Obama: Keep your hands off my healthcare!!

Partial disclosure: I used a little poetic license with my figures. I haven't actually paid any insurance in 20 years or so since I don't actually own a car. My girlfriend does though, and we try to maintain two cars (one breaks down constantly), one reason I give her any money I make. The last figure I remember for insurance on both cars was in the $1500 to $2000 range, with four drivers.

As for your last paragraph: Realllllly? That doesn't smack even a tiny bit of socialism to you? A group of individuals putting money into a collective in order to provide a certain level of protection from loss?

But no, I don't believe I will pay for insurance, thank you.

My belief is that insurance is for richer people, the people who can afford such toys and the associated insurance available for them. It is also my belief that those insurances should not be mandatory. If a rich person does not wish to purchase insurance, he or she should be allowed to assume that risk.

But here's the kicker: The rich look at the bottom line. If everyone is required to purchase insurance, the cost of insurance will fall. The wealthy then can purchase insurance at a substantial discount compared to what it would cost if they alone had to pay for it. See how that works?

The selling point for this monstrosity of a system? Public safety. People are convinced that we cannot function as a society without insurance protection, and to some extent they are correct, but only to wealthy enterprise, not the poor or lower middle-class. By quoting issues of public safety the risk to the wealthy is minimized. The costs of that insurance is shifted to the less wealthy. It's socialism... socialism for the wealthy.

 

Awesome car...I'll give you $250 for it if it runs.

I partially answered you and rlm's questions about the subject in a previous comment. The rates do not appear to be affected by the types of cars we have, as we have had many over the years. The biggest expense may come from drivers. We now have four. I'll have to ask my girlfriend to verify this, but I don't believe the addition of my 20 year old son to the list has affected the costs in any substantial way... but I may be wrong. It should lol

As for cars: My first car was a 1971 Pontiac BelAire that I bought for $300 in 1985 I think. Insurance was $250 a year. It was four-door, 250 straight-six that I miss dearly lol ...It ran great, but during the winter the doors would freeze shut one by one. One day the drivers, the next the drivers and passengers, the next the drivers, passengers and rear passengers... etc.

After that car was gone I went through too many cars, in a short period of time, to list here. Maybe half a dozen un-notables in 2 years or so.... none worth much, all costing too much in insurance.

I had a 1970 Pontiac LeMans for a few years, until the threat of a lawsuit from the township I live in forced me to get rid of it. I couldn't afford to keep it insured, and had parked it behind some trees on our property, so the township was going to sue my girlfriend.

Together, my girlfriend and I have gone through at least half a dozen more vehicles. The current ones are a (2001?) Ford Windstar and a (2003?) Ford Villager. The two previous vehicles were another Windstar, a (2003 I think) that we had to let go of because we could no longer afford to keep it, and a 1992 Ford Aerostar. Yes, I know...we have a lot of family and need the room in our vehicles lol ...Insurance is something like $1500 to $2000 for the two vehicles and four drivers... but I'd have to verify that with my girlfriend... and she's sleepin' lol

So, there you go.

 

Does that include Obamacare's individual mandate?

 

You do realize, given the medical problems that you have recently divulged, that having a preexisting condition makes you unable to get health care insurance if you lose your current coverage if the PPACA is overturned in any significant way? You are now exactly the type of person that insurers do not want to cover. You have an expensive ongoing incurable condition. Under the PPACA they cannot drop you but if the law were repealed, you'd be looking at a tough road when you went looking for health care coverage. Is this fine with you?

 

Why yes.... yes it does.

 

Well, you are wrong. If I were to lose my current coverage today(coverage I decided to pay for over the years) I would be covered under Medicare/Medicaid. Under Obamacare, rather than being on the backside of recovery for the hernia surgery & well into maintenance for the diabetes, I would still be on a waiting list hoping to be treated by a doctor I have never heard of. Under the current system, I was able to choose my own surgeon, we wouldn't have that privilege under Obamacare, would we?
Once again, why not make inclusion in Obamacare voluntary?

 

Everytime someone makes the stupid comparison between Obamacare & auto insurance requirements this is the point that usually shoots the Obamacare advocates argument right out of the water, so thanks for proving the difference between the two, iqless. I'll bet moen winced when he saw you posted this!

 

That is so outside the realm of reality I'm not sure you'll be able to understand this.... but.... there is no way you'd qualify for medicare/medicaid benefits. For medicare, you need to be over the age of 65. For medicaid, the limits for the value of your personal assets (including savings acoounts and vehicles, but not your home) is around $1,500 to $2,000. In addition, you cannot give your assets away within five years of applying.

I almost forgot to add that your income cannot be greater than 70% of the poverty level, though that's in Michigan and may not apply in all States.

 

Who is this "moen" person ...and why should I care if what I say makes him wince?

Anyway, you're forgetting the point about PPACA making the health system actually treat my illnessses instead of ignoring them for the lack of my current ability to pay. Want another point? At least I can see both sides to the argument. At least I can see both the pros and the cons. At least I don't ignore the actual issues like you righties do.

 

You are beyond delusional if you believe that you'd qualify for either Medicare or Medicaid. Try choosing anything without health coverage. Who exactly is going to insure you with a preexisting condition? God sure shows us the folly of man. You screwed yourself and your kids with your RW ideology and now you've screwed yourself again by adhering to more RW nonsense. Not that I would wish you kind of ignorance on anybody but if we have to suffer from the burdens of life, the self-inflicted burdens must feel extra bad I'm guessing.

 

Just like his recent illness, David isn't capable of understanding the issues of poverty or the state of health care for the poor until he experiences it. People like him believe social programs are unnecessary benefits to lazy people, not essential services for people who have few options in life.

 

Somebody should make David aware of the 4 conditions that Medicare covers you. It covers the aged, (over 65), the disabled, the blind, and David's only hope at this point, end stage renal failure (often the result of diabetes).

 

Hate to tell you guy's this but David would qualify, and you would all know why if you read all his posts (he has told you before LOL)

 

Based on what Steve?

 

LOL not for me to tell you but he has told you all in the past You see you simply dont take notice of his words

 

You never said which program you think he is qualified for. It certainly isn't Medicare. According the his own accounts of his personal wealth, it certainly isn't Medicaid. Either he is lying about something else or Republicanism has recently been added to the list of disabilities. It certainly makes one blind. Oh! I get it now. He's twofer!

 

If you are referring to being legally blind, then yes, he may qualify for Medicare, but not instantaneously. There are hoops he'd have to jump through. To the best of my knowledge:

Medicare is available to people under the age of 65... but first you must have been receiving SS disability benefits ...for two years. You must also be disabled for half a year before SSD benefits are awarded. And from what I hear, it takes quite some time and effort to receive SSD benefits, but the eligibility requirements and income from work rules are quite generous ...you can earn something like 1,010 a month and work up to 80 hours a week (if self-employed).

So yes, David may indeed qualify for medicare, if certain conditions are met: One, he must be declared diabled by the SSA. Two: Must be disabled for five full months before receiving the benefit (in the sixth month). Three: If he receives SSD for two full years he is automatically enrolled in Medicare.

At least, as I understand it.

 

See someone reads his posts

 

Blind? Since when?

 

He said he was legally blind once or twice since I've been here (roughly a year). I remember responding on one of those occasions that I'm half-blind (legally blind in one eye) or something like that.