I find the opposition to Obamacare a gross, contradictory, and hypocritical position held by certain elected officials who represent the citizens of this great country.
I ask, how can a God-fearing nation allow large enterprises to make exorbitant profits from someone’s afflictions. Is it not the moral obligation of the citizenship to help, assist, and heal those citizens who suffer health issues? It is in the Bible — the principle source of our guiding principles!
How can we, in good conscience, allow health insurance companies to benefit when someone needs a kidney transplant, suffers a stroke, or needs insulin injections for the rest of their life.
We are a nation that is guided by Christian principles of kindness and caring more. To allow a segment of our society to continue to charge exorbitant, uncontrolled and unregulated charges for medical procedures is unconscionable.
Sal Gomez
Gilbert
truth posted at 3:34 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
I am also infavor of Obama Care, but would like to see some major changes to cut costs.
When the National Flood insurance program was established in 1968, it was seen as a way to save tax payers money. There are currently 5.7 million insurance policies, covering $1.27 trillion in property. But critics say the program, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has backfired creating huge debt for tax payers even as it rewards homeowners from trying to defy nature. It pays out far more than it takes in. The program currently collects $3.5 billion in annual premiums-a total that falls chronically short. For every vacation homes with prestigious addresses like Hilton Head Island, S.C. anual premiums are capped at $3,300. Flood claims from hurricane Katrina alone totaled $21.9 billion, putting the U.S. flood insurance $18 billion in the hole to the U.S. Treasury
truth posted at 3:50 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
1. Sandy is expected to generate $12 billion in claims, but only $2.9 billion remains on the flood insurance program's line of credit. Congress voted in July to extend the program through 2017, it eliminated some subsidies and authorized premium hikes of 20% per year on high-risk areas, and up to 25% per year for vacation property.
2. Subsidized flood insurance, they say, is a classical example of moral hazard: encouraging people to take foolish risk by relieving them of the cost of bearing the risk. One would be to strategically retreat from flood-prone regions a major way. "Get appraisals for their homes, write them a check, knock the homes down,and just let them go back to it's natural state."
truth posted at 3:55 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
3. Over the years, the Federal Government has shelled out a total of $2 million to repeatedly rebuild a flood-ravished home in Humble, Texas assesed at just $116,000. Another home, in Wilkinson County, MIss., worth $69,900, had been flooded 34 times since 1978 and collected $663,000 in insurance payments.
mesateacher posted at 6:20 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
I want to be clear: YES we have a moral obligation.
BUT...our system, messed up and inefficient it may be, was not set up to handle what AHCA brings. We have dramatically increased the demand for services but have done nothing to increase the supply of providers. Starting today it would be 10-12 years minimum to radically increase the number of doctors. But Democrats and Obama don't think with their brains. Then there's another part of this "take care of all" that really makes me angry. There are many, many people who don't take any personal responsibility. They eat garbage like fast food, sugary drinks, starchy breads that make them fat. They smoke cigarettes or weed, do other drugs, don't exercise, drink booze to excess...they don't take care of themselves. So now in their 40's and 50's it has caught up with them. They are grossly obese, diabetic and have other problems. Some need knee and hip replacement. I've taken care of myself. My weight is well within recommended limits. I don't have high blood pressure, I eat right, exercise daily. And now I get to pay to take care of the fools who didn't? Those of us who don't use medical services much are suckers - we didn't go and live it up like there's no tomorrow but now we get to pay for those who did. Where's the fairness? I know someone who has used nearly $1 million in AHCCCS funding in the last few years. Well heck, I could use a face lift - can I have it since I didn't use anyother health care funds? Nope - not gonna happen. I don't know if this makes any sense, and I hope it doesn't seem heartless or selfish, but I am annoyed that I get to pay for others.
Rich posted at 7:39 pm on Sun, Jan 6, 2013.
"I ask, how can a God-fearing nation allow large enterprises to make exorbitant profits from someone’s afflictions. " I don't know, you could ask the people who passed Obamacare, that is what it does, and it's not unConstitutional so it's the law.
"How can we, in good conscience, allow health insurance companies to benefit when someone needs a kidney transplant, suffers a stroke, or needs insulin injections for the rest of their life." Again, I don't know, I don't think it's right, however the government did pass it as Obamacare so I guess it's legal, if somewhat lacking in morality.
"To allow a segment of our society to continue to charge exorbitant, uncontrolled and unregulated charges for medical procedures is unconscionable." I agree with you completely, but they past it as a law and the Supreme Court narrowly Oked it, so I suppose there is little to be done. Apparently they convinced a bunch of gullible people that Obamacare doesn't do this, when, in fact, it merely forces everyone to pay for this, removes any free market controls to prevent it, and prevents anyone from doing anything about it. Well, as H. L. Mencken observed "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." As you so aptly demonstrate.
Bluepoet posted at 12:56 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
Healthcare is a multi-billion dollar industry, in this country. As such, it has morphed from a network of non-profits, to larger and larger conglomerates that are turning a profit, or, in some worse cases, used as a tax write off, for unrelated investment ventures. The losers in this system are the very people who should be the winners.
"Obamacare" is a tentative, watered-down version of what is really needed, as far as healthcare reform. Unfortunately, any progress to be made, will be slow, and many people will continue to lose. That's just the plain truth of the matter.
Until caring for the sick and injured can be considered a basic human right, people will continue to suffer, and other people will profit from that suffering. This is the dirty, evil side of capitalism...but, hey, research will continue to discover cures for a lot of the ills people have--as long as they can pay...right?
Accuracy posted at 1:02 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
Sal Gomez wrote: “To allow a segment of our society to continue to charge exorbitant, uncontrolled and unregulated charges for medical procedures is unconscionable.”
-------------------------------------------
How about the most controversial parts of ObamaCare medical procedures – which is the “Contraception Mandate”.
Federal Judge Amy St. Eve, in Chicago, has granted Triune Health Group company temporary relief from having to provide birth control coverage for its workers.
Mandatory coverage for contraception violates the company's owners Roman Catholic beliefs – and the claim is one of dozens of similar lawsuits filed across the country.
VofReason posted at 1:37 pm on Mon, Jan 7, 2013.
2013 is on a roll. I agree with Truth. Not for the likely reason as he points, but that the Government is very good at wasting other people's money. Why would we think that they waste money only with running flood insurance, but they are supposedly spot on example of efficiency in running healthcare? That is rich. Our friend Willie may also remember another trait of Jesus, he never took from one person to give to another. Nor did he take a barrel of fish from anyone to give a fish or two to the poor and weak (Government analogy here). Here is something, Obamacare will cost everyone way more then estimated and way more than what is being spent now. I have heard Willie condemn Republicans for not paying their way. How about we tax people for the actual cost of Obamacare, welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc etc. Not just rich people, all people. Wonder how people would think about it then.
Accuracy posted at 4:55 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a request by the Hobby Lobby chain of arts and crafts stores to temporarily block the ObamaCare contraception mandate.
Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned business, is the large company fighting what many believe to be a violation of their freedom of religion – making employers responsible for covering the insurance costs of their employees’ birth control. And they are now faces up to $1.3 million in daily fines. The company plans to appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
Masterrogue666 posted at 5:14 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Ateam1: I'm with you! I come from a poor family. Each of my siblings and myself put ourselves through college, et al, and EARNED what we received by hard work and dedication. More and more people want things given to them on a silver platter. The problem is that the "give me"'s are becoming greater in number, and there's less "get it through hard work" attitudes, so the well is quickly drying up...
Cerulean posted at 8:48 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
Speaking of Obama care, insurance and guns; did you know that the Affordable Care Act is gun friendly?
“ The "Protection of Second Amendment Gun Rights" section says the health law's wellness programs can't require participants to give information about guns in the house. It also keeps the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting data on gun use and stops insurance companies from denying coverage or raising premiums on members because of gun use.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/12/how-the-health-reform-law-supports-gun-rights.html
Rich posted at 10:11 pm on Tue, Jan 8, 2013.
"Unfortunately, any progress to be made, will be slow,"
And when it is made it will be quashed as, by then, the health insurance companies will be 'too big to fail.' Obamacare is a big step backwards, not forward. I got a wicked cut in a factory in Milan, years ago. A nun bandaged me. Her services were free, the hospital charged a nominal fee. Just medical billing is more of the economy than medicine should be. To continue to let it grow, complicate it, tangle it, isn't exactly bright. In fact it is rather stupid and regressive, the wrong response to the problem. All Obamacare is is elected officials investing in the 'healthcare' industry, because they can make the rest of us pay their profits. And, in the end, about all it does is put our lives in jeopardy.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:46 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Sal, Sal, Sal,
These Arizona Neo-cons you address are not Christian. They just think they are. And they think the President is santan, himself. Never mind that Obamacare is compatible with Christian principles. Obama is the devil they see from Kenya! Just ask Sheriff Joe!
Rich posted at 7:22 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
How is corporate profiteering compatible with Christian principles? Sounds like the old Lenny Bruce routine 'Religions Inc.'
Arizona Willie posted at 8:01 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Rich, can you explain why conservatives scream " socialism " about Obamacare when, in fact, Obamacare is Boehnercare ( " I got 98% of everything I wanted " Boehner said ) and requires people to BUY medical insurance from PRIVATE FOR PROFIT COMPANIES --- not the evil socialist government.
Obama took single payer healthcare off the table before he even began " negotiating " with Boehner over the health care law.
If he had instituted single payer then there might have been some logical basis for cries of " socialism " but not under Obamacare. There is nothing socialistic about being forced to buy insurance from PRIVATE FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Accuracy posted at 8:34 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the controversial individual mandate in President Obama's healthcare law as a tax, not a penalty. The court also said the mandate is only legal if it's a tax because Congress has the power to tax.
But the Constitution requires all taxing measures start in the House – and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bill that became law actually originated in the Senate.
The legal argument most likely to succeed is the challenge to the ObamaCare law's contraception coverage mandate. And if any of the lawsuits succeed it would only affect the mandate . . . but prove that the ObamaCare tax law was passed in an unconstitutional manner.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:46 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Dale: Is that the best "point" you've got? Your conjecture that people consider Obama "Satan" because of his possible birthplace? I didn't see anyone above mentioning anything about that, rather it was about his policies.
Last I checked, there was suppose to be a separation of church and state. The government shouldn't force its citizens to provide "Christian" assistance. If a citizen wants to provide that assistance directly, they will always have that option.
Rich posted at 10:16 am on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
"Rich, can you explain why conservatives scream " socialism " about Obamacare"
To secure the votes of ignorant people which is pretty much a stock answer to anything politicians scream on either side of the aisle. Check Mr. Boehner's portfolio and how heavy it is in healthcare stocks, but then his predecessor Ms Pelosi is much the same, almost tripling her net worth while serving in Congress. Obamacare isn't socialism as much as it is mob action, yet another way two corrupt cartels with a monopoly on American ballots pick your pocket.
VofReason posted at 1:11 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Again I will ask Dale and the rest of the Religous responsibility experts, where in the Bible it says give your money to the government to fritter away great portions and then use some to sort of help the poor and ill? Also point out where as part of that transaction you understand that it will pay for abortion? While I do appreciate the lessons in this forum as my church clearly has it all wrong, I do have trouble with those points.
Arizona Willie posted at 2:57 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Rich, it warms my heart to see you admit " Obamacare isn't socialism ", but tell me how the political parties ( which you refer to as two corrupt cartels - not without some merit ) financially benefit from Obamacare.
You claim it is " yet another way two corrupt cartels with a monopoly on American ballots pick your pocket. " so apparently you believe they promote Obamacare to get money for their parties.
Just how do political parties ' pick our pocket ' with the health care law? The premiums go to the FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Rich posted at 4:19 pm on Wed, Jan 9, 2013.
Willie,
I told you. It's a form of insider trading controlled by passing laws that benefit certain companies and be given a sweetheart deal to buy their stock. The party enables, the politicos get rich, looked at Pelosi's net worth more than tripling since she took up 'public service'? Looked at Boehner's portfolio of healthcare stocks? Safest investments around because as a sitting official, you simply arrange to transfer tax money to the company you invested in. It's a crooked as it gets and only made possible by controlling the ballot. Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with crooked people lining their pockets.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:20 am on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Rich, while I < personally > consider insurance companies to be criminal organizations, Obamacare DOES have something to do with healthcare.
Prior to Obamacare, private insurance companies were paying out only 60% to 70% of premiums in benefits to subscribers. Medicare pays out 92% which is vastly more efficient ( strange isn't it that a government program is more efficient than private industry? ).
In exchange for Obamacare forcing everyone to buy medical insurance from PRIVATE FOR PROFIT insurance companies ( the Republican dream ), they agreed to pay out at least 80% of premiums in benefits or return the difference in rebates to subscribers.
That is cutting into profits and into Executive Bonuses and the Executives are NOT happy. That is why they have ordered their Congressional boot lickers to raise such a fuss over Obamacare. That and the provision that they can't cancel someone when they get sick or for pre-existing conditions.
VofReason posted at 12:54 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
"Medicare pays out 92% which is vastly more efficient ". Don't be silly, Medicare pays out 150% of the money they take in from Medicare withholding. Way more efficient than the private sector. Plus, they employ well more people than needed to actually run the program. We all know that the Government pays very very well and you literally have to burn down the building to get fired or loose your (gulp) pension after 30 years of "work". So Medicare definitly doesn't put profits in front of spending other people's money. That is very true.
Rich posted at 12:55 pm on Thu, Jan 10, 2013.
Willie, you are confusing profit with profit margin. 20% of a market three times as large is more than 30% of a market that is only a third. No one is doing anything here but enhancing profit. And the poohbahs are actually getting bigger bonuses for arranging it. As to non-cancellation, they can't cancel, but they can charge what their actuaries find profitable, now that the pockets they can pick are deeper. As I said, nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with extortion to pay off the privileged. Furthermore it puts bureaucracy in charge of your health so that your health is in danger, lets bureaucrats make health decisions for you, which puts your life in danger, as well as chills the economy until its effects can be assessed. Socialism, no, society gets the shaft, the politicos and insurance moguls get the mine.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:49 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
Rich, if it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
Conservatives are always claiming they don't want " bureaucrats " making health decisions and you said " Furthermore it puts bureaucracy in charge of your health so that your health is in danger, lets bureaucrats make health decisions for you, which puts your life in danger ", so apparently you are one of those.
The funny / sad thing is that conservatives employ some kind of mental trickery and manage to ignore the buildings full of bueaucrats employed by each and every private insurance company whose sole purpose is to find ways to avoid paying claims.
Those insurance company " bureaucrats " seem to be just fine with righties but government " bureaucrats " are evil.
Which is really a strange attitude because those private insurance company " bureaucrats " get bonuses for figuring a way to avoid paying your claims ... but government " bureaucrats " don't.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:50 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
VofReason, I challenge you to prove your claim that Medicare pays out 150% of the premiums it takes in.
With links to your documentation please.[smile]
Arizona Willie posted at 9:07 am on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
VofReason, for your reading pleasure, and also to give you indigestion [wink]--- here is a link to a non-partisan outfits article about the efficiency of private insurance vs Medicare.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance
Rich posted at 3:07 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
Willie,
Fought insurance companies and their bureaucracies for years to keep them out of my health, it was expensive enough that I really didn't need their product, which BTW took us from one of the best to one of the worst systems in the world. Doubling the bureaucrats and charging me on top of it is just criminal, there is no other word for it. And insurance companies do have some restraints, government doesn't have any. And I am no more enamored of Conservatives than Liberals like you just did, they think through their prejudice, not with their brains.
Ateam1 posted at 6:38 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
Thank you,East Valley Tribune! Keep Kicking me off! LOSERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They will probably post this! LOSERS!
Abstract01 posted at 12:14 am on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
The Bible also suggests that you be "wise as a serpent", and commends servants for multiplying their talents.
Stop crying about those terrible profiteers, and get your money into investments so you can "get your own"!
Most likely, you will not get rich off the government, but you can build your own security cushion.