- This topic has 16 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Is it solely because it was introduced by Obama, who is seen as not being as favorable to Israel as Bush was and Romney says he will be?
Why, exactly, is this bill so bad? Why are all of you so vocally protesting against this law?
What is so great about the fact that 30 million Americans do not have health insurance? Have you ever heard about what happens to someone who doesn’t have health insurance and gets cancer, or a bad traffic accident? Never mind a simple normal medical appointment (which in the US can cost hundreds of dollars)?
Pretty much every other modern country in the world has mandatory cover for all of its citizens. For example, in Israel and in the UK, everyone is automatically covered; in the Netherlands, one who does not have health insurance is fined and forced to take it. In those countries, nobody dies from cancer because they cannot afford the medication.
Why are you advocating a reality in which 30 million of your fellow citizens are stuck without health care? And don’t tell me it’s their own choice. You know perfectly well that someone who has some pre-existing condition cannot get cover (definitely not for that condition). There is *no* such situation in any other country that I know. The fact that some new customers of health insurance companies have pre-existing conditions is, in the Netherlands for example, seen as just that – a fact of life. They cannot refuse or limit cover, or dramatically raise the price, because someone has a pre-existing condition.
I cite: “The Act also reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to an additional 30 million Americans”
I am absolutely clueless as to why the entire US frum population is up in arms *against* this law.
While Obama has certainly done things that are not as good, I really fail to see why the fact that he has done others things wrong, means that *everything* he does *must* therefore, apparently, be wrong. I fail to see the logic in that.
Therefore I’m asking you, please explain just *why* you hope Romney will repeal this law.
What source do you have for the statement that most (frum) Jews are opposed? My impression is that most of the frum community really likes entitlements, and its only a handful of people on the political margins who worry about the loss of personal freedom or the macroeconomic impacts. Remember that most frum Jews routinely vote for the Democrats even though we disapprove of their social and foreign policies – but we do like entitlements.
Given that most Jews live in Blue states that will spend themselves into Greece at the drop of a hat, there’s a great deal of support from anyone who qualifies for Medicaid. There some concerns that people who can’t afford insurance now, or are getting by with low premium, high deductible policies will end up being subject to penalties for not buy unaffordable comprehensive policies, which will be aggrevated since Obamacare will make insurance and medical care more expensive.
There are a number of issues with it.
1. The law is not applied equally to everyone. Why should I have to pay hundreds of dollars per month for my healthcare while others get it for free? If you’re going to require everyone to have coverage and give it out for those who can’t afford it, then give it out to everyone for free.
2. You shouldn’t be able to fine those who don’t have coverage. If the government can force someone to purchase insurance, then why can’t they force other things? Why can’t they say, ok, if you vote Republican, we’re going to fine you? Free market means you can buy what you want, and refuse what you want. The government shouldn’t be able to force people to buy things.
3. Regarding pre-existing conditions, it makes a lot of sense to exclude them. There are actually laws in place that require they be covered as long as you’ve had coverage. So let’s say Person A has a job, and gets insurance through Oxford. He develops a health issue while there. Oxford covers the treatment. But then he switches jobs – and his new employer offers Aetna, not Oxford. Since he had coverage already, the law requires the new insurance provider to cover the pre-existing condition.
But now let’s look at what happens if you always require companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Person B is a nice, healthy person. Let’s say getting health insurance would cost him roughly $600 per month. He doesn’t want to pay it, as he’s a healthy guy. One day, he’s playing basketball, and he lands the wrong way, and breaks his leg. He calls up a health insurance provider and signs up – for $600 per month. He goes to the hospital, gets his leg treated. The insurance pays the hospital $5,000. After he’s been treated, he cancels the plan. Let’s say he paid 2 months of premium – $1,200. Now the insurance company had a loss of $3,800 on his case. If he had coverage the whole time, he would have paid many more months without any claims which would make up for the loss. But if they allow people to do this, the premiums would rise astronomically to make up for these cases.
As for people without any insurance, I’m sorry, but healthcare is not a basic right that people get. It is a privilege.
Is it solely because it was introduced by Obama…?
Yup. It’s not all though, I know plenty who support it. You just don’t hear their voices in places like these.
Because it’s SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!
Because all other countries have socialized medicine the doctors hands are tied as to what they can and cannot do.. and very often people from these countries with serious conditions and illnesses come to NY/America to get proper medical care.
Already there are medications that were taken off insurance coverage!
A- because my monthly premium will increase dramatically. Got a letter from the insurance company that I should expect a 46% increase for 2013.
B- contrary to what you wrote, I believe that most uninsured, do not have coverage because they ode not to. We have Medicaid/Medicare for thos who cannot afford it. I saw someplace that the statistic for ninsured are young adults that don’t WANT to pay for it.
C- pre existing conditions. Insurance is for the unexpected. In fact, if I would purchase fire insurance because I knew that my house will be on fire. That is insurance fraud. Same is with medical insurance.
The fact that one has pre existing issues, should be a good enough reason for the insurance company not to provide coverage. They are here to earn money, not to pay our bills.
The government should pay for people with pre existing conditions AND cannot afford to pay the medical bills themselves. (isn’t this Medicaid..?).
there are several reasons – there are people in the frum community who can not afford health insurance and this does nothing to change that – especially since now many of those people will not be eligible for mediacaid under the present law. expecting them to pay this tax is unreasonable and creates more of an unnecessary burden – this also does not mean everyone will be insured as i am sure that people especially initially will pay the tax which is less than the cost of healthcare rather than be insured. the other problem is that rates will skyrocket for the rest of us who do have insurance. a lot of the countries you mention maintain prohibitive taxes on their citizens to pay for these social entitlements at the cost of having a lower standard of care. there is nothing in this law that protects the consumers from the insurance companies raising prices dramatically. the law sounds real nice in theory but in practice what will probably happen is that the individual mandate will not make it worth it for the insurers to offset the costs of pre-existing conditions – even the potential that it wont will dramatically raise premiums. people are very nervous considering the bad economy these days and are very worried about the concept of one of the basic necessities – namely healthcare becoming unaffordable.
For those against “Socialized Medicine”
What do you think yingerlach who live in Kollel familes do for Health care?
Good question, Gatesheader. I fully agree with you. The only problem I have with the law is that I’m not sure it will work — what I’d really like to see is Medicare for all (Canada-style healthcare) (or maybe Veterans Administration for all, which would be UK-style health care).
First, I don’t think it’s true that 100% of frum Jews are against this health care bill. Political allegiance differs among different segments of the Orthodox community. There are many Democrats among the Modern/Centrist Orthodox, and I’m sure there are some among Yeshivish and Chassidic communities (though they may keep quiet to avoid getting flack).
Second, the main way to answer your question is to talk about why it is that many Orthodox Jews are Republicans rather than Democrats. It’s an empirical question, but I have a few hunches: a) Republican ideology and strategy since Nixon has used code words to take advantage of anti-black prejudice and fears, and many frum Jews could be susceptible to this because they often live in or near high-crime inner-city areas; b) the culture wars (gay rights, feminism, etc.) have a higher prominence in the public imagination than economic issues, so it’s natural for members of a conservative religion to side with the right, and then end up getting persuaded by the rest of their ideology; c) many frum Jews are apparently convinced by economic conservative arguments about free markets, low taxes (keep in mind that this madness is also believed in by many lower-class whites who would be better off with higher government spending, more unions and a regulated labor market, etc.); d) mainstream Republicans aren’t very good on Israel (the disastrous Gaza withdrawal was basically Bush’s fault), but Obama is the worst yet (for that reason I would never vote for Obama — I’ll probably not vote at all — even though I’m to the left of Obama on most economic and environmental issues).
Healthcare costs money. Insurance, doctors, drug companies etc. Obamacare does nothing, yes absolutely nothing, to address the costs of healthcare. All the bill does is transfer wealth. Forcing insurance companies to accept children until the age of 26 and those with pre-existing conditions obviously lowers the costs for those people. But how does this get paid for? Are insurance executives going to accept smaller salaries? Of course not. The way this gets paid for is by raising rates for everyone else. The average cost of healthcare cannot possibly go down because of the ACA. All it does is transfer wealth from the young healthy working to the older sick and lazy. That is why I’m opposed to the ACA. The reason I am opposed to it has nothing to do with Obama. I was opposed to the Bob Dole healthcare plan, and I am opposed to Romenycare, both republicans.
What drive do doctors have to treat more patients if there will be a so called salary. Look at Canada you can sit for hours waiting for the doctor, they dont need to treat you nicely. Pre-existing conditions should be treated by the government not private insurers. How can a government force something onto its citizens we elected them to serve us not for them to tax us!! Look at the tea party back in Boston for the taxes on tea and sugar. We should be protesting like the original forefathers wanted.
The reason frum jews are against Obamacare is for two simple reasons.
1. We are pretty smart and we see the fallacies in the law and realize that it won’t work. Insurance premiums in New York have already gone up almost 100% since ObamaCare was passed.
2. We all know family and friends in Canada or the UK, and see how socialized medicine is a disaster.
DaMoshe – Great answers!
Because I am not a socialist. Why should I pay for someone else’s health care when so many will get it for free. Yes someone is in it deep she they get sick and do not have health care, but it should be a choice. If Obama is going to penalize those without healthcare, what else can and will he enforce? If I choose not to have car insurance, will the government penalize me then? Or if I want to stuff my face with candy all day and become obese, is that the next thing the Libs are going to regulate? We are already headed in that direction.
Furthermore it is completely unconstitutional. How the individual mandate was passed is beyond me. I believe it will be repealed at some point. You can give Obama credit for trying to have the appearance of everyone’s best interest at heart but it is a farce. He is a socialist who wants compete control over every aspect of our lives. How so many people are blind too it I can’t get.
Unfortunately so many frum yidden take take take take from the government, so I would imagine many are for the affordable care act. To call it a “tax” should be illegal. I pay my taxes, I work as does my husband, so I am going to be paying this new “tax” while those who have been getting a free ride ALL along will once again be covered fee free with this act and I will be footing the bill.
That is why I opposed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw – This should give you some clarity. Must see….
TCG -“In return, I get excellent cover at basically no direct cost to me at all. Same story in Israel”
There is a reason the US has the best healthcare in the world.
If the system ain’t broke why fix it?
I’m not saying there are no problems, but for anybody who has somewhat of a brain in his head doesn’t say -“Well we have these problems -so let’s have socialized medicine.”
You would only say that if all the countries in the world had better medical care than us, not when they have worse.
But you libs like drinking the DemocRATS Kool Aid!
I know a Doc who made Aliya, but travels every two weeks to work in the US. He told me he does this because his wife as a school teacher makes more money than he would practicing medicine in Israel.
Slavery should be dead for e/o and that includes expecting medical personnel to work for next to nothing!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.