i don't want obamacare

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
Personally, I would love to have insurance, but I can't afford any kind of insurance right now- as I've said in a previous post, I fall into a "hole" where I make too much to qualify for medicaid in my state, but I don't make enough to start qualifying for assistance with the "Obamacare," so I'm pretty much forced into paying the penalty.

And that is why the system is broken.
 

Agent_Violet

Well-known member
I'd likely pay that much or close to it if I didn't have 4 dependants plus myself.

Not saying this is you but I do NOT agree with people getting write offs for their lifestyle choices such as having children.It isn't right to penalize a person bc they choose to have no children or only one child or can't have kids at all vs the person with 2 or 3 children.
 

Remus

Moderator
Staff member
Not saying this is you but I do NOT agree with people getting write offs for their lifestyle choices such as having children.It isn't right to penalize a person bc they choose to have no children or only one child or can't have kids at all vs the person with 2 or 3 children.

Having children is quite natural, society has made it unnatural (i.e. a burden). It isn't a burden, it is the future.
 

Flanscho

Well-known member
In Germany, having a health insurance is mandatory. And I like it. I'm used to going to the doc without paying anything, to get meds I might need at a heavily reduced price.
 

A Many Splendored Thing

Well-known member
I don't like most health insurance. It gives people the incentive to use a service they don't need, especially if it's 'free'.

I believe only emergency health insurance should be required(much like car insurance for wrecking another person's car but not your own). Where the hospital would have to service you no matter what. Otherwise, you should pay for your own visits and medication that you may or may not need(the not is the reason I don't like insurance for visits and meds). Somebody will have to pay for them anyway. The insurance for medication should be expensive anyway if you're on them...
 

Remus

Moderator
Staff member
I don't like most health insurance. It gives people the incentive to use a service they don't need, especially if it's 'free'.

That's a myth.

Everytime I've visited my "Free" Dr s surgery, it's not full of well people, it's usually half empty, with a few obviously sick people, kids going for their jabs and the odd pensioner.

Though compared to the US where people who are ill don't go to the GP because they cannot afford it, I guess it's easy to make that assumption.
 

Flanscho

Well-known member
I don't like most health insurance. It gives people the incentive to use a service they don't need, especially if it's 'free'.

I believe only emergency health insurance should be required(much like car insurance for wrecking another person's car but not your own). Where the hospital would have to service you no matter what. Otherwise, you should pay for your own visits and medication that you may or may not need(the not is the reason I don't like insurance for visits and meds). Somebody will have to pay for them anyway. The insurance for medication should be expensive anyway if you're on them...

Nope. Nobody I know would want to spend more time at a doc than necessary. Why would you? If you're healthy, it's a waste of time. Sure, one of a thousand people is a hypochonder, but who cares? It's better that way, compared to people dying early or being constantly sick beause they can't afford a doc.
 

S_Spartan

Well-known member
Basically if you are a "winner" with Obamacare(benefit from the expanded Medicaid or get subsidies) you are probably pretty happy right now. However, if you are a "loser" and fall in the donut hole of neglect or are young and healthy and are now being forced to spend money you don't have to subsidize everyone else, you are probably disappointed.
The law is too unfair and too rigid. It should have never been passed unless EVERY state expanded Medicaid.
 
Not saying this is you but I do NOT agree with people getting write offs for their lifestyle choices such as having children.It isn't right to penalize a person bc they choose to have no children or only one child or can't have kids at all vs the person with 2 or 3 children.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong BUT those childless or one child people don't have to worry about clothing and feeding multiple children, paying for medical/dental/vision/life insurance for 2 or 3 children, school activities for 2 or 3 children, paying for 2 or 3 college educations, helping to buy 2 or 3 first cars when they get their driver's license, or paying for 2 or 3 weddings as is semi-customary here. Not to mention all the day-to-day expenditures. So who's coming out cheaper in the long run?
 

Agent_Violet

Well-known member
I'm not saying it's right or wrong BUT those childless or one child people don't have to worry about clothing and feeding multiple children, paying for medical/dental/vision/life insurance for 2 or 3 children, school activities for 2 or 3 children, paying for 2 or 3 college educations, helping to buy 2 or 3 first cars when they get their driver's license, or paying for 2 or 3 weddings as is semi-customary here. Not to mention all the day-to-day expenditures. So who's coming out cheaper in the long run?

I fully understand and sympathize with the expenses that come along w/raising children. However,it's still a lifestyle choice and giving people a break for lifestyle choices penalizes others.
 

ukmale

Well-known member
When you have a country that's health care system is so ****ed up that people are doing self surgeries on themselfs then that's a big flashing warning light there that's its broken
 

Remus

Moderator
Staff member
That is such an offensive statement to people who can't have children. You're basically saying they're unnatural bc they are unable to procreate. Society makes it unnatural? You mean by giving parents every single break possible including tax credits and government assistance?
Now now, I didn't say that, you're twisting my point.

Yes, I think parents should get a helping hand as children are the future. I'd be more focused on the big corporate tax evaders rather than the struggling bottom feeders getting a little help.
 
Last edited:

eTherapist

New member
The Affordable Care Act is just that - affordable insurance. One thing to keep in mind is that some people pay $1300+/month for insurance so the ACA is qute affordable by comparison. You never know when you will use it. You could get in a car accident and need to go the hospital. Or there could be another unforseen emergency which requires a hospital visit or stay. ER visits range from $500-5,000 and a hospital visit for one day could be $20,000. Something to consider when weighing all the options.
 

ukmale

Well-known member
The Affordable Care Act is just that - affordable insurance. One thing to keep in mind is that some people pay $1300+/month for insurance so the ACA is qute affordable by comparison. You never know when you will use it. You could get in a car accident and need to go the hospital. Or there could be another unforseen emergency which requires a hospital visit or stay. ER visits range from $500-5,000 and a hospital visit for one day could be $20,000. Something to consider when weighing all the options.



I keep hearing about these life time limits so if you have a serious illness and get more than $500k bills they cut you off with one day costing $20k what's point of insurance if u pay and they still cut u off and let u die
 
I fully understand and sympathize with the expenses that come along w/raising children. However,it's still a lifestyle choice and giving people a break for lifestyle choices penalizes others.

I don't really understand how people think having children is a "lifestyle choice"? Putting in a swimming pool in your backyard, is a lifestyle choice.

The Government helps compensate parents for the huge and neverending expense of raising children, because if they did not not many couples would use contraception permanently.

These children's parents are helped with the cost of raising the next generation of workers and therefore the governments future tax base.

No country wants to end up with the problem Japan is now facing. It has a huge aging population and an ever diminishing pool of working age people to provide the tax revenue to fund the running of essential services the country will need in the future.
 

awkwardamanda

Well-known member
I don't like most health insurance. It gives people the incentive to use a service they don't need, especially if it's 'free'.

I believe only emergency health insurance should be required(much like car insurance for wrecking another person's car but not your own). Where the hospital would have to service you no matter what. Otherwise, you should pay for your own visits and medication that you may or may not need(the not is the reason I don't like insurance for visits and meds). Somebody will have to pay for them anyway. The insurance for medication should be expensive anyway if you're on them...

I see two problems with this line of thinking. People who only have insurance for emergencies may end up clogging emergency rooms with problems that aren't really emergencies instead of paying for a trip to their doctor. Also, a lot of emergencies could be prevented with regular trips to the doctor. So either insurance pays for doctor visits and problems are caught early, or insurance pays for emergency room visits and spends money on a problem that has escalated and become serious and likely more expensive. Plus it isn't just about the money. I'm pretty sure most people would rather catch health problems early on and avoid ending up in the hospital if they can.
 
Top