Is Obamacare intended to force people into government assistance?

[ensbergcollector]

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.

[Afrank45]

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?

[ensbergcollector]

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.

[shrewsbury]

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?

[Afrank45]

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.

[Wickabee]

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.

[ensbergcollector]

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.

[Wickabee]

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?

[shrewsbury]

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?

[ensbergcollector]

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.