• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

jmotivator said:
False. Full stop. Do not pass go.

They are required to carry anyone off the street even if insuring them is a guaranteed loss, and they are now required to include a host of other "freebees" like birth control and wellness visits and on and on. Would you please at least learn the ACA regulations before defending them? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Instead of just saying 'on and on', why not make a complete list of health care services that you think Americans are not worthy of having. And with that list, provide the income brackets that deserve all of the very best and income brackets that deserve very little in your educated opinion.
 
Michael66 said:
When the teabaggers complain about paying too much taxes one would think that they would welcome the chance to pay less?
Click to expand...

LOL. 2 trillion over the next ten years is less? And that's just at the fed level and pretending that number will not increase. Plus on most of them, their own insurance rates will rise. Plus they still get stuck paying the bills on the uninsured.

That's a lose, lose, lose, lose situation for the taxpayer.
 
Michael66 said:
Good quality and all inclusive health care really is an evil thing to Americans isn't it! Why is that? Is it that Americans consider their poor and middle class fellow Americans less important in some way?
Click to expand...

You've mistaken health CARE with health INSURANCE. Obama can mandare whatever magical insurance he wants to (apparently) but the health care you will ultimately receive actually requires a doctor willing to accept the insurance.


Americans expressing their feelings on good affordable health care for all sounds more like hate than anything else. There's just no logical reason for it. And expecially when affordable universal health care for all is much more cost effective. (statistically) Americans pay more than any other country in the entire world
Click to expand...

It's funny to see you write that while millions are being dropped from their health insurance. But please go on talking about this imaginary world you live in.


When the teabaggers complain about paying too much taxes one would think that they would welcome the chance to pay less?
Click to expand...

People are paying more for their insurance if they are allowed to keep it at all. So again, you are talking about a situation that doesn't actually exist in the real world.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. 2 trillion over the next ten years is less? And that's just at the fed level and pretending that number will not increase. Plus on most of them, their own insurance rates will rise. Plus they still get stuck paying the bills on the uninsured.

That's a lose, lose, lose, lose situation for the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

I've heard that your statistics are fixed. Granted that some wealthy people might pay more but overall the American citizen will pay less and get more than a junk policy that covers next to nothing with deductibles that would bankrupt most of them anyway.

So what is it with the teabaggers if it isn't greed and hate for their fellow Americans. Could it have something to do with the skin colour of a lot of their fellow Americans. Could it be that the teabaggers are more concerned with racist hating than anything else?
 
Michael66 said:
Instead of just saying 'on and on', why not make a complete list of health care services that you think Americans are not worthy of having. And with that list, provide the income brackets that deserve all of the very best and income brackets that deserve very little in your educated opinion.
Click to expand...

Who said they aren't worthy of having them? I am saying that they are all "freebies" that the insurer has to pass on to the insured in the form of higher premiums. I'd venture a guess that after the overhead of the insurance provider it would be cheaper to buy your own birth control...
 
Michael66 said:
I've heard that your statistics are fixed. Granted that some wealthy people might pay more but overall the American citizen will pay less and get more than a junk policy that covers next to nothing with deductibles that would bankrupt most of them anyway.

So what is it with the teabaggers if it isn't greed and hate for their fellow Americans. Could it have something to do with the skin colour of a lot of their fellow Americans. Could it be that the teabaggers are more concerned with racist hating than anything else?
Click to expand...

LOL. Point out a few things to you and it's back to the phony race card. Here's a hint to you, take it or leave it. The race card has been so overplayed and misused that the only people that pay any attention to it, are people just like you. So while you may fire up some of your buddies with it's use, you lose points with everyone else.

The thing with the TEA party is simple. They are tired of the government wasting money.

Now lets talk about greed. People wanting something for nothing are the most greedy people on the face of the earth. It controls the very way they think and act. Taxpayers earn their money and are under no moral or constitutional requirement to provide for people that have learned to go against basic human instinct (taking care of yourself). Taxpayers don't mind and if fact are glad to provide for people physically or mentally unable to care for themselves but the greedy something for nothing crowd does not fit in that category. Some leeway has to be given to many Americans at this time though. Because the incompetent boob running the show has made it extremely difficult for people to land or keep jobs where they could provide for themselves.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Because the incompetent boob running the show has made it extremely difficult for people to land or keep jobs where they could provide for themselves.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it just adds another obstacle to the road out of poverty. For every $1,000 you earn you lose $1000 in state welfare benefits, eating away at your will to advance.

When I was a social worker in the 90s is was pretty easy for a single mother to pull the equivalent of $45,000 salary in total benefits from the state and federal programs. It was eye opening to me as a college graduate with a mountain of student debt making $35,000 a year and working 9-5.
 
jmotivator said:
False. Full stop. Do not pass go.

They are required to carry anyone off the street even if insuring them is a guaranteed loss, and they are now required to include a host of other "freebees" like birth control and wellness visits and on and on. Would you please at least learn the ACA regulations before defending them? Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


That's true, but they also get premiums paid, and by people who are not ill. Think it through. The reason you can pay for it is because you have well people paying. That's why the insurance companies lobbied for it. And nothing is free.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's true, but they also get premiums paid, and by people who are not ill. Think it through. The reason you can pay for it is because you have well people paying. That's why the insurance companies lobbied for it. And nothing is free.
Click to expand...

You have healthy people paying far more for it than they did before. Anyway, welcome to my point. Glad you made it safe.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, it just adds another obstacle to the road out of poverty. For every $1,000 you earn you lose $1000 in state welfare benefits, eating away at your will to advance.

When I was a social worker in the 90s is was pretty easy for a single mother to pull the equivalent of $45,000 salary in total benefits from the state and federal programs. It was eye opening to me as a college graduate with a mountain of student debt making $35,000 a year and working 9-5.
Click to expand...

That's one of the many things that get to me about the clowns cheering on the every growing and ever excessive "social safety net". It forces people to lose their will to better themselves, take pride in themselves and festers hate towards those that provide that fund the government.
 
j-mac said:
If the ACA is mandating through either by law, or new regulation the coverage of more items that they didn't have to provide before, would you think that would cost more? or less? Further, better has nothing to do with it, who decides "better"? Isn't that, or shouldn't that be my choice?

Also, I think you are confusing just how much control I, individually have over a policy offered through my employer. Questions, in my experience, about coverage, or specific coverage's contained within the plan are negotiated between the employer, and the insurance company. My questions to the insurance company would result in them referring me back to my employer, who's explanation would simply be that was the best plan for the money that they could offer. So, really in the end no real answers for me, other than "well, that's what we offer, either you want it, or you don't."
Click to expand...

More items insured would be better insurance, so did your insurance improve? Remember the condition I put on my comment, : if your insurance wasn't better.

And yes, better has something to do with. Insurance that doesn't do the job is worthless. I was talking to someone yesterday who had cheap insurance, but admitted if anything huge happened, they would largely be dropped and most not paid for, which begs the question, why are you paying at all. So quality does matter.

And yes, this is really your employers insurance. You just benefit from it. Let me tell you how it likely worked. The normal increase was a low 1.5% (ours), the penalty was then levied and your employer, who could have paid it (as could have the insurance company), decided to pass that on as well (it's only temporary but will likely be forgotten and taken as permanent). This would likely be around 2%. Together, that would be about 3.5%. If you have been paying attention you might not know that's actually a typical yearly increase. Ten years ago we increased 50%. Then for awhile had double digit increases. And the past few years they've been around 3-4%. Unlikely that yours has been that much different.

So all told, not significant. Hardly a disaster, and hardly outside the norm.

So, I have answer you, but let me give a link:

They point out that the 3 percent growth from 2009 to 2010 was unusually low. While it’s tough to discern a clear, long-term trend in the growth rates, the annual increase was holding steady at around 5 percent or 5.5 percent from 2007 to 2009. The growth rates had been at 10 percent and higher from 2000 to 2004. (See our chart below, which uses Kaiser’s employer survey numbers.) So, the 3 percent growth rate was “abnormally low,” says John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group that operates independently of the health care company. He says it “would stand to reason that we’d get a boost” this year, possibly due to recovering losses or catching up on the cost of new equipment.

(snip)

But Sheils says he tells people to look at the projection for long-term growth — 6 percent, or 6.5 percent. That’s not that different from the increases that occurred several years before the law was passed.

FactChecking Health Insurance Premiums

So, claims of it being to ACA are dubious. If any, only a small amount and still below normal.
 
jmotivator said:
You have healthy people paying far more for it than they did before. Anyway, welcome to my point. Glad you made it safe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, some is more than none. But the point is, it doesn't hurt the insurance companies. They have no reason to up prices.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
That's one of the many things that get to me about the clowns cheering on the every growing and ever excessive "social safety net". It forces people to lose their will to better themselves, take pride in themselves and festers hate towards those that provide that fund the government.
Click to expand...

It turns out the social safety net is a pretty awesome hammock.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, some is more than none. But the point is, it doesn't hurt the insurance companies. They have no reason to up prices.
Click to expand...

Of course they do. They are required to spend a lot more per patient than they did before. They pass that on in higher rates.
 
"So many challenges" yet you are unable to provide just one example. That pretty much speaks for itself.

By the way, I'm a heart failure patient on 6 different meds and because of obamacare I'm having trouble renewing my free healthcare that I had. The free healthcare I had is shutting down and thanks to obamacare, I haven't had my meds in weeks - my condition is worsening, and I don't know what is going on except that obamacare is being forced on people who already had free healthcare, and it was apparently more important to forcefeed it in such haste, than it was to consider whether or not they would be adequately prepared, which, of course, they are not. I find the whole thing awkward and unusual. So, again I ask what is REALLY going on?
 
Boo Radley said:
More items insured would be better insurance, so did your insurance improve? Remember the condition I put on my comment, : if your insurance wasn't better.

And yes, better has something to do with. Insurance that doesn't do the job is worthless. I was talking to someone yesterday who had cheap insurance, but admitted if anything huge happened, they would largely be dropped and most not paid for, which begs the question, why are you paying at all. So quality does matter.

And yes, this is really your employers insurance. You just benefit from it. Let me tell you how it likely worked. The normal increase was a low 1.5% (ours), the penalty was then levied and your employer, who could have paid it (as could have the insurance company), decided to pass that on as well (it's only temporary but will likely be forgotten and taken as permanent). This would likely be around 2%. Together, that would be about 3.5%. If you have been paying attention you might not know that's actually a typical yearly increase. Ten years ago we increased 50%. Then for awhile had double digit increases. And the past few years they've been around 3-4%. Unlikely that yours has been that much different.

So all told, not significant. Hardly a disaster, and hardly outside the norm.

So, I have answer you, but let me give a link:

They point out that the 3 percent growth from 2009 to 2010 was unusually low. While it’s tough to discern a clear, long-term trend in the growth rates, the annual increase was holding steady at around 5 percent or 5.5 percent from 2007 to 2009. The growth rates had been at 10 percent and higher from 2000 to 2004. (See our chart below, which uses Kaiser’s employer survey numbers.) So, the 3 percent growth rate was “abnormally low,” says John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group that operates independently of the health care company. He says it “would stand to reason that we’d get a boost” this year, possibly due to recovering losses or catching up on the cost of new equipment.

(snip)

But Sheils says he tells people to look at the projection for long-term growth — 6 percent, or 6.5 percent. That’s not that different from the increases that occurred several years before the law was passed.

FactChecking Health Insurance Premiums

So, claims of it being to ACA are dubious. If any, only a small amount and still below normal.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of others out there with similar stories to mine, and like I pointed out before, some of the lowest projected rises in premium under the ACA would be 40% to 50% on up all the way to over 100% increases. As for my insurance, it did change. My premium rose about 50%, and my deductible doubled per family member. Plus, I am now notified that as of next year when the waiver for business expires it may be my turn to lose coverage.

Now, I am a simple guy Joe, you know that. I can't see how you can tell me I am benefiting from this? I am 51 years old, my kids are grown, and I don't plan on having any others in my life, so I don't need maternity care, nor do I need pediatric medical, or dental care, plus I have a vasectomy, and have been married for over 25 years to the same wonderful woman, so I am pretty sure we don't need birth control like condoms either....

All of this stuff costs money, and you are relying on the young healthy kids to come on in and cover the costs, I get that, but you don't know that they are or will. Its a gamble. And one that so far neither of us can say is taking place or not.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
insurance companies are complaining about getting more customers?
Click to expand...

With 80% plus actually being shuffled to new medicaid roles, and of those left the sick ones coming in, are they really getting more "customers", or are they gaining more liability?
 
jmotivator said:
Of course they do. They are required to spend a lot more per patient than they did before. They pass that on in higher rates.
Click to expand...

That us made up for by the added premiums that come in. It's math.
 
Boo Radley said:
That us made up for by the added premiums that come in. It's math.
Click to expand...

No, you have to actually do the math before you can claim you did math. Show your work.
 
Boo Radley said:
More items insured would be better insurance, so did your insurance improve? Remember the condition I put on my comment, : if your insurance wasn't better.

And yes, better has something to do with. Insurance that doesn't do the job is worthless. I was talking to someone yesterday who had cheap insurance, but admitted if anything huge happened, they would largely be dropped and most not paid for, which begs the question, why are you paying at all. So quality does matter.

And yes, this is really your employers insurance. You just benefit from it. Let me tell you how it likely worked. The normal increase was a low 1.5% (ours), the penalty was then levied and your employer, who could have paid it (as could have the insurance company), decided to pass that on as well (it's only temporary but will likely be forgotten and taken as permanent). This would likely be around 2%. Together, that would be about 3.5%. If you have been paying attention you might not know that's actually a typical yearly increase. Ten years ago we increased 50%. Then for awhile had double digit increases. And the past few years they've been around 3-4%. Unlikely that yours has been that much different.

So all told, not significant. Hardly a disaster, and hardly outside the norm.

So, I have answer you, but let me give a link:

They point out that the 3 percent growth from 2009 to 2010 was unusually low. While it’s tough to discern a clear, long-term trend in the growth rates, the annual increase was holding steady at around 5 percent or 5.5 percent from 2007 to 2009. The growth rates had been at 10 percent and higher from 2000 to 2004. (See our chart below, which uses Kaiser’s employer survey numbers.) So, the 3 percent growth rate was “abnormally low,” says John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group that operates independently of the health care company. He says it “would stand to reason that we’d get a boost” this year, possibly due to recovering losses or catching up on the cost of new equipment.

(snip)

But Sheils says he tells people to look at the projection for long-term growth — 6 percent, or 6.5 percent. That’s not that different from the increases that occurred several years before the law was passed.

FactChecking Health Insurance Premiums

So, claims of it being to ACA are dubious. If any, only a small amount and still below normal.
Click to expand...


They aren't dubious. You have provided a 2010/2011 evaluation of the 9% increase and that 6% of that was a rise in health care cost and that they expect a 6% increase to continue.

Fine, great... now square that with the 30-400% increases we are seeing in 2013.
 
jmotivator said:
They aren't dubious. You have provided a 2010/2011 evaluation of the 9% increase and that 6% of that was a rise in health care cost and that they expect a 6% increase to continue.

Fine, great... now square that with the 30-400% increases we are seeing in 2013.
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed yet, so tell me why they would change.
 
j-mac said:
There are plenty of others out there with similar stories to mine, and like I pointed out before, some of the lowest projected rises in premium under the ACA would be 40% to 50% on up all the way to over 100% increases. As for my insurance, it did change. My premium rose about 50%, and my deductible doubled per family member. Plus, I am now notified that as of next year when the waiver for business expires it may be my turn to lose coverage.

Now, I am a simple guy Joe, you know that. I can't see how you can tell me I am benefiting from this? I am 51 years old, my kids are grown, and I don't plan on having any others in my life, so I don't need maternity care, nor do I need pediatric medical, or dental care, plus I have a vasectomy, and have been married for over 25 years to the same wonderful woman, so I am pretty sure we don't need birth control like condoms either....

All of this stuff costs money, and you are relying on the young healthy kids to come on in and cover the costs, I get that, but you don't know that they are or will. Its a gamble. And one that so far neither of us can say is taking place or not.
Click to expand...

Found a possible explain for you j:

All these cancellations were prompted by a requirement from Covered California, the state's new insurance exchange. The state didn't want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out - latimes.com


So, it might be actions by your state. As I said, keeping healthy people on the rolls is what keeps the price down. When the state says they can't hold on to them, they panicked. Good to live in Iowa.
 
I agree with his statement equating Obamacare to slavery - as it is, though certainly not approaching the horrors of slavery in the past.

Prior to Obamacare, everyone was born free. Under Obamacare, all adult Americans and every American born is born indebted to corporations selected by the President. All citizens must do labor, every year, to give money - hundreds or thousands of dollars a year - to at least one of those corporations. The only alternative to doing so and remaining a citizen acting legally is to pay an anual bribe to the country - which you have to able every year to pay that bribe.

Being born or otherwise forced into servitude labor your entire life is one definition of slavery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom