Reply With QuoteI want to change my vote to Upheld since Im quite sure people here just want the bennies to keep rolling until they die, **** the next generation.
I don't know much about the heath care law but I do know that alot of it has things in it that Repbulicians suggested. And its based on your BOY's Mitt law in MA which most of the people love. What I was saying about the ER was that if you have mandate, everyone would have insurance and there would be no need for the hospitals to increase cost.Originally Posted by FlintHillBilly
I want to change my vote to Upheld since Im quite sure people here just want the bennies to keep rolling until they die, **** the next generation.
First thing I did not vote in the poll it's none of my business really however I am little confused on the attitudes and expectations of the US populous. I accept the people have rejected President Obama's proposed health care iniative but oddly still overwhelmly approve of the provisions within it!
I must have missed it. Who here said they want their taxes and healthcare costs to skyrocket?
Search R##ters for the detailed poll, I found it their iPad Pro app this morning.
So they asked their readers if they want their out of pockets expenses to increase significantly and they said, "yes"? What was the demographic being polled?
http://www.r.euters.com/article/2012...85N01M20120624Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama's healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions...
That funnily enough was not one of the questions, one question I do find pertinent is 72% of respondents believed companies with 50 or more employees should provide health care insurance which I find to be a ridiculous notion as all a company should do is provide you with a wage comiserate with your skills, position and or experience and at the same send you home every night with all limbs intact and in good health.
"Sixty-one percent are in favor of allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26 and 72 percent back requiring companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance for their employees."
I'll bet that would change if someone showed them how much it would increase the cost of their premiums.
The poll found that a large number of Americans - including about one-third of Republicans and independents who disagree with the law - oppose it because it does not go far enough to fix healthcare.
Sure, it doesn't address some of the biggest problems - tort reform, and allowing out of state competition.
Same here. More people want things for "free". It's hardly a surprise that people would say it's the companies duty to give it to them. IMO no company has the responsibility to provide it, they do so as a way to attract employees. Interestingly enough, Obamacare is going to make it MORE expensive for companies to do so. It lumps on so many more manditory requirements that it will be cheaper for companies to stop offering it and just pay the fines. People are going to LOVE that, but most will be clueless as to why it happened.
FYI the "Mitt" law you speak of has been considerably modified from it's original intent causing health care cost to skyrocket in taxatucette. It's not as popular as you think.
Your impression about what happens at the ER is also incorrect. All ER's, those that haven't closed because of the cost, MUST take in anybody that walks or is carried through their doors. They can and will go after anyone for the cost for those people they know they can get to pay. All others are written off as a loss and is therefore the reason so many ER's have closed.
Sorry but forcing an insurance company to offer "insurance" for a pre- existing condition is not insurance. It's coverage. You live a cr@p lifestyle, engage in highly destructive personal behavior and yet expect a company to offer you the same benefits at the same cost as someone who takes care of themselves and engages in a less risky lifestyle? Nope, doesn't and shouldn't work that way.
Your employer owes you an honest wage for honest work, that's your contract with him and his company. That's it. Health benefits, retirement packages, etc. that's YOUR responsibility to YOURSELF. This whole the "government needs to ensure this or that" mindset is killing this country. I think there should be fallback plans for those that really need assistance; but they should be run at the state or local level. The Federal government is too far removed and too inefficient to deal with it.
I dunno. If I were an insurance company, I'd probably love the sh*t out of being made to provide coverage to a group that is statistically healthy and generally doesn't require much beyond annual check-ups. Less payouts I'd have to do for that group. In fact, I'm pretty sure the insurance companies were the only real winners here with this law.
I agree with your second statement.
x2. If this healthcare thing is going to work, then serious changes are going to be needed. Things like require testing for said condition your trying to get some entitlement from to keep those who want to cheat/are cheating the system out, creating databases to make sure doctors know what patents are on or taking to avoid perscription drug abuse, redo social security to be more like a individual bank account for every working american rather than a giant single monetary fund.
Only 28 votes? WTF?
Posting Permissions
