Minnesota and obamacare (mortgages, deductible, to live in)

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Comparing health care to auto Ins is lame.

I'm not going to hurt anyone else with my broken leg or having a heart attack. I can kill you with my car.
Car Ins is not for the operator (you) but for the other guy.

(yes I know it will cover your own mess ups too but you get the point)

With MN care we really don't have to be concerned with the poor not having Ins as MN allready has a plan for them. It's better than nobomacare.

Whatever happened with being responsible for your self?

It's not the uninsured that has driven up health care tho they will tell you that, it's from our litigious society.

Sorry but while lawsuits do play a factor, uninsured or under insured people most defiantly have driven up the cost of health care. The auto insurance example is very relevant because auto insurance isn't just for the other guy, it is for YOU to protect YOUR assets if you do injure someone in an accident-providing you aren't carrying state minimums which will not help you at all.

Yes, medical insurance in MN is on par with any federal proposals, that is why it was used as a template for the federal changes and why Obama came to MN to release the details of his plan and why you won't notice much difference with your health insurance when all the changes take effect.

[laxster]

Originally Posted by golfgal

Then hospitals and doctors should not be required to provide services for those who do not have health insurance, ESPECIALLY those that choose not to carry health insurance and especially in MN with our outstanding low cost state health insurance plan.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. What does your comment have to do with my post?

Legally, the federal government cannot force you to purchase a product or service, making the Individual Mandate part of the law unconstitutional.

Whether or not hospitals provide services to the uninsured is an entirely different question from the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

Let's also not forget that due to inequities in the current system, the uninsured who get care are billed FAR MORE than what their services truly cost. So, in a way, the uninsured are subsidizing the insured though inflated prices. Something to think about.

[snofarmer]

Sorry, if the bill is more than what your Ins will pay(or is over your coverage limit) they will come after your assets.
I carry 2million in liability Ins and even that could possibly not be enough.

You got my point you just chose to ignore it.

onboma care will drive up INS costs.
It will almost double my costs.

As business owner I can not afford the increase.
My employees will be on there own.
Why do some of you feel that it is an employers job to have ins for there employs?
It is a perk, not a right.
It was a means for employers to compensate there employees.
All these taxes, fees, ins, health and liability, workman's comp is doubling in cost also, lic, etc etc and you wonder why business are reluctant to hire.

Originally Posted by golfgal

Sorry but while lawsuits do play a factor, uninsured or under insured people most defiantly have driven up the cost of health care. The auto insurance example is very relevant because auto insurance isn't just for the other guy, it is for YOU to protect YOUR assets if you do injure someone in an accident-providing you aren't carrying state minimums which will not help you at all.

Yes, medical insurance in MN is on par with any federal proposals, that is why it was used as a template for the federal changes and why Obama came to MN to release the details of his plan and why you won't notice much difference with your health insurance when all the changes take effect.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by laxster

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. What does your comment have to do with my post?

Legally, the federal government cannot force you to purchase a product or service, making the Individual Mandate part of the law unconstitutional.

Whether or not hospitals provide services to the uninsured is an entirely different question from the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate.

Let's also not forget that due to inequities in the current system, the uninsured who get care are billed FAR MORE than what their services truly cost. So, in a way, the uninsured are subsidizing the insured though inflated prices. Something to think about.

Hospitals are LEGALLY required to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. WE all pay more because of this. Since insurance is based on the law of large numbers, the more people with insurance the lower your costs will be overall, thus if hospitals are required to treat, people should be required to carry insurance OR PROOF that they can pay 100% of their costs out of pocket.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by snofarmer

Sorry, if the bill is more than what your Ins will pay(or is over your coverage limit) they will come after your assets.
I carry 2million in liability Ins and even that could possibly not be enough.

You got my point you just chose to ignore it.

onboma care will drive up INS costs.
It will almost double my costs.

As business owner I can not afford the increase.
My employees will be on there own.
Why do some of you feel that it is an employers job to have ins for there employs?
It is a perk, not a right.
It was a means for employers to compensate there employees.
All these taxes, fees, ins, health and liability, workman's comp is doubling in cost also, lic, etc etc and you wonder why business are reluctant to hire.

I fully address your point so I have no idea what you are talking about and I have never said that companies should be required to carry insurance, I said PEOPLE should have insurance-either company sponsored or individual.

Yes, I agree that we in MN will see hikes in our insurance coverage costs because, living in a state where health insurance companies are required to be not-for-profit, that keeps our rates down compared to the rest of the country. Try buying the same insurance in another state and your costs will double or close to it.

[DeeDubb]

Ever take a step back and look at all the things we are basically forced to pay for nowadays that did not even exist 100 years ago?

The amount of money I have to spend on auto/home/life/health/liability insurance in addition to high federal/social security/medicare/state/local/sales/telephone taxes!

These things are busting our budgets, yet people lived without them 100 years ago. Makes you wonder why we are putting up with all this man-made hogwash.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by DeeDubb

Ever take a step back and look at all the things we are basically forced to pay for nowadays that did not even exist 100 years ago?

The amount of money I have to spend on auto/home/life/health/liability insurance in addition to high federal/social security/medicare/state/local/sales/telephone taxes!

These things are busting our budgets, yet people lived without them 100 years ago. Makes you wonder why we are putting up with all this man-made hogwash.

100 years ago people didn't have cars and weren't damaging other people's property or lives in car accidents. Social services was a direct result of the Great Depression, which happened less than 100 years ago, when unemployment was over 25%, people didn't have a way to pay for food and housing after savings ran out. Social security was designed to ASSIST people in retirement years, not to be a way of life. Taxes have been around for a VERY, VERY, VERY long time-back before the United States was even the United States .

[DeeDubb]

The federal income tax and all its other taxes were not around 100 years ago. There was a reason why the founders did not allow for income taxes...it knew the government would use it as a means to discriminate between the citizens (just like it is doing today). Originally, the idea was the federal government had to treat everyone equally (so much so that it only allowed for a "head" tax on citizens where everyone had to pay the same amount of tax).

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by DeeDubb

Originally, the idea was the federal government had to treat everyone equally (so much so that it only allowed for a "head" tax on citizens where everyone had to pay the same amount of tax).

That head tax was appropriate for the 18th Century and its overwhelmingly agrarian society. Back then, nobody except the King of England made billions of dollars - and Americans were justifiably outraged at his abuses. Times have changed, and we have to keep up with the times or become victims of outmoded and irrelevant thinking patterns. What is an appropriate way of paying for the upkeep of a modern industrial civilization?

Or should we even bother - perhaps a return to the good old days would be preferred? Indentured servitude, witch burning, child labor, medicine with bone saws, leeches and mustard patches were the standards for our ancestors. Maybe that's where we should go. What do you think?

[DeeDubb]

Wow. What a stretch. Are you saying there are no things about life way back then that are better than today?

We were talking taxes and the government's intervening in our lives where it never had before in a free society. So by your answer you must believe that the government can do no wrong and that change solely for the sake of change is good. You may think you are smarter than those in the past just because you live today, but I bet people back then recognized the beginning traces of tyranny when they saw it.