For what it's worth. My experience with ObamaCare

[jamil]

The system is not exactly socialist, in that the service industry is still in private hands. You are being forced to purchase private products, and every aspect of the private industry is heavily government controlled. That makes it more accurately a fascist system.

Agreed. For all practical purposes, with obamacare, the premiums are essentially taxes, extorted by government and paid to a private third party to provide the services.

I like the term "Cadillac Plan" as used in this discussion. As I see it, THAT is exactly the crux of this issue.

Let's use transportation as an analogy. I haven't heard anyone approach it this way, but it pops into my head whenever someone uses the term "Cadillac Plan."

We have a bunch of people in this country -- several million, but still a minority -- who have no transportation. They can't get jobs because they can't drive to work. So it is decided that, in the interest of "fairness," the government should supply all of these unfortunates with transportation. After all, so many in this country are blessed with multiple vehicles. We need to provide the poorest among us with cars.

Therefore, it is decreed that everyone gets a Cadillac. Rich or poor, black or white, legal or illegal -- everybody gets a brand-spankin'-new Cadillac! Hooray!

But wait ...

Joe the Plumber says, "I don't want a Cadillac. I'm a plumber. I need my truck!"

Old McDonald says, "I don't want no Cadillac. I'm a farmer. I need my trucks to haul my grain to market!"

Suzanne, a successful attorney, says, "I'd never drive a Cadillac. I love my BMW!"

Bob, a factory worker, says, "I don't need a Caddy. I like my Ford. It gets me to work, it always starts, insurance is cheap and it's good on gas."

Tough. EVERYBODY gets a Caddilac, like it or not.

Several have posted that they had the plan that fit their needs and no more. I did. I didn't have maternity coverage (don't need it) or dental coverage (I'm a dentist) or other coverage that I didn't want or need. Major medical, high deductible and low premiums. It fit my needs quite well.

But now I can't have that because it isn't a "Cadillac." I can choose a different color -- bronze, silver or gold -- but it still has to be a Cadillac. I can't have an F-150 or a Toyota hybrid. It has to be a Cadillac, just like everyone else.

I'm sure somebody will point out the flaws in my analogy, and that's OK. It works for me.

It IS a good analogy. Some people like Cadillacs and for them, the program is great. If most people like Cadilacs, it may become a popular program. But we all know, Cadilac is GM which seems to really suck these days, again, appropriately analogous with Obamacare.

 

[traderdan]

Force? No where in the law is there a mention of "force". What "force"? Simply, don't participate.

It costs money not to participate...so you WILL participate.

 

[homer12]

What is most disturbing to me, is that this is probably one of the biggest industries in our country, one of the biggest expenses we all personally have and our businesses/employers have, and the control the government takes on this industry make a HUGE footprint across this great Nation giving the government access and control into our lives. You think Obama didn't consider what single piece of legislation he could put forth to have the greatest impact on us all? And don't think the Republicans are wholly not involved either... cue the Uniparty...

 

[findingZzero]

I like the term "Cadillac Plan" as used in this discussion. **********snip************

I'm sure somebody will point out the flaws in my analogy, and that's OK. It works for me.

'It works for me' means you won't entertain any flaws in your analogy to be worthy? Let me be the first to be that somebody. Rather than everyone must have a Cadillac, everyone must have a car- with these minimum features. Brakes, headlights, insurance, etc. Beyond that you can buy any car you want. And so too my friends, in my recent excursion into ObamaCareLand, was it thusly observed. With certain minimums required of all plans, the more money you could afford, the better plan you could purchase. I have spoken. And you are welcome. Period. End of story! And cup holders are optional. But we do love our cup holders. Some of us can afford to have people hold our cups. They are called butlers. There are no butlers in Socialism. I will stop now.

 

[olhorseman]

It costs money not to participate...so you WILL participate.

An individual who does not participate would be taxed $95 for tax year 2014, due in 2015. That's if you file taxes. I pay more on license plates taxes for a car i own. (That I also have to have insured)

Again, don't participate. Don't pay the tax. And just let them try to collect. Non-participation and non-payment of taxes by the masses will easily doom the program far more than what politicians are trying to do.

 

[Bunnykid68]

An individual who does not participate would be taxed $95 for tax year 2014, due in 2015. That's if you file taxes. I pay more on license plates taxes for a car i own. (That I also have to have insured)

Again, don't participate. Don't pay the tax. And just let them try to collect. Non-participation and non-payment of taxes by the masses will easily doom the program far more than what politicians are trying to do.

Not when they are worried about liens being placed on their homes and properties as the tax penalty continues to go up each year.

 

[traderdan]

Not when they are worried about liens being placed on their homes and properties as the tax penalty continues to go up each year.

Yep..If you have nothing to take..you might refuse to participate.

 

[traderdan]

'It works for me' means you won't entertain any flaws in your analogy to be worthy? Let me be the first to be that somebody. Rather than everyone must have a Cadillac, everyone must have a car- with these minimum features. Brakes, headlights, insurance, etc. Beyond that you can buy any car you want. And so too my friends, in my recent excursion into ObamaCareLand, was it thusly observed. With certain minimums required of all plans, the more money you could afford, the better plan you could purchase. I have spoken. And you are welcome. Period. End of story! And cup holders are optional. But we do love our cup holders. Some of us can afford to have people hold our cups. They are called butlers. There are no butlers in Socialism. I will stop now.

OK...so why does everyone have to have a car? And why am I forced to help buy them one?

 

[N8RV]

'It works for me' means you won't entertain any flaws in your analogy to be worthy? Let me be the first to be that somebody. Rather than everyone must have a Cadillac, everyone must have a car- with these minimum features. Brakes, headlights, insurance, etc. Beyond that you can buy any car you want. And so too my friends, in my recent excursion into ObamaCareLand, was it thusly observed. With certain minimums required of all plans, the more money you could afford, the better plan you could purchase. I have spoken. And you are welcome. Period. End of story! And cup holders are optional. But we do love our cup holders. Some of us can afford to have people hold our cups. They are called butlers. There are no butlers in Socialism. I will stop now.

Wow, slow down there, Sparky. You're drawing conclusions that have no logical basis.

"It works for me," simply means what it says. It works for me. I never mentioned being unwilling to entertain dissenting views. It's just an analogy, and as with all analogies, they have limits.

Making the cheapest ACA-approved plan sound like basic transportation is quite a stretch. A lot of the stuff that's required to be included in their basic plan is far beyond the bare-bones of medical care. That was the point of the analogy -- we CAN'T choose our level of coverage. Their basic plan has all kinds of coverage that is anything but essential.

I can make your head explode by expanding on the analogy just a little ...

Imagine that, instead of mandating that everyone have a Cadillac to solve the transportation problem, they had decreed that those in dire need could obtain from the government basic transportation in the form of a basic car -- as you described -- with brakes, headlights, insurance (isn't THAT ironic?), etc. Everybody else, who had the transportation that they wanted or needed would be left alone. Gee, what a brilliant concept -- fix what's broken and leave the rest alone!

I'm sure you will think of some reason why that expansion of the analogy is illogical. Go for it. As I said ... "it works for me."

 

[spencer rifle]

An individual who does not participate would be taxed $95 for tax year 2014, due in 2015. That's if you file taxes. I pay more on license plates taxes for a car i own. (That I also have to have insured)

Again, don't participate. Don't pay the tax. And just let them try to collect. Non-participation and non-payment of taxes by the masses will easily doom the program far more than what politicians are trying to do.

Not quite true. $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is GREATER. Next year it doubles. After that, who knows.
If you are not owed a refund, they can't collect.
"It’s a very strange law whose only defining characteristic is that no one who favors it wants to be bound by it.” – Mark Steyn, 2013

 

[Leo]

I am glad that it looks like things are working out for the OP. the majority of 27 year olds are healthy, so they are the cheapest. The paperwork I have received for two retirement aged people is $15,000 more than we pay now for a lesser benefit. Even if we were able to qualify for subsidy, it would be $9,000 more. I will not be a willing participant.

I am sure there are plenty of lawyers working on ways to isolate peoples assets from seizure that will be available for a price cheaper than the socialized medicine extortion.

 

[Leo]

The insurance industry already was guaranteed business by mandatory auto insurance and mandatory asset insurance required by lenders. How much of their soul did they sell to what devil to guarantee they will have all the healthcare business they want at pretty much whatever they want to charge.

 

[traderdan]

The insurance industry already was guaranteed business by mandatory auto insurance and mandatory asset insurance required by lenders. How much of their soul did they sell to what devil to guarantee they will have all the healthcare business they want at pretty much whatever they want to charge.

My prediction is that the devil they are dealing with will soon control the whole industry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Not quite true. $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is GREATER. Next year it doubles. After that, who knows.
If you are not owed a refund, they can't collect.
"It’s a very strange law whose only defining characteristic is that no one who favors it wants to be bound by it.” – Mark Steyn, 2013

If you are not owed a refund they will send you a bill because you still owe income taxes.

 

[gunworks321]

I like the term "Cadillac Plan" as used in this discussion. As I see it, THAT is exactly the crux of this issue.

Let's use transportation as an analogy. I haven't heard anyone approach it this way, but it pops into my head whenever someone uses the term "Cadillac Plan."

We have a bunch of people in this country -- several million, but still a minority -- who have no transportation. They can't get jobs because they can't drive to work. So it is decided that, in the interest of "fairness," the government should supply all of these unfortunates with transportation. After all, so many in this country are blessed with multiple vehicles. We need to provide the poorest among us with cars.

Therefore, it is decreed that everyone gets a Cadillac. Rich or poor, black or white, legal or illegal -- everybody gets a brand-spankin'-new Cadillac! Hooray!

But wait ...

Joe the Plumber says, "I don't want a Cadillac. I'm a plumber. I need my truck!"

Old McDonald says, "I don't want no Cadillac. I'm a farmer. I need my trucks to haul my grain to market!"

Suzanne, a successful attorney, says, "I'd never drive a Cadillac. I love my BMW!"

Bob, a factory worker, says, "I don't need a Caddy. I like my Ford. It gets me to work, it always starts, insurance is cheap and it's good on gas."

Tough. EVERYBODY gets a Caddilac, like it or not.

Several have posted that they had the plan that fit their needs and no more. I did. I didn't have maternity coverage (don't need it) or dental coverage (I'm a dentist) or other coverage that I didn't want or need. Major medical, high deductible and low premiums. It fit my needs quite well.

But now I can't have that because it isn't a "Cadillac." I can choose a different color -- bronze, silver or gold -- but it still has to be a Cadillac. I can't have an F-150 or a Toyota hybrid. It has to be a Cadillac, just like everyone else.

I'm sure somebody will point out the flaws in my analogy, and that's OK. It works for me.

I like this. About as succinctly put as anything I have read.

 

[jamil]

'It works for me' means you won't entertain any flaws in your analogy to be worthy? Let me be the first to be that somebody. Rather than everyone must have a Cadillac, everyone must have a car- with these minimum features. Brakes, headlights, insurance, etc. Beyond that you can buy any car you want. And so too my friends, in my recent excursion into ObamaCareLand, was it thusly observed. With certain minimums required of all plans, the more money you could afford, the better plan you could purchase. I have spoken. And you are welcome. Period. End of story! And cup holders are optional. But we do love our cup holders. Some of us can afford to have people hold our cups. They are called butlers. There are no butlers in Socialism. I will stop now.

Well, now, hold on. You missed an important component in the analogy. And my correction isn't perfect either because a car is a consumed good. You can pay for insurance that you never consume. When you buy a car, each feature has to be produced. With insurance, nothing is produced until you need to consume it. But you still paid for it whether you use it or not. Nevertheless, the car analogy, whether you want to call it a Cadilac or generic "car", still works overall.

So the correction to your correction is this. The minimum "features" you're forced to pay for include some that you don't want or can never use. In the car analogy, everyone must now pay for heated seats, which many people may not want. Also everyone must pay a child seat even if there is zero chance you'd ever need one. I guess that's what your president means when he says the new plans are "superior" to the old ones. So in that sense, yes, it's not just a car, it's a Cadillac.

And, you're welcome. I'm happy to help your daughter pay for her insurance. I kinda wish they'd have asked me first before confiscating my resources to help pay her premiums, but I digress.

 

[findingZzero]

Wow, slow down there, Sparky. *******snip*******

I can make your head explode by expanding on the analogy just a little ....

Sonafa***** you did it. You had me at Sparky!


p.s. Does this look like sparky to you??!! WAH..

 

[j706]

I'm not getting into a political discussion, but I know good, decent working people who have been helped by Obamacare. They're not all moochers.

They are if they are letting the taxpayer for ANY of their bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I like the term "Cadillac Plan" as used in this discussion. As I see it, THAT is exactly the crux of this issue.

Let's use transportation as an analogy. I haven't heard anyone approach it this way, but it pops into my head whenever someone uses the term "Cadillac Plan."

Why do you think they are calling it a Cadillac plan? Comparing it to transportation is pretty much the point.

So, where does the Tata Nano fit into your analogy? Not everyone can afford a car with anti-lock brakes, airbags, an engine capable of propelling it to highway speeds, that's capable of meeting EPA requirements for air pollution, etc. Why can't we have the $2k Nano? Or the $5k Mexican produced Beetle?

I'm not a fan of Obamacare, but let's keep the debate on the reality. You can still get your Chevy Sonic of the insurance world, and you can still get your Cadillac, we arn't forcing everyone in to the upper end of the market. There's plenty of real issues with it, the constitutionality of forcing everyone to buy, the fact the penalties are much cheaper than the insurance for young and healthy people who are needed in the mix to subsidize the older and sicker, etc. The "Cadillac plan" is false and removes the focus from the real issues.

 

[88GT]

I wonder how many people would object to this law if instead of Obamacare it was referred to as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

Before voicing strong opinions that are regurgitated from news pundits, perhaps everyone should read the law at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/affordablecareact.pdf

It's only a little over 2,400 pages, so take your time.

What would you say if I said I had read it, all of it, and still objected to it?

Force? No where in the law is there a mention of "force". What "force"? Simply, don't participate.

Force isn't necessarily physical. Force is also coercion. Force is implied, because if we do not comply, we are subject to consequences. There is no option to "opt-out." I have to buy insurance or I have to buy the get-out-of-jail card. Not participating would mean that I could freely choose not to purchase insurance, whether from the exchanges or at all, and not be penalized for doing so.

Why do you think they are calling it a Cadillac plan? Comparing it to transportation is pretty much the point.

So, where does the Tata Nano fit into your analogy? Not everyone can afford a car with anti-lock brakes, airbags, an engine capable of propelling it to highway speeds, that's capable of meeting EPA requirements for air pollution, etc. Why can't we have the $2k Nano? Or the $5k Mexican produced Beetle?


I'm not a fan of Obamacare, but let's keep the debate on the reality. You can still get your Chevy Sonic of the insurance world, and you can still get your Cadillac, we arn't forcing everyone in to the upper end of the market. There's plenty of real issues with it, the constitutionality of forcing everyone to buy, the fact the penalties are much cheaper than the insurance for young and healthy people who are needed in the mix to subsidize the older and sicker, etc. The "Cadillac plan" is false and removes the focus from the real issues.

But we are forcing them into a minimum that may be more than they need or want.