How appropriate that it was April Fools Day that Jon Beydler’s commentary was published in the Tribune.
Beydler’s comparison of Obamacare’s mandate that will force all Americans to pay for health insurance to mandatory car insurance laws was quite foolish.
Why? Because Beydler left one key component out that renders his argument pointless. I know of no law mandated by the federal or any state government that requires me to own an automobile. If I choose not to own an automobile, then I have no reason to purchase automobile insurance.
Life is about choices and consequences. If I choose to own an automobile, then I must follow all applicable laws pertaining to the ownership of said automobile. With Obamacare, short of death, there is no choice.
Beydler states that he is a real estate agent and he chooses to purchase additional insurance coverage. There was no person or governmental entity that forced him into real estate as a career or to purchase additional insurance coverage. As he stated he made these choices. It appears that freedom of choice is something that President Obama and the likes of Beydler believe in only as long as we agree with them.
My health is worth more to me than any car, but there is something far more important to me and that is something that has defined our nation for almost 236 years. That is our freedom, and that, Mr. Beydler, includes the freedom to choose.
Dan Smith
Chandler
sockratties posted at 11:09 am on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Dan –
The choice many will make is to let others pay the cost of their medical care because they will skate on the bill. Then, when you pay your hospital bill or your medical insurance premium, you will pay more to make up for the E.R. cost where many go instead of a doctor where they would have to pay.
The auto insurance analogy only works for those who choose to drive. Most people choose to live. The dead-beat who is carried into the hospital ward is banking on you to pay the bills for which he or she is liable... and you will unless everyone is forced to be responsible for their own well being.
You can talk about responsibility and choice but how do you solve the problem of others choosing to take advantage of a moral society? What plan would you choose since you disapprove of a mandated healthcare plan? How would you make those who are willing to take their chances protect you from their costs if they unexpectedly fall ill or are injured. Would you demand payment at the door to the E.R.? Would you let them die in the street? Do you assume that with no law or rule everyone will pay their fair share? Write another letter that includes solutions to the problems our current programs, including Obamacare, obviously don't solve. I look forward to your comprehensive answer.
Arizona Willie posted at 12:11 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
I think I like the right winger option -- no mandate for individuals to purchase medical insurance ... but a ban on doctors and hospitals and other medical facilities giving care to anyone who doesn't have insurance.
Thus -- you don't HAVE TO BUY ... perhaps prayer will cure you.
Buy or die. Yeah that's the way to do it .... no d*mn gubmint men telling you what to do.
No mandate .. no insurance ... no care ... no breathe.
The Republican economic plan is working ... saw a woman in the parking lot of the grocery store yesterday holding her little cardboard sign saying she had lost her job and had 2 kids and no money ... BET SHE'S GOT REAL GOOD INSURANCE --- NOT.
An excellent candidate for the NEW right wing universal health care plan -- give her and her kids a passport and a one way ticket to the country of her choice that has universal health care.
truth posted at 3:38 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
There are over 313 million Americans, there are over 50 million Americans without health care insurance, every American with health care insurance pays an additional $1,000 a year to pay for those who don't have health care insurance. And those who do have health care insurance can be dropped by their insurance company if they become ill. Arizona is against Obamacare but they are receiving $400 million in Federal funds to help pay medical cost on the Arizona's un-insured, and $34 million from the Federal Government to establish a FEDERAL SYSTEM on un-insured health care. Maybe the name should be changed to Romneycare then everyone will be happy.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:02 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
truth, there is a provision in the health care law that says they can't drop you when you get sick and file claims -- but that may not take affect until 2014 ( not sure ).
The real reason the Republicans are against the health care law even though Boehner negotiated it with Obama ( and it should be called Boehnercare not Obamacare ) is because when the insurance companies discovered the clauses like the one that says they have to refund money to premium payers if they don't pay out at least 80% of premiums in benefits ( that evil ol' Medicare pays out 92% ) and that they can't drop you and can't refuse to insure you because of pre-existing conditons.
As soon as a Republican is in the Whitehouse this law will be resurrected but stripped of all clauses that interfere with the insurance companies r*a*p*i*n*g customers.
And the right wingers will all declare it to be the best thing since someone invented wearing clothes.
fae4now posted at 7:20 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Thank you Mr. President, for the Affordable Health Care Act which allows me to include my son, who is still a student, works part time, thus no employer provided insurance , on my insurance policy up to the age of 26. I don't mind assuming this responsibility or the additional expense. It's worth it to have the reassurance of knowing that he has coverage and should he need care my neighbors and fellow taxpayers won't have to pick up his tab. And that is as it should be. Job well done! OBAMA 2012!
onerebel posted at 9:50 pm on Sun, Apr 8, 2012.
Here is a few interesting little known facts from the health care bill.
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer
Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
sockratties posted at 8:41 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
onerebel –
The reason for the “government panel” is so that the only dogs in the fight aren't the patient and the CPA of the insurance company. The government panel would include medical and provider expertise.
Electronic payment is a fact of life in the 21st century. Some of us have been using it for over a decade. An efficient method of payment can reduce overhead costs.
You're trying to revive the "death panel" myth. What the plan says is that it will pay for consulting if it is requested. This includes family decisions as to if more medical treatment would extend life, is hospice care more appropriate, what course of action will provide the best quality of care and comfort for the remaining time the patient will live. This is an important consideration and a difficult one for surviving family members. This myth was one of the out-and-out lies of GOP candidates during the 2008 campaign. I'm not surprised you still believe it.
Accuracy posted at 8:43 am on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
The freedom to choose??
The Obama administration is now giving approximately a $500 million to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as part of the amount the IRS will be getting to help implement and enforce the ObamaCare law. Funding even before the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on the controversial health care law.
The Obama administration is saying the IRS will be responsible for enforcing the individual mandate that requires Americans to buy health insurance, and they will stealthily divert millions to enforce the ObamaCare mandate.
Rich posted at 12:15 pm on Mon, Apr 9, 2012.
"The reason for the “government panel” is so that the only dogs in the fight aren't the patient and the CPA of the insurance company. "
But that neatly outlines the problem rather than the solution. A CPA playing doctor at everyone's expense. Adding a third dog to the fight, especially a bureaucratic dog, is hardly a solution, it just complicates the problem and raises the cost.
Rational Human posted at 8:08 am on Tue, Apr 10, 2012.
A insurance company CPA or a Bureaucratic dog? Either is unsuitable, but together they are even more costly and unsuitable to be making medical decisions that you may depend on, but in a perfect socialist world where the govment makes all your decisions, what could be better than a bureaucrat deciding your fate? Thank God for the Obamanation. He's opened the eyes of a lot of sleeping dogs.