Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Are you saying that we do not have to have insurance?   Assuming you're not(because that's dumb and you obviously missed the part on "proof of similar product" in your haste to be wrong), do you think it's wise to pay for something and not use it?

Posted by genghisxcon on 10/2/2013 1:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 

The rest of the world, with single payer systems?

Fine by me.

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Can you give us the the address of a U.S. hospital where costs are regulated?

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea.  The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Are you saying that we do not have to have insurance?   Assuming you're not(because that's dumb and you obviously missed the part on "proof of similar product" in your haste to be wrong), do you think it's wise to pay for something and not use it?

You don't have to have insurance. The law requires it but if you choose not to purchase it, the penalty is $95 in 2014. And it only applies if the lowest available premium is less than X% of your net income.

And the form required with your tax return?    What happens if you don't fill it out?  

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea.  The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?

this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
My God, you guys are dumb.

Repeal the ACA, and spend the time and money to address/fix the root cause of why healthcare is so much more expensive in the U.S. than in other developed parts of the world.

If healthcare costs are brought under control, the price of healthcare comes down.  If the price of healthcare comes down, then it is more affordable.  Which is the problem that, theoretically, is attempting to be solved.

Shoudl I use smaller words? 

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Are you saying that we do not have to have insurance?   Assuming you're not(because that's dumb and you obviously missed the part on "proof of similar product" in your haste to be wrong), do you think it's wise to pay for something and not use it?

You don't have to have insurance. The law requires it but if you choose not to purchase it, the penalty is $95 in 2014. And it only applies if the lowest available premium is less than X% of your net income.

And the form required with your tax return?    What happens if you don't fill it out?  

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea.  The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?

this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?

No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Are you saying that we do not have to have insurance?   Assuming you're not(because that's dumb and you obviously missed the part on "proof of similar product" in your haste to be wrong), do you think it's wise to pay for something and not use it?

You don't have to have insurance. The law requires it but if you choose not to purchase it, the penalty is $95 in 2014. And it only applies if the lowest available premium is less than X% of your net income.

And the form required with your tax return?    What happens if you don't fill it out?  

You pay a $95 penalty.

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 10/2/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 12:30:00 PM (view original):
Here's something else:

More people having access to healthcare seems like a good idea.  The right thing to do.    And I have to admit I have a hard time objecting to it.   However, the dirty underside is that people will live longer and require more medical care to maintain life.   Isn't that going to escalate the cost of subsidized healthcare?

I only donate to animal charities and that's a question I ask myself from time to time.    Of course I get the emailed newsletters detailing how they saved a dog that was near death.   Right thing to do.   However, in the next paragraph, they'll ask for foster homes because the facility if overrun with animals needing homes.   They just went to great lengths to save a dog that had hours to live to add to their overpopulated/underfunded facility.     Is that where ACA is headed?

this is some crazy thinking here. ppl are not dogs. ppl living longer is NOT a dirty underside to anything - it is almost entirely a good thing. if the costs rise, so be it. who are you to assign value to someone else's life or health?

No, it's not crazy thinking.   It's a simple fact of keeping people around after their expected expiration date.   When costs go up, the funds have to come from somewhere.

I can assign value to anything I want.   Who are you to tell me I can't?

expected expiration? what a joke. there is no such thing. ppl die when they die, and if they live longer, its almost always a good thing.  and sure assign value to other ppl's lives, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. you are not the ruler of the world who gets to dictate who lives and who dies, which is pretty much what you are saying you want to do.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:39:00 PM (view original):
Are you asking what happens if you don't file a tax return?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 10/2/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/2/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/2/2013 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Semantics.    We are required to purchase a government mandated product(or have proof of similar product) and use said product at facilities where costs are not regulated.    But congrats on playing the game in a way that allows you to skirt around any issue.

No one is required to buy insurance through an exchange.

If you do buy (or have) insurance, you are free to not use it at facilities where costs are not regulated.

Can you give us the the address of a U.S. hospital where costs are regulated?

Nothing in the ACA requires you to use your insurance, go to a doctor, go to a hospital.

Oh, wait...do you mean you might get sick or injured and need to seek medical care? I guess you will have to go to the hospital where costs aren't regulated if that happens. Good thing the ACA was passed so that you can...wait, you're saying you had health insurance before and would have gone anyway...well, then what does this have to do with the ACA?

Oh, I see.

Nothing.