‘STOP DEMONIZING SOCIALISM’: OBAMACARE SUPPORTERS DEMAND ‘FREE’ HEALTHCARE AFTER SUPREME COURT RULING

I agree that the current system is failing. I think that it has been failing ever since the government and insurance companies got heavily involved. When most of the money being spent comes not from the consumer but from some big pockets insurance company or govt we (the people covered) don't care how much things cost. We demand services that are questionable in value or largely unnecessary. We rush to the emergency room for stuff that prior generations dealt with at home. And we think that the solution is more of the same.
I also agree that Republicans haven't been good at proposing alternatives although it is funny that Democrats claim that "Obamacare" is based on Republican "Romneycare" and other ideas that some Republicans have endorsed prior to Obama championing them. So which is it? Clearly we have misleading rhetoric here.
I would like to see more involvement by consumers. Higher co-pays so people at least think before rushing to the emergency room. Higher consumer paid costs when demanding procedures that have questionable value. More options for insurance and not the current system of states requiring various mandates, resulting in insurance costing $1,700 in Alabama and $4,000 in Washington because Washington insurance covers massage, chiropractic, etc. I should be able to buy a high deductible, catastrophic care only coverage if I want.
Employer provided insurance should be taxed, as McCain wanted. Clearly there is something extremely unfair when a $80K/yr family gets $20K in free untaxed insurance while another $80K/yr now has to either spend $20K on taxed dollars from that to buy insurance that he doesn't need currently, or pay a fine, and doesn't get any assistance because he is over the 133% of poverty.
And uninsured people who use emergency room service should be expected to pay. We should not justify the ACA because the uninsured aren't paying so we all pay more to cover that. There is something wrong with the idea that a guy having a sex accident and having a child has to pay for 20 years but a guy having an accident resulting in treatment gets a free ride. There is no incentive now, apparently, to buy insurance. If college education loans are not escapable why can people escape medical bills, at least to some point?

I hardly used any medical services from age 20 to 60. I would have saved tons of money (and my employer would have as well) by not having insurance and paying as I went, for occassional doctor visits. Nothing in the ACA changes that. The tax on not having insurance is less than the insurance.

Fortunately states can get waivers from the ACA so hopefully the worst of the ACA won't be implemented. And states don't have to follow the ACA. So there is hope. Oregon is a strongly "Blue" state that will probably get a waiver.

According to the CBO, $500 billion over 10 years to pay for the ACA will come from cuts to Medicare. Now after paying into Medicare for 45 years I am about to receive the services that just thrills me, to be sarcastic.

You do make some valid points- I think you have more of a plan than our current republican presidential candidate. You didn't address the problem of covering those with pre-existing conditions, though. How would you propose to cover those who lost their employer paid benefits due to lay offs and job loss and who have or have been discovered to have a pre-existing condition without government intervention? Insurance companies are not going to cover them. A welfare recipient should not have better access to health care than someone who has worked all of their lives.
And the Romneycare/Obamacare comparison is valid - I actually thought it was great Romney implemented a plan to provide health care in his state.....We don't need more talk about the system's failing..we need more solutions..I liked that Romney took an initiative but then! lol...I just couldn't believe the about-face he did when he saw it was losing popularity. It shows a lack of conviction somewhere - either he didn't really believe in it when he originally endorsed it..or he believes in it but won't now 'openly' endorse it.
The only problem with your opt out idea..because you said you didn't use your benefits much between 20-60...is the pre-existing thing..if you weren't covered..and went to your doctor and found out you had a serious condition requiring ongoing care and treatments, etc..you would have been in serious trouble. There is no hope for you to get coverage after the fact...except with, as you said, some kind of catastrophic coverage. Obama said he was willing to talk about this and willing to make some changes...I wish they would actually work together to make a solution instead it's this ridiculous stand off..

Good discussion. By allowing those with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance you are taking away much of the incentive to buy insurance until you need it. Yes, accidents happen but a lot of medical expenses come from chronic conditions and the person will buy insurance if/when that condition arises. (And probably skip out on any emergency room payments in the meantime.) And I wonder if an administration will really tax/fine someone who is struggling and did not buy insurance.

But, yeah, those with pre-existing conditions should be covered. Not sure how but we already had in place Medicare and Medicaid and I would think that form could be used. Perhaps a Medicare Part E or something that covers generally employed and health insured workers who lose their coverage or some catastrophic care only plan covered by Medicare (but for all ages). Raise the payroll taxes as needed, for fiscal responsibility.
I don't like using anecdotes to make policies but I suspect that many are like my son and his wife. He works in union construction and she works but is on his insurance policy. They are expecting in January. Now sometimes my son has work and sometimes he doesn't. There is a strong possibility that he won't have enough hours in December to qualify for insurance for January. There should be some remedy for things like that, and those who lose their jobs.

I am not going to be hard on Romney for RomneyCare and his campaign. First of all, there is a significant difference between state laws and obligations and federal responsibilities. It seems very appropriate for the people of Mass. to want Romneycare yet understand that the people in Wyoming don't want it. RomneyCare seems to have many more options then the ACA will probably allow, with over 50 policies. I think that all politicians say stuff that even their followers know is code for something else.

One of the things that bugs me about Obama is his use of "we" and "them". I don't recall other Presidents saying that nearly as much, if at all. They should be President of all Americans, not President of the Party. It is hard to work with someone like that, especially when they says stuff like "They screwed this up so they can't have a say in fixing it initially". Huh? Canadian universal health care passed unanimously, even though the Conservatives took over within 8 months. But they worked together. Both sides in the US deserve blame for partisian legislation.

I think it's true what you say about taking away the incentive to buy coverage until and unless you need it - at least initially that will be true. but if people are required to carry coverage under Obamacare that won't be the case in the future..those people will have had coverage so the pre-existing condition aspect of health care won't be as pronounced I don't think. But, health care is definitely something that needs to be addressed - especially with so many people laid off and losing their coverage...it is a struggle- and actually...impossible for most people...to pay for health care out of pocket with a major diagnosis. My ex was finally able to qualify for a 3 month supply of one of his more expensive medicines from one pharmaceutical company after jumping through unbelievable hoops. He had to document that he absolutely could not get any help with anything from anyone and was absolutely going broke...they are like the last resort apparently for people like him. Thank God for even that much help, though - he is on unemployment and struggling as it is - it is crazy. People think the system is fine..no one gets denied health care..just go to the ER..It's absolutely annoying. As if a cancer patient can get ongoing chemo or a diabetic insulin by going to the ER every morning. I don't pretend to have answers..but I don't pretend there's not a problem either. .even if ObamaCare needs tweeked..it is a start..
And I agree, partisanship on either side is counterproductive...what our country needs is for the people they elected to put all that aside and to reasonably cooperate -
Thanks for the civility.