National Health Care reform - why all this anger/opposition? (poll, suspected)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Freedom123

It's ironic that you call the current system socialist while supporting Obamacare, which many consider socialist. Even its' supporters consider it "socialized medicine". As I've said before, I see it as center-left.

That was my point to the other poster. It is ironic that conservatives who have been pushing for individual mandate for 20 years, all of a sudden turn around to oppose it and call it 'socialist' as soon as they get what they have been asking for.

It's also ironic that you're worried about mandates and things being "imposed" when you support Obamacare, which does both.

Actually I was pointing this out to the poster I was replying to. He/she worries about mandate, while promoting another mandate. Ironic? Sure, and that was my point,

I'm sorry, but you can't win a debate by attacking policies that you support. You can't have it both ways, sir.

Again, that was my point exactly to the poster I was replying to. I suppose it applies to you too. You are trying to attack something you support.

If you're so concerned about the freeloader system, why don't you advocate to deny freeloaders access to the system or advocate they must go straight to government hospitals? Why punish the 85% non-freeloaders to deal with the 15% of so-called freeloaders?

We already went over this. Denying HC for citizens is unacceptable. This is why I prefer everyone simply pay their share. What do you mean punish? Vast majority of people already have insurance out of their own free will, so it status quo a punishment? No, it is not. The half a trillion dollar problem are the freeloaders who think it is "freedom" to receive services and refuse to pay for them.

You can't deem it irrelevant just to support your argument. Many prominent Democrats, politicians, and liberal media figures were strongly advocating for a public option during the health care debate. You can't just sweep it under the rug as if it's irrelevant, simply because someone you disagree with is using it as a method of compromise. Obviously these people believe the public option was viable, otherwise they wouldn't have fought so hard for it. Sorry, you're outnumbered in your own camp.

It is irrelevant to me since it is off topic and since I am not a Democrat and have no reason to defend the comments made by some Dems.

We already have this with Medicaid and Medicare.So, people who haven't paid into Medicaid yet used it their entire lives aren't freeloaders?

Yes, you could say that. I suppose it is possible to go through your life without ever working, but I think that is quite rare,

What about Medicare? Those with low income their entire lives always received a refund above and beyond their FICA contributions. Do you consider them freeloaders since they didn't really pay into the Medicare system? Medicare is based on quarters worked, not how much is paid into the system. I could work for 30 years, pay $0 in FICA taxes (or even receive a net profit from the Treasury each year) and still be eligible for Medicare.

This would change if people had insurance.

In fact, Medicare is the closest thing to an individual medical mandate yet it's still going broke and the health care costs are increasing. Why do you think Obamacare will be any different? Medicare serves more people than any individual insurance company yet it still can't contain costs.

I am not talking about Obamacare in general, only about the individual mandate, which I think would solve problems.

This is not an argument for getting rid of Medicaid and Medicare, my opinion is they are Constitutional. Liberals should have had enough balls to pass single payer and raise taxes to cover it, which IS Constitutional (but anti-freedom of choice) under Congress' tax and spend authority. Obamacare forcing us to buy a policy from a private insurer is not Constitutional and also anti-freedom of choice.

So, you oppose the individual mandate, but would be OK with single payer system? OK, thanks for sharing your views.

As for the constitutional issue. That is being debated in the SC, and we will know in June. If it does not pass SC, then the entire bill should be removed, because it would not be able to fund itself. If it falls, we will revert back to the freeloader system, which is a proven failure.

[Katarina Witt]

What about Medicare? Those with low income their entire lives always received a refund above and beyond their FICA contributions. Do you consider them freeloaders since they didn't really pay into the Medicare system? Medicare is based on quarters worked, not how much is paid into the system. I could work for 30 years, pay $0 in FICA taxes (or even receive a net profit from the Treasury each year) and still be eligible for Medicare.

Logic fail. You would have to pay something into FICA to qualify for Medicare. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do not qualify for it.

[RCCCB]

National Health Care reform - why all this anger/opposition?

Because when Democrats get involved and bring big government in they bring on a gazillion new government employees we don't need with no way to pay, get the premiums jacked up and do nothing to do anything better in increase the care for the money.
We need tort reform where lawyers can no longer sue easily, loser pays, no settlement outside of court for more than $5000 to avoid insurance companies settling with everyone for no good reason and so forth. Cross state purchasing allowed and so forth.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

National Health Care reform - why all this anger/opposition?

Because when Democrats get involved and bring big government in they bring on a gazillion new government employees we don't need with no way to pay, get the premiums jacked up and do nothing to do anything better in increase the care for the money.
We need tort reform where lawyers can no longer sue easily, loser pays, no settlement outside of court for more than $5000 to avoid insurance companies settling with everyone for no good reason and so forth. Cross state purchasing allowed and so forth.

Tort reform has been enacted in many states and not been the panacea many thought it would be. There is no point to selling insurance across state lines except to avoid the mandates of one state. In other words, sell stripped down policies that don't pay when you need it.

[Freedom123]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

That was my point to the other poster. It is ironic that conservatives who have been pushing for individual mandate for 20 years, all of a sudden turn around to oppose it and call it 'socialist' as soon as they get what they have been asking for.

Actually I was pointing this out to the poster I was replying to. He/she worries about mandate, while promoting another mandate. Ironic? Sure, and that was my point,

Well, if it was meant for another poster then I have no comment. I am not a Republican, so I have no need to defend their hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Again, that was my point exactly to the poster I was replying to. I suppose it applies to you too. You are trying to attack something you support.

How am I attacking something I support? Please elaborate so I can address this.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

We already went over this. Denying HC for citizens is unacceptable. This is why I prefer everyone simply pay their share.

You keep bringing up freeloaders, so I have no choice but to post the same rebuttal. I have proposed a compromise to cover the "freeloaders" while preserving freedom of choice. You chose to reject it outright without even trying to debate the details of how it would work. This tells me you're more interested in "winning for your side" than finding a compromise that works for both sides.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

What do you mean punish? Vast majority of people already have insurance out of their own free will, so it status quo a punishment? No, it is not. The half a trillion dollar problem are the freeloaders who think it is "freedom" to receive services and refuse to pay for them.

Punish through a federal takeover of the entire system. Obamacare won't just
deal with the "freeloaders", it will affect those who are already on insurance.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

It is irrelevant to me since it is off topic and since I am not a Democrat and have no reason to defend the comments made by some Dems.

Fine, see my comment about Republicans above.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Yes, you could say that. I suppose it is possible to go through your life without ever working, but I think that is quite rare,

I also gave methods unintentionally used by working people to avoid paying into Medicare, not just those who never worked.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

This would change if people had insurance.

How so? I was talking about Medicare, not Medicaid in the point you quoted and responded to. There is little to no insurance market for people of retirement age so there is no way your point is possible.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

I am not talking about Obamacare in general, only about the individual mandate, which I think would solve problems.

What problems would a mandate solve? Once again, look at Medicare as the closest thing we have to a mandate and show how it is successful in solving problems. It has the highest rate of claim denials and it is fiscally unsound.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

So, you oppose the individual mandate, but would be OK with single payer system? OK, thanks for sharing your views.

I have clearly said I am personally against a single payer system. My legal opinion is that it is Constitutional since the same "tax and spend power of Congress" rationale for Medicare applies.

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

As for the constitutional issue. That is being debated in the SC, and we will know in June. If it does not pass SC, then the entire bill should be removed, because it would not be able to fund itself. If it falls, we will revert back to the freeloader system, which is a proven failure.

No, we should remove the entire bill and implement a new one that applies some of the ideas in my first post in this thread. The status quo is not acceptable to me either, we simply have different ways of resolving it.

[Freedom123]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Logic fail. You would have to pay something into FICA to qualify for Medicare. Believe it or not, there are people out there who do not qualify for it.

Rebuttal fail. I was clearly talking about people who receive a net profit from the Treasury each year that is above and beyond the income taxes + FICA contribution they made.

Once again, Medicare is based on quarters worked, not net contribution to the system. If someone receives more than their combined taxes refunded each year, they are not really contributing to FICA.

Take a look at the W2s and tax returns of people who receive large refunds and it will prove my point. I have seen this in client returns for years.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Freedom123

Well, if it was meant for another poster then I have no comment. I am not a Republican, so I have no need to defend their hypocrisy.

Actually it was probably you. You can tell by following the thread.

How am I attacking something I support? Please elaborate so I can address this.

You seems to support and oppose mandates, depending on the mandate.

You keep bringing up freeloaders, so I have no choice but to post the same rebuttal. I have proposed a compromise to cover the "freeloaders" while preserving freedom of choice. You chose to reject it outright without even trying to debate the details of how it would work. This tells me you're more interested in "winning for your side" than finding a compromise that works for both sides.

Your compromise does not resolve anything. Or am I missing something here? How does it resolve the problem?

Punish through a federal takeover of the entire system. Obamacare won't just deal with the "freeloaders", it will affect those who are already on insurance.

Obamacare doesn't really take over any component of HC, insurance, hospitals, doctors, private clinics etc would remain in private hands. It does not take over anything. Or how do you interpret the word "takeover". You mean takeover=regulate? They are not synonymous.

What problems would a mandate solve? Once again, look at Medicare as the closest thing we have to a mandate and show how it is successful in solving problems. It has the highest rate of claim denials and it is fiscally unsound.

It would save half a trillion in freeloader-care, and the savings are designed to fund other stuff in the bill, like no-max limits and pre-existing conditions etc. Who knows if it would have been successful. It is all a moot point, if SC overturns it.

No, we should remove the entire bill and implement a new one that applies some of the ideas in my first post in this thread. The status quo is not acceptable to me either, we simply have different ways of resolving it.

No, I admit I do not have a perfect solution to it. I dont' think anyone does. It is a very tricky problem to solve.

[RCCCB]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Tort reform has been enacted in many states and not been the panacea many thought it would be. There is no point to selling insurance across state lines except to avoid the mandates of one state. In other words, sell stripped down policies that don't pay when you need it.

You get what you pay for.

Insurance companies constantly settle claims against doctors for tens of thousands of dollars because it is cheaper than entering a court room. That has to change and is why my doctor pays $240,000 in liability insurance BEFORE rent, nurses and so forth. That is why people are going to become lawyers more often now than doctors.

[itshim]

Thank god for conservative judges like Roberts and Scalia...and Kennedy.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Freedom123

Rebuttal fail. I was clearly talking about people who receive a net profit from the Treasury each year that is above and beyond the income taxes + FICA contribution they made.

Once again, Medicare is based on quarters worked, not net contribution to the system. If someone receives more than their combined taxes refunded each year, they are not really contributing to FICA.

Take a look at the W2s and tax returns of people who receive large refunds and it will prove my point. I have seen this in client returns for years.

So they paid in more than they needed to. They still paid in.

Medicare Eligibility

Therefore, there are only two conditions you need to meet to qualify for Medicare benefits:

•You must have paid money (taxes) into the Medicare system for at least ten years.
•You must be age 65 or older, unless you have a disability or permanent kidney failure.