Clinton won the Presidency today and I am sad.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I currently pay nothing (I have no insurance)

2015 I spent $170 directly on medical expenses and then to be fair another $100 on over the counter meds for other times I got sick but didn't feel the need for a doctors visit.

I understand the value of insurance but the cost has to be at least close to what it costs me to live without insurance as the coverage I can get from the ACA has terrible deductibles and feels pretty worthless anyways.

In an ideal world I would pay $70 a month. $840 a year. I just pulled that # out of thin air but it feels like a small enough amount that I could pay it monthly, avoid the penalty, and still be contributing in a meaningful way to the problem of people who go to the doctor with no insurance or intention to pay. If you subtract the $170 from 2015 from that cost thats a $670 donation.

I'm more against being forced to pay more than I can afford for services I don't often require.

Have you looked at the Obamcare website for a quote? Depending on your age and income your premiums just may be that low. It doesn't cost anything to check it out.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Except I paid for the gun once, had complete control over which on I got and how much it cost, and wouldn't have received a fine for not purchasing said gun by the end of the year.

It's similar I agree, but different in really crucial ways

The real problem is how much hospitals are charging people period. The fact that so many hospitals are owned by insurance companies , so in essence they are charging themselves ridiculous rates to justify ridiculous health insurance rates.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Thats where my $170 figure came from. It was the cheapest of all my "options"

I've checked it out each time there has been open enrollment and the cheapest option hasn't changed for me.

My situation may be unique as far as the cheapest I can get, but it's the situation I'm stuck with.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

At least you checked it out. I pay more currently then if it was a private insurance policy. However hen my family members got sick, I didn't have to worry about losing my policy or paying premiums many thousands of dollars higher. That is really what I want protected. No point in having insurance if when you go to use it you get dropped or forced to pay premiums multiples higher. I have dead relatives because exactly that happened to them. I don't want a repeat with my family.

a reply to: ilikebooze

It costs nothing if you don't pay it. Try to avoid the arguements that lead to UHC less.

Hospitals aren't expensive if you ditch- EVERYONE was ditching just prior to its implementation.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Problem probably is that he/she is still working and paying taxes and watching their taxes go up to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. In this system, you work....you lose, unless you're working for cash under the table.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What made you think that American politics had involvement with good ideas?

Kev

a reply to: imjack

EVERYONE was ditching just prior to its implementation.

That is a fact.

Know what else was a fact?

The hospitals and Dr.s charge more to those who have health insurance in order to pick up the slack for the debt left behind from those hospital bill ditching bums.

Honestly, if we are not going to have UHC and think the whole ACA needs to be ditched, then I propose that every ill person attempting to to see a doctor must have health insurance and/or the means to pay for their medical services up front. Need a quadruple bypass surgery? What, you don't have $150,000 to pay up front? Sorry, we can't treat you, but there is a nice grove of trees outside the hospital grounds where you may feel comfortable laying while you die a preventable death. I do not want to subsidize the uninsured via my personal health insurance premiums.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: introvert

Scariest thing in the whole thread.

People like this are REAL

Yes, people like me are real.

It may be scary to those that wish to hold tightly on to old ways, but those people will continue to become a smaller portion of society as people become more liberal over time.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

OR we could have UHC and the same mother Fulkerson you've been paying for will now pay for themselves.


In any event acting like the current system is cheaper and avoiding implementation because of that is the biggest joke on the history of this subject.

They claim they don't want illegals here, but then pay for all their medical expenses out of pocket premiums, and taxes for the Obama Care.

You #ing idiots, you don't want to pay for your own healthcare and have it be required, but until then you're paying for everyone else, regardless if you #ing noticed or not.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Problem probably is that he/she is still working and paying taxes and watching their taxes go up to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. In this system, you work....you lose, unless you're working for cash under the table.

I guess when you look at it as a pure loss instead of money going to help people than it certainly looks like that. It's a wonder that sharing is looked upon so derisively.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

And this is exactly how our country is in the current position.

You are voting for stuff, instead of of what is backed by the Constitution.


Sad as many people will vote in this manner.

Welfare people don't want to vote away free stuff.
Baby boomers won't give up SS and Medicaid.

So on and so on. We are screwed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sharing is what we have charities for.
Taxes ain't sharing; its confiscation.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sharing is what we have charities for.
Taxes ain't sharing; its confiscation.

Considering that the Founder's found it necessary for the public defense to tax the people to provide a military, would you consider the Founders thieves?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sharing is what we have charities for.
Taxes ain't sharing; its confiscation.

Considering that the Founder's found it necessary for the public defense to tax the people to provide a military, would you consider the Founders thieves?

Also found it necessary for Americans General Welfare.
Not just the Militarised aspect.

People ignore that part.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sharing is what we have charities for.
Taxes ain't sharing; its confiscation.

Taxes are allowed by the Constitution so you are going to have to take that up with the Constitution.

Taxing and Spending Clause

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

a reply to: introvert

Do I consider them theives?

I don't know. That's one way of putting it. Why don't you ask the descendants of their former slaves?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sharing is what we have charities for.
Taxes ain't sharing; its confiscation.

Considering that the Founder's found it necessary for the public defense to tax the people to provide a military, would you consider the Founders thieves?

I know you didn't pose this one to me...
Provide for a common defense...... Makes sense that there might be a need for money to do that.

General welfare of the United States..... Does not say citizens, and definitely doesn't say individual welfare.

a reply to: TonyS

The direct ones, that had no problem owning slaves, even as free black people,

or the ones today that aren't even impacted by slavery, outside of the constructs of their own community?