Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mrveggieman View Post
    Honestly the "math" is useless right now because no one really knows the true cost until Obamacare is actually rolled out. It may actually save a lot of money in the long run.
    the math isn't useless. blue cross has already said that the cheapest plan they will be allowed to provide will be "considerably" more than what I am currently paying.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  2. #12
    I have a serious question for you.

    What is the difference with the govt not offering the maternity coverage vs them offering you a subsidy to offset that same cost while still covering you. In both situations you wont be paying for that particular coverage.

    This crosses me as more of a matter of ego, which i do certainly understand, no man wants to feel reliant on anyone else to provide for their family, but you are essentially squabbling over the govt offering to pay for maternity insurance for your family free of charge.

    The follow up question would be how would you feel if you supported the president and his policies, would you then chalk this situation up to "how the health care system is changing" instead of taking it as a slap in the face or a forced sense of government reliance?
    MY BUCKET:Hidden Content
    I trade ASAP: either same day or first thing next morning please alert me if doing the same on your end will be an issue.
    Always looking for current and hof bills autos

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrank45 View Post
    I have a serious question for you.

    What is the difference with the govt not offering the maternity coverage vs them offering you a subsidy to offset that same cost while still covering you. In both situations you wont be paying for that particular coverage.

    This crosses me as more of a matter of ego, which i do certainly understand, no man wants to feel reliant on anyone else to provide for their family, but you are essentially squabbling over the govt offering to pay for maternity insurance for your family free of charge.

    The follow up question would be how would you feel if you supported the president and his policies, would you then chalk this situation up to "how the health care system is changing" instead of taking it as a slap in the face or a forced sense of government reliance?
    there is a huge difference in the two. not having something is in no way the same as having something that someone else pays for. We can call it ego if you want but at the end of the day, why force government assistance on someone?

    As for your follow-up, even if this was passed by a president I supported, I would not support this. It wouldn't matter what party or who held the office. If obamacare was just about providing health care for those who do not currently have health care, I would chalk it up as "how the health care system is changing." However, when I hear how mine is changing, I do take it as a forced sense of government reliance.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  4. #14
    What is the difference with the govt not offering the maternity coverage vs them offering you a subsidy to offset that same cost while still covering you. In both situations you wont be paying for that particular coverage.
    where do you think that money comes from?
    Jay Shrewsbury
    Hidden Content

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by shrewsbury View Post
    where do you think that money comes from?
    the great flying spaghetti monster....come on man, obviously if i gave a well thought out reply before i probably have an understanding of how the whole situation works. Not to mention his argument had nothing to do with where the subsidies came from it was that he did not want to be forced to pay more for a service he did not want. He did not want to be forced to rely on the government to pay his bills

    The point i was making is that in his scenario if he never used the service(maternity insurance) all the while the govt paid for it then they werent in fact providing him anything, they instead would be paying themselves to provide him a safety net that he did not require. He would still be paying for the coverage his family used only through a different provider. The service that he wasnt using he wouldnt be paying for. As i said before this is an argument of principle The govt would be paying for something he isnt using so in fact they arent doing anything for him

    If you want to argue about the fiscal irresponsibility attached to some aspects of the health care plan that is well and good but they dont apply to the question the OP stated.
    MY BUCKET:Hidden Content
    I trade ASAP: either same day or first thing next morning please alert me if doing the same on your end will be an issue.
    Always looking for current and hof bills autos

  6. #16


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,179
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Don't worry. Around here you have to spell out every little thing. Otherwise someone drags you into an red herring argument.
    It's a sign they have no real argument. Take it as a point of pride.
    "He's gone crazy," "You have to snap out of it," "Take your meds," or, "Don't be such a downer" serve only to mock, belittle, and make light of mental illness. Such phrases only continue the negative stigma and keep those who suffer from getting help. If these phrases, or phrases like them, are part of your at-hand vocabulary, you are part of the problem. #STOPtheStigma

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrank45 View Post
    the great flying spaghetti monster....come on man, obviously if i gave a well thought out reply before i probably have an understanding of how the whole situation works. Not to mention his argument had nothing to do with where the subsidies came from it was that he did not want to be forced to pay more for a service he did not want. He did not want to be forced to rely on the government to pay his bills

    The point i was making is that in his scenario if he never used the service(maternity insurance) all the while the govt paid for it then they werent in fact providing him anything, they instead would be paying themselves to provide him a safety net that he did not require. He would still be paying for the coverage his family used only through a different provider. The service that he wasnt using he wouldnt be paying for. As i said before this is an argument of principle The govt would be paying for something he isnt using so in fact they arent doing anything for him

    If you want to argue about the fiscal irresponsibility attached to some aspects of the health care plan that is well and good but they dont apply to the question the OP stated.
    i am perfectly fine allowing this to be a argument of principle. in fact, that was pretty much the point of my thread. I have to disagree with you however on the idea that since the government would be paying for something I am not using, they aren't doing anything for me. Your sentence doesn't make sense. If the government is paying for something I am not using then clearly they are doing something for me. Even if I never "see" the difference in my expense, it is still happening. How many people who currently have an issue with the way welfare and aid is distributed will in essence be forced to shut up because they too will be dependent on the government for assistance.

    I do get what you are saying, and maybe we just end up agreeing to disagree, but I do not see being forced to accept subsidies as nothing.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

  8. #18


    Wickabee's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,179
    Country
    Card Cash
    250.00
    Savings
    0.00
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)

    View my Inventory New
    View my store Beta
    Could you accept it if you were told this was step one of a larger scheme.
    Don't get me wrong, this is his legacy so even I don't believe that, but what if it was. What if it was decided that before anything can be done about welfare distribution, medical insurance needs to be taken care of so that a broken leg doesn't bankrupt people.
    Would you be able to accept that if you were able to believe it?
    "He's gone crazy," "You have to snap out of it," "Take your meds," or, "Don't be such a downer" serve only to mock, belittle, and make light of mental illness. Such phrases only continue the negative stigma and keep those who suffer from getting help. If these phrases, or phrases like them, are part of your at-hand vocabulary, you are part of the problem. #STOPtheStigma

  9. #19
    As i said before this is an argument of principle The govt would be paying for something he isnt using so in fact they arent doing anything for him
    the fact remains the government is spending our money on nothing, how do you think we got in this debt to begin with? they do not grow money.

    I would prefer he pay for it himself and if he needs help to get it, not just slap some money on it and call it a day.

    The follow up question would be how would you feel if you supported the president and his policies, would you then chalk this situation up to "how the health care system is changing" instead of taking it as a slap in the face or a forced sense of government reliance?
    why would you support waste from any president?
    Jay Shrewsbury
    Hidden Content

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Wickabee View Post
    Could you accept it if you were told this was step one of a larger scheme.
    Don't get me wrong, this is his legacy so even I don't believe that, but what if it was. What if it was decided that before anything can be done about welfare distribution, medical insurance needs to be taken care of so that a broken leg doesn't bankrupt people.
    Would you be able to accept that if you were able to believe it?
    if all that was being done was providing health insurance for those who do not currently have it so that injury didn't bankrupt people, i would probably be accepting of it. However, what they are doing is messing with and raising costs of insurance for the 14 million americans who currently pay for it themselves. So, to answer your question, given the current plan, no i wouldn't believe it because they are affecting more than just those who currently do not have.
    bucket:Hidden Content

    Wants: Anything mma as well as nice texans patches

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •