Need a liberal's help

[BackInTex]

Obamacare is an updated version of a Republican proposal from 20 years ago.

You keep saying that like its a fact. It is not. Obamacare is an abomination of a flawed proposal.

Well, here's a well respected source (that's not partisan) that compares Obamacare to the 1993 Republican plan. As you can see, the similarities are substantial..

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphic ... rison.aspx

Obamacare became bad in the eyes of Republicans when the name Obama was attached to it instead of the Republican sponsors from 1993.

I stopped where the chart says Obamacare includes Religious or Hardship exemptions (that being the 1st line). If you have something accurate, I'd be interested.

[Bob78164]

Here's an example of someone who thinks she's getting screwed by Obamacare who actually turns out to have cheaper options than her current plan that offer more and better coverage (lower out-of-pocket limit and more doctor visits covered). --Bob

[BackInTex]

IT IS NOT A RIGHT. Do you have any idea, or clue, what 'Healthcare is a right' means in reality.

You are confusing the difference between the right to a basic level of service and the ability to demand concierge-type service.

If I don't like the cost of heart surgery, I suffer or die

Are you saying heart surgery is 'a basic level of service'?

Really, I'd like to know. Do you have a list of what you consider basic level? Who defined that list? You? The Democratic Party? Kathleen Sebelius?

[silverscreenselect]

I stopped where the chart says Obamacare includes Religious or Hardship exemptions (that being the 1st line). If you have something accurate, I'd be interested.

Your problem is that you can't handle the truth. We're talking about the individual mandate here and it does include religious and hardship exemptions (both in Obamacare and the 1993 Republican bill).

As an aside, I can see to a certain extent why you're no big fan of public education. You obviously weren't taught the basics of reading comprehension.

Here's the scoop from The Christian Post, not example a bastion of liberalism:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/relig ... ate-89189/

[BackInTex]

Here's an example of someone who thinks she's getting screwed by Obamacare who actually turns out to have cheaper options than her current plan that offer more and better coverage (lower out-of-pocket limit and more doctor visits covered). --Bob

Here's what I found. I won't divulge her current income, which is personal, but this year it qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy

O.K. Now I'm getting screwed. Not her. She and you should be happy?

Serious question on the subsidies. Aren't they are supposed to be in the form of tax credits? How do you get the tax credits before you file your tax return? Or are the subsidies applied in real time (i.e., you sign up today for a $400/month plan with $200/month subsidy and never pay the $400, just start out month 1 paying $200)? How is the determination of subsidy done? Through the website, tied to your tax return? What if you didn't file? Really, anyone know how that will work?

[SportsFan68]

I don't think I'm on the record here as disliking the ACA, which I do. I disliked it in 2008 when I first read the summaries from all the Presidential candidates outlining their proposals for changes in our health care delivery system, which I believe everyone agreed was -- and still is -- badly broken. I supported, and still support, a single payer system. Here's what I posted in October of 2007:

Single payer insurance means everyone pays premiums into a single pot and expenses are paid out of that same single pot. That's what Medicare is, and I propose expanding Medicare to everybody. Some obvious complications remain, mostly the same ones present in Medicare now. Still, I believe that it is the best system available to us, just like I would have voted for Steve Forbes if I'd ever gotten the chance.

Howard Dean said he was sure a single payer system could never pass the Congress. Representative John Salazar or Senator Ken Salazar -- pretty sure it was Rep. Salazar -- said pretty much the same thing in a local informational meeting about single payer, that we didn't have the political will to get it passed.

I hope that the ACA succeeds, but if it doesn't, I'm hoping that the next step for the country is single payer.

[silverscreenselect]

Really, I'd like to know. Do you have a list of what you consider basic level? Who defined that list? You? The Democratic Party? Kathleen Sebelius?

Standard surgery is a basic level of service considering the state of the art of current medical care. We can use the definition that insurance companies themselves have used for years "reasonable and necessary." That doesn't mean people can't buy better treatment if they want, the same as with current medical insurance.

[silverscreenselect]

Serious question on the subsidies. Aren't they are supposed to be in the form of tax credits? How do you get the tax credits before you file your tax return? Or are the subsidies applied in real time (i.e., you sign up today for a $400/month plan with $200/month subsidy and never pay the $400, just start out month 1 paying $200)? How is the determination of subsidy done? Through the website, tied to your tax return? What if you didn't file? Really, anyone know how that will work?

The amount of the tax credit for 2014 will depend on 2013 income, the size of your family, and the cost of the second lowest cost silver (70%) plan available through the exchange where you live. When you apply and give them your information, the website (hopefully) calculates the subsidy as a fixed dollar amount per month. That amount is then deducted from the cost of whatever medical plan you purchase. So, if you choose a plan that costs $1,000 a month and you qualify for a $400 a month subsidy, you pay the insurer $600 and the insurer gets reimbursement from the government for the other $400.

At the end of the year, your actual income is compared against what you estimated when you applied and you either owe the remainder or get the rest back from the IRS the same as any refund. Also, if your family size changes in the year, your credit will change as well (death, divorce, additional child) and that's taken into effect when calculating the difference at the end of the year.

In addition to premium subsidies, people whose income is less than 400% of the poverty level may qualify for smaller out-of-pocket maximums ($6250 for an individual or $12500 for a family) during the year.

[flockofseagulls104]

You are confusing the difference between the right to a basic level of service and the ability to demand concierge-type service. In most Westernized countries, the wealthy have ways at their disposal to get far better medical treatment (at a cost) than the government provides.

IO am not confusing anything. I have heard Obama and many other thoughtless people say "Healthcare is a RIGHT". It is their burden to explain that they mean 'a basic level of service', not mine to extrapolate their meaning. After all, I thought that 'If you like it, you can keep it' meant that if I liked it I could keep it.

And I have a question for you. Who determines what rights people have? You? The Tea Party? Ayn Rand? And don't say the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, because they specifically included the Ninth Amendment as an acknowledgement that the enumeration of rights contained in the Constitution was not intended to be exclusive.

We were endowed by our Creator the rights of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness. The assertion that HEALTHCARE is a right takes away the right of Liberty from those who will be forced into providing it. Did you even read the article? Nothing can be a RIGHT if it implicitly violates the inalienable rights of others.

Who determines what rights people have? Certainly not Obama, Reid or Pelosi. Although they think they do.

[BackInTex]

I stopped where the chart says Obamacare includes Religious or Hardship exemptions (that being the 1st line). If you have something accurate, I'd be interested.

Your problem is that you can't handle the truth. We're talking about the individual mandate here and it does include religious and hardship exemptions (both in Obamacare and the 1993 Republican bill).

As an aside, I can see to a certain extent why you're no big fan of public education. You obviously weren't taught the basics of reading comprehension.

Here's the scoop from The Christian Post, not example a bastion of liberalism:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/relig ... ate-89189/

Only those who are members of a religious sect that is already recognized by the Social Security Administration as exempt from Social Security requirements will be eligible for an exemption from the individual mandate. These sects mostly include the Amish and some other Mennonite sects.

Do you have the specifics for the religious exemptions included in the '93 plan? I don't consider the above a religious exemption. Those opposed to contraception or abortion or blood tranfusions are still required to pay for them.

[silverscreenselect]

We were endowed by our Creator the rights of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

Do you have a first hand source for that? I mean I can get you documentation for what the Ninth Amendment says or the 14th or the Magna Carta or Obamacare. But I'm not sure where there's a document from the Creator delineating these rights.

And exactly when did that endowment occur? In the Garden of Eden? On Mount Sinai? During Jesus' time?

What you really mean is that it's your opinion (and those of a number of others) that we have the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Other people (a lot of other people) disagree. That's why we have a democratic process in this country... to determine which person's interpretation of rights governs.

And I also noticed that you don't include property rights there, so I guess that must mean you don't believe in them. So, if I and a bunch of my friends deprive you of your property, that's okay by you just as long as we don't kill you or take your liberty away or prohibit you from pursuing happiness while doing so.

I think I understand now.

[jarnon]

Do you have the specifics for the religious exemptions included in the '93 plan? I don't consider the above a religious exemption. Those opposed to contraception or abortion or blood tranfusions are still required to pay for them.

Here is the text of the 1993 bill. After a quick glance, I think the Kaiser summary is generally accurate. It has a religious exemption:

Subtitle F--Universal Coverage

SEC. 1501. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE.

• (a) IN GENERAL- Effective January 1, 2005, each individual who is a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States shall be covered under--

◦ (1) a qualified health plan, or

◦ (2) an equivalent health care program (as defined in section 1601(7)).

• (b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) shall not apply in the case of an individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including an individual who declines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

[silverscreenselect]

Do you have the specifics for the religious exemptions included in the '93 plan? I don't consider the above a religious exemption. Those opposed to contraception or abortion or blood tranfusions are still required to pay for them.

Here's the text of the 1993 Republican bill:

(b) EXCEPTION- Subsection (a) [the individual mandate]shall not apply in the case of an individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including an individual who declines health plan coverage due to a reliance on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.

Here's the text of Obamacare:

(2) Religious exemptions
(A) Religious conscience exemption
Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is—

(i) a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof which is described in section 1402 (g)(1), and

(ii) an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.

(B) Health care sharing ministry
(i) In general Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.

(ii) Health care sharing ministry The term “health care sharing ministry” means an organization—
(I) which is described in section 501 (c)(3) and is exempt from taxation under section 501 (a),

(II) members of which share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed,

(III) members of which retain membership even after they develop a medical condition,

(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least December 31, 1999, and

(V) which conducts an annual audit which is performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and which is made available to the public upon request.

The words abortion, contraception, and contraceptive do not appear in the Republican 1993 bill. The Republican bill grants an exemption for objections to health plan coverage on religious grounds, not objections to any particular provisions. Obamacare formalizes the procedure to ensure people can't manufacture a "religious" objection to avoid the mandate.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Could this possibly be true?

Sebelius's point is actually a reasonable one, as far as it goes: A male policyholder can benefit from maternity coverage if his plan covers his wife as well as him. But the exchange reveals two other ObamaCare oddities.

First, it's not only men who are forced to buy maternity coverage they are physically incapable of using. So are women in the stage of life between childbearing age and Medicare eligibility.

Second, under-30s are exempt. That's right, the geniuses who wrote ObamaCare are forcing everyone to buy maternity care except the age cohort that includes women at peak fertility.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1152265686

[flockofseagulls104]

We were endowed by our Creator the rights of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

Do you have a first hand source for that? I mean I can get you documentation for what the Ninth Amendment says or the 14th or the Magna Carta or Obamacare. But I'm not sure where there's a document from the Creator delineating these rights.

And exactly when did that endowment occur? In the Garden of Eden? On Mount Sinai? During Jesus' time?

What you really mean is that it's your opinion (and those of a number of others) that we have the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Other people (a lot of other people) disagree. That's why we have a democratic process in this country... to determine which person's interpretation of rights governs.

And I also noticed that you don't include property rights there, so I guess that must mean you don't believe in them. So, if I and a bunch of my friends deprive you of your property, that's okay by you just as long as we don't kill you or take your liberty away or prohibit you from pursuing happiness while doing so.

I think I understand now.

First hand quote, from the founders of this country.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world......

As per the rest of your rant, I would just ask you tho THINK about the SPECIFIC SUBJECT I was addressing. HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. I am tired of arguing with liberals that change the subject when they have no answer to the subject at hand.

[silverscreenselect]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

As per the rest of your rant, I would just ask you tho THINK about the SPECIFIC SUBJECT I was addressing. HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. I am tired of arguing with liberals that change the subject when they have no answer to the subject at hand.

Note the words "among these," which indicates that the Founding Fathers believed there were other rights endowed by the Creator, which comports with the language of the Ninth Amendment.

Since we don't have the definitive word from the Creator Himself as to an exhaustive list of man's rights, all we have are opinions. You have yours and other people have theirs. In Western society, their opinion seems to be somewhat more prevalent than yours.

Fortunately, we've evolved past the stage where we need armed conflict or the threat of armed conflict as the only way to establish rights, as happened in 1215, 1776, and 1865. But the whole of Western history shows that the rights of man have evolved over the years by one means or another.

I am tired of arguing with conservatives who choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with their preconceived notions of universal truths.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Catastrophic plans
Starting in 2014 everyone must have qualified insurance. It will cover essential health benefits. The cheapest plans will pay at least 60% of health care costs.

Catastrophic insurance can meet this need for people under age 30. It also does for people with financial hardship or who cannot afford more costly coverage. These plans:

Cover three primary care visits
Cover preventive care
Cover essential health benefits only after the insured has met their cost-sharing requirement. ($5,950/individual, $11,900/family).

http://reform.interactforhealth.org/glo ... phic-plans

So if you are under 30 you can get a Catastrophic insurance plan which doesn't cover maternity benefits until the deductible is met.

[Bob Juch]

We were endowed by our Creator the rights of Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

Do you have a first hand source for that? I mean I can get you documentation for what the Ninth Amendment says or the 14th or the Magna Carta or Obamacare. But I'm not sure where there's a document from the Creator delineating these rights.

And exactly when did that endowment occur? In the Garden of Eden? On Mount Sinai? During Jesus' time?

What you really mean is that it's your opinion (and those of a number of others) that we have the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Other people (a lot of other people) disagree. That's why we have a democratic process in this country... to determine which person's interpretation of rights governs.

And I also noticed that you don't include property rights there, so I guess that must mean you don't believe in them. So, if I and a bunch of my friends deprive you of your property, that's okay by you just as long as we don't kill you or take your liberty away or prohibit you from pursuing happiness while doing so.

I think I understand now.

First hand quote, from the founders of this country.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world......

As per the rest of your rant, I would just ask you tho THINK about the SPECIFIC SUBJECT I was addressing. HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. I am tired of arguing with liberals that change the subject when they have no answer to the subject at hand.

The Declaration of Independence is not law.