Obamacare Forum on Facebook Obamacare Forum on Google Plus Obamacare Forum on Twitter Obamacare Forum on LinkedIn

Greetings Obamacare Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

ObamaCare Forums are non-partisan. Ask questions, find information, discuss & debate about the Affordable Care Act, and please remember to follow the forum rules. Please do not debate and provide opinions within discussions in the categories for facts. Thank you for helping to keep these forums informative and constructive.

Obamacare: Socialism At Its Best

edited December 2016 in Obamacare Debates and Opinions Posts: 34
Socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth or production by a community or government as a whole. While the election of Trump has somewhat slowed socialism by preventing Hillary from continuing Obama's socialist agenda, we are far from safe from the spread of socialism. Obamacare is woven tightly into the fabric of society & it threatens people's daily existence. Mine, for one.

If this "healthcare" system is so good, why must people be forced to buy it? If a product is truly good, people will buy it voluntarily. It isn't good & that's why we are forced to buy into it. It has nothing to do with making the overall insurance prices decline, which it has shown to do just the opposite. Obama has even admitted this himself. Why? Because he never really wanted this system. Obama wanted a single-payer system like Canada. He has said this on many occasions. His plan was to introduce this system and have it fail so that people would demand that the government fix it & that's when they would introduce a single-payer system. 

I tried to get this Obamacare stuff when it first came out because I have always tried to do what the law demands. There was supposed to be some kind of "assistance" co-pay thing offered, so I looked through all the plans on their website and found the cheapest possible plan. With the assistance applied, I was to pay only $9 a month for health insurance. My deductible was $6500 per year, which meant I would have to spend out of pocket $542 every month for a year before my plan would pitch in a single penny. As I said before, I've always been pretty healthy, so what am I supposed to do? Go out and intentionally get into car wrecks? Start smoking and drinking heavily? Walk through the snow barefoot? How am I suppose to spend $542 a month? I buy a bottle of aspirin about once every five years.

Well, I decided that $9 a month was reasonable enough of an involuntary tax I would spend to appease the Obama god, so I signed up for this plan, knowing well that I would never use it. I was instructed to include a blank voided check so payments could be made automatically, which I did. To my surprise, I received the check back in about a week with a letter stating that I would not be able to pay with my checking account until my "balance" was paid in full. What "balance"? This was a new account & there should not be a balance. So I decided I would just pay the penalty at the end of the year, which they had originally stated would be $95. Well, I can tell you that it isn't $95 and it gets larger every year.

The following year, after paying around a $800 fine on my income tax for not having coverage, I went online again to find that same package. Now the website told me that I did not qualify for any assistance and my insurance would be $461.32 a month plus a $6500 deductible. Yes, that's $12,035.84 a year and not a thing had changed in my living situation. I also support an adult son full time who is unemployed. He is covered under his mother's plan, so I am told. I called the number for the Obamacare thing & was told that I did not qualify for the assistance this year. When I inquired as to why, they did not have any idea, but stuck adamantly to that, so I told them to cancel the application I had just entered. They gave me the old "I must officially notify you that you will not have coverage under Obamacare if you cancel this... blah blah blah" so I agreed & hung up. I immediately went back to their website & entered the exact information I had 30 minutes ago & it says "You qualify for assistance!" I just logged out, my confidence of this system totally shot.

Today I received a letter from our friendly Internal Revenue Service saying that, since I did not have Obamacare, I would be subject to a $1400 dollar fine this year. So I must make a decision: Should I pay the $1400 & not have coverage or pay the $5536 (premiums only) & still not have coverage? Perhaps an Obama lover, if one of you is out there, could tell me how this system makes my life better?

Comments

  • I hate misinformation. The US has a medical system for Seniors over 65 that is Socialism. It works quite well with the government and the citizen sharing costs.
    Obamacare was setup to share costs. If your income is too high, as yours is, you will have to pay more. The reason Obamacare is failing is there was never a public option (Socialism) to stop greedy insurance companies. That was Obama's fault. BUT the Republican House is the one to blame. The House stopped funding their share so the insurance companies dropped all costs on You.
    Socialism for medical is like water. We need it to live. Socialized medicine is the only solution for Countries that care about their citizens.
    TE5LA
  • Posts: 34
    Hogwash.

    Socialism doesn't work, never has.

    And I make too much money?  Haha, very funny. Guess that's why I drive a beat up '96 Honda, cause I make so much money.

    Democrats have been in control for the last eight years. Now we have a change to fix this country and I'm not even a Republican. You people have crapped on this country long enough. You are all a bunch of butthurt losers who, if you don't get your way, you cry and riot and destroy everything people have worked hard to build. You're a disgrace.
  • You stated in your first post that you were not entitled to a subsidy NOW. That fact is based on your income and not on what car you drive.
    You sound like you don't want a solution. You sound like you just want to scream against Socialism, something you obviously don't understand.
    Enjoy your high premiums with Birther and Chief.
    TE5LA
  • Posts: 34
    Yeah, I also mentioned that exactly nothing has changed in my income from the first to the second attempt, but you failed to catch that, I see.

    "Birther"?  You are referring to the fact that Obama was not legally qualified to be president because he wasn't born in the United States? Yes, I know this. He was born in Kenya. His grandmother has said this. His half-sister has said he was not born in Hawaii. He refused to provide a birth certificate when asked. It gave him enough time to falsify documents that he finally produced, which has been proven to be fake. BTW, the whole birther movement was created by your idol Hillary Clinton, not by Trump. She had the audacity to tell Trump that he should stop talking about it. 

    Sounds like you're the one who doesn't understand.
  • Posts: 34
    Here you go... I've just begun my 2017 enrollment. I make 24k a year and I support another adult 100%. 35% of my income is rent and I'm getting a very good deal at that. Oh look! They will pay 40% of my office visits after I have paid $5000. How wonderful. Well, at least it isn't $6400, like the next "best" plan.

    image
  • Posts: 34
    Oh hey, look!  That $36.81/mth plan just mysteriously increased 125% after clicking the "Enroll" button. Boy, it just keeps getting better. That's about $994 down the toilet every year. Heck, I guess it's still less than the $1400 fine.

    image
  • Posts: 34
    And look at the "normal" price: With the deductible, that amounts to $980 a month for one person.

  • > Socialism is defined as a redistribution of wealth or production by a community or government as a whole. While the election of Trump has somewhat slowed socialism by preventing Hillary from continuing Obama's socialist agenda, we are far from safe from the spread of socialism.

    *** Trumpism, as it seems to be based on his campaign rhetoric, is also socialism, but rather than be fairly redistributed, it is bestowed upon a rentier class, the Rust Belt (mainly) blue-collar workers who in a free-market system would not have the market wage that they get via such socialism - with the folks forking over the cash being either taxpayers (as in the case of the Carrier) or, if there is some type of tariff (or something that acts like a tariff), the consumer of whatever widget that that tariff applies to.  The Democratic Party has always taken the attitude that if there is going to be redistribution, it should be done as fairly as possible; the Republican Party always does redistribution in a very targeted, divide-&-conquer way that is politically the most effective (e.g., Medicare Part D).

    > Obamacare is woven tightly into the fabric of society & it threatens people's daily existence. Mine, for one.

    *** Oh really.  It more or less has solved the problem of folks actually being able to get coverage, like yours truly, who has a cancer history.  True, it doesn't do it as effectively as Medicare-For-All would, but we have not reached that point in the political realm.  That said, there are warts.  (BTW, at the beginning of the campaign, Trump said that he liked the health care systems of Scotland & Canada, which are basically Medicare-For-All, if not even more controlled by government.)

    > If this "healthcare" system is so good, why must people be forced to buy it? If a product is truly good, people will buy it voluntarily. It isn't good & that's why we are forced to buy into it.

    *** People must be forced to buy it because a lot of folks are irresponsible and figure that they will just take their chances if they get sick, and ultimately realize that hospitals must case for them when they sick enough; there is a Reagan-era law that actually mandates that hospitals taking Medicare (which de facto means ALL hospitals) must admit emergency patients without the patient's ability to pay.  And guess who pays for that uncompensated care?  Folks with regular insurance pay a higher rate to make up for this "medical leakage", which means everyone pays more for their coverage.  (Medicaid used to help with this, but with the Medicaid expansion, this has gone away, which is why all the Red states want to start taking the money.)

    *** Insurance in general has this intrinsic problem of folks not thinking that they need it.  A problem with the ACA is that the system can be gamed by folks not buying coverage until they need it, with the penalties not strong enough to cajole folks into buying it; the penalty is virtually toothless as only a tax refund can be confiscated - something that a savvy gamer can avoid by simply not having enough tax taken out of his paycheck.  Economists call this "adverse selection", and it is the bane of any insurance product.  So your point about whether folks want to buy it voluntarily depends on whether they think they need it because they will get sick.

    > It has nothing to do with making the overall insurance prices decline, which it has shown to do just the opposite. Obama has even admitted this himself. Why? Because he never really wanted this system. Obama wanted a single-payer system like Canada. He has said this on many occasions. His plan was to introduce this system and have it fail so that people would demand that the government fix it & that's when they would introduce a single-payer system.

    *** The framers of the ACA wanted to put in a system that the Republicans had offered as substitute back when Bill Clinton wanted to address the problem in the early 1990s; unfortunately, the Republicans -as they like to do - moved the goalposts.  The Republicans now seem to want to move the goalposts again by making the dreaded mandate into a stealth mandate - i.e., no mandate, but the folks who don't have continuous coverage don't have the ability to purchase a controlled plan that allows for guaranteed issue; all this would do is build up a population of irresponsible or otherwise financially strapped folks who didn't get insurance begore they got sick, and who will be dieheart Medicare-For-All supporters (if they don't die first).

    *** Yes, a lot of these framers also knew that Medicare-For-All would be the better choice, but the political will was not there yet (I think it is there now).  I think these folks did not set up the ACA to fail, but they did have the attitude that this is the private market's last chance to prove that it is capable of handing this (which it has not).
  • > I tried to get this Obamacare stuff when it first came out because I have always tried to do what the law demands. There was supposed to be some kind of "assistance" co-pay thing offered, so I looked through all the plans on their website and found the cheapest possible plan. With the assistance applied, I was to pay only $9 a month for health insurance. My deductible was $6500 per year, which meant I would have to spend out of pocket $542 every month for a year before my plan would pitch in a single penny. As I said before, I've always been pretty healthy, so what am I supposed to do? Go out and intentionally get into car wrecks? Start smoking and drinking heavily? Walk through the snow barefoot? How am I suppose to spend $542 a month? I buy a bottle of aspirin about once every five years.

    *** Are you trying to say that as an insured, you actually would feel better if you got to use your insurance?  Well, maybe then I should wish for you to get CANCER so you could really get your money's worth!  You are b!tching about paying $9/mo; wouldn't you like to say at the end of each month that you prefer being healthy and $9 poorer to being sick?

    > Well, I decided that $9 a month was reasonable enough of an involuntary tax I would spend to appease the Obama god, so I signed up for this plan, knowing well that I would never use it. I was instructed to include a blank voided check so payments could be made automatically, which I did. To my surprise, I received the check back in about a week with a letter stating that I would not be able to pay with my checking account until my "balance" was paid in full. What "balance"? This was a new account & there should not be a balance. So I decided I would just pay the penalty at the end of the year, which they had originally stated would be $95. Well, I can tell you that it isn't $95 and it gets larger every year.

    *** It sounds like you hadn't been paying for your coverage.  What you are b!tching about here is your own fault.  And as for the $95, that was the minimum penalty, but a lot of folks are too stupid to realize it.

    > The following year, after paying around a $800 fine on my income tax for not having coverage, I went online again to find that same package. Now the website told me that I did not qualify for any assistance and my insurance would be $461.32 a month plus a $6500 deductible. Yes, that's $12,035.84 a year and not a thing had changed in my living situation. I also support an adult son full time who is unemployed. He is covered under his mother's plan, so I am told. I called the number for the Obamacare thing & was told that I did not qualify for the assistance this year. When I inquired as to why, they did not have any idea, but stuck adamantly to that, so I told them to cancel the application I had just entered. They gave me the old "I must officially notify you that you will not have coverage under Obamacare if you cancel this... blah blah blah" so I agreed & hung up. I immediately went back to their website & entered the exact information I had 30 minutes ago & it says "You qualify for assistance!" I just logged out, my confidence of this system totally shot.

    *** There certainly have been glitches with the Exchange when it first went up, but it seemed to be OK for the next year.  When I had issues, I contacted my Congressman and got the assistance of someone with CMS (the government agency that oversees the Exchange).  In your case, you probably entered in some wrong information the first time - and you should have stayed on that subsequent application as it was working.  BTW, Medicare-For-All would completely dispense with all this red tape.

    > Today I received a letter from our friendly Internal Revenue Service saying that, since I did not have Obamacare, I would be subject to a $1400 dollar fine this year. So I must make a decision: Should I pay the $1400 & not have coverage or pay the $5536 (premiums only) & still not have coverage? Perhaps an Obama lover, if one of you is out there, could tell me how this system makes my life better?

    *** You need to go back and do the application properly, and if it fails again, contact your Congressman.  If you divulge your information as you enter it in the application, I will be able to tell if you should be getting a subsidy, but not knowing your specifics, I can't comment.
  • Okay politically we are on different planets but I do understand the ACA and I do understand how premiums for 2017 are putting you in a no win position.
    I have lived in a Country with Socialized medicine and it is fantastic. Taxes a little higher but peace of mind not worying about getting sick.
  • My comment above was to TE5LA.
    Without government help AND an understanding that we are ALL in this together as citizens we will fail.
    A Bernie Sanders type candidate is the only solution to get profits out of the medical equation. Medicare for all is one model.
Sign In or Register to comment.