurance that my employer offers.

Once I retire, I will pay the entire health insurance myself. Just want to be able to quit working because the ONLY reason for working would be to have access for the employer sponsored health insurance. The exchanges will not decide to deny a claim if i get sick and the exchanges won't turn me down from getting insurance if I happened to get some illness (preexisting condition), such as the big C or diabetes or something else.
I did it without an employer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:04 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,473,584 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
It's my understanding (could be wrong) that the court decided that the federal government couldn't penalize states for that. Someone may be able to clarify further.
Yeah, they called it a "gun to the head" in the decision. Maybe Holder can help these folks understand that the government can't issue guns to criminals so that they can hold it to the heads of states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 07:04 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,057,820 times
Reputation: 10270
States rights!

It's all there in the Constitution.

I understand that lefties can't stand the Constitution, but that's why they just don't get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top