Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Post Reply New Topic

The new law has no restrictions other than age. He could have a prexisting condition, be living in another state from where his parents live, working fulltime there, and would still be eligible to be covered under his parents insurance plan. Maybe, he or his parents don't understand this.

Insurance companies were required to send this information out to their existing customers. A quick search on google will bring up the law for him to verify this information.

I would hate to see him or anyone else held back because of a misunderstanding of the law.

By the way, this is one of the best provisions of the new law. Before, many people would get out of high school, move into a cheap apartment and get an entry level position with no hope for health benefits, for many years. There is also usually a gap when people get out of college and the time it takes for them to get a decent job, and if they are lucky, one with health benefits.

If they get a chronic illness, in the meantime, or have a prexisting condition it can be devastating to the parents financial condition. There are many parents and young people benefitting from this, now that that the new law is in effect.

It is possible that Inuyshaua and his parents will benefit from this provision. And, Inuyshaua could benefit from the new health care reform immediately, since he should no longer fear losing his health insurance if he makes over $720 a month.

Actually I wouldn't benefit from Obamacare at all, as it stands I could end up losing my part time job due to Obamacare.

Even if Obamacare did have some benefit for me, I still say scrap the entire thing and start over.

1. The Individual Mandate -- Quite frankly it is unconstitutional.

2. It will bankrupt the country -- 6 years of service from 10 years of new taxes is how they get their budget numbers.

3. It is the most corrupt piece of legislation ever passed -- corn husker kickback may have been taken out but other bribes are still in it.

Just to be clear, do you understand, now, that your parents insurance company can't boot you off the insurance plan if you lose your disabled status?

Actually they could because I'm over age 26.

Not very many. Last year, and 2009 also I believe, there was a government subsidy to cover 60% of COBRA premiums for the unemployed. That subsidy has since expired so the average cost of COBRA plan coverage for a family is about $1000/month, plus the usual co-pays and deductibles. Most states pay out an unemployment max of about $2000/month, so it's highly unlikely that the unemployed can afford any coverage. It's a real double whammy.

Welcome to the world of politics. Nothing illegal, just the way things are done on both sides. I don't like it either, but it is nothing new.

@ aghogday

If you are going to make responses to stuff I've written break up the quote.


Anyways, there is a reason why I will not vote for Romney in the Republican Primary.

http://politifact.com/virginia/statemen ... o-years-t/

Politifact calls that only half-true. Both benefits and taxes are low for the first 4 years, but there are some of both. It's only 10% of the full tax burden though and is targeted in a few places. Much larger benefits and taxes/fees kick in after 2013-2014.

But the larger question is if the delay in benefits/ taxes is some kind of accounting gimmick to hide something. The CBO says no as theyve estimated even larger savings if you project out to 20 years.

Also, it's not just Romney who backed mandates. It used to be a Republican position. Hatch, Lugar and Grassley all co-sponsored a mandate in 1993. And the idea was championed by the far right Heritage Foundation.

Yes, I will break up the quote in the future.

Regarding the individual mandate, the interpretation of the law is important to politicians, in general, if it suits their political purpose. My understanding is that Obama was against the mandate around the same time that Romney and the Republicans were for it. Now positions have changed because of politics. The Massachusetts mandate was ruled legal by the courts and is waiting appeal.

Regarding healthcare and the mandate, democrats had to settle on what they could get because of politics. There was no way to make everyone happy and it is part of the reason that many democratic politicians lost their jobs. It is a messy process, but there is not much doubt in my mind that ultimately more people will be afforded the opportunity for healthcare. We can all thank the Democrats for having the nerve to do something and actually start the process. If things were left status quo chances are things would stay status quo like they have for so many years.

If Romney doesn't get the nomination, it may in part be, because he also had the nerve to do something about healthcare in his state.

If Obamacare is repealed and the Republicans start from scratch, do you think that the provision in question, should be included in the Republican plan?

the gop will not start from scratch in creating anything resembling universal care. the most they will do will be to 1] repeal EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, aka "the patient anti-dumping law"] and 2] ban most malpractice lawsuits. they want ERs to be able to dump the indigent out on the street, in effect going in the opposite direction from universal care. if they had their way, insurance companies would be free to sell nothing but fake policies that are like extended automotive warranties which cover nothing that will actually break down. all the lumpenproles will be strictly on their own.

I understand that the EMTALA went in effect in the Reagan administration. I think of it as conservative insurance against the possibility of legislation that might lead to Universal Care. At least, it seems to be a standard response to the question of what are people without insurance supposed to do when they get sick.

From what I have observed politicians on both sides have a difficult time taking away things from people that vote. The coverage to age 26 solves a huge problem that many can identify with, particularly in an economy that it seems we are destined to live with. Both sides talk a good, get tough talk, but results often do not match the talk. This particular coverage benefits the middle class "producers" of our economy. And, we are talking about the health of their young adult children; the personal and political stakes don't get much higher.

This is the one factor that suggests to me that when all is said and done, whatever it takes, this coverage won't go away. I suspect that at most the current law may be modified, if that is what it takes to keep the to age 26 coverage.

I think it will be as hard for the conservatives to undo what has been done as it was for the other side to do something. I'm not sure the conservatives will be as willing to lose an election over this issue.

Tbh I don't really trust Politifact to give me the time of day, there are very few places you can trust these days, and you can't trust official Government statements either from the White House.

This is quite possibly the most corrupt administration in the Nation's history. Chicago has moved to Washington DC.

@ aghogday

If the US Supreme Court sides with the Judge in Florida, Obamacare is dead period.