<p>So do you call that “government run farming”?</p>
<p>It wouldn’t matter if the taxpayer dollar was just that - a buck. Government dollars mean government control… consider education, for instance. </p>
<p>Other than that, and that the president’s yet to tell me I have to pay a penalty for not growing ethanol corn, y’all have got a perfectly good point</p>
<p>It’s true that whoever pays the piper calls the tune, cata. Few of us could self-fund a serous illness, so we’re always going to have to follow someone’s rules. Insurance dollars mean insurance control, and they have not exactly shown themselves to be benevolent overlords of our medical care. </p>
<p>Did you read Igloo’s link? It’s government dollars going to insurance companies which are pretty highly regulated now. Nobody involved here is acting out of benevolence. That’s just naïve, imho. And, I do not mean that in a snarky way, at all. </p>
<p>No offense taken. :-)</p>
<p>No government dollars are going to anyone on behalf of my husband. But he has those 9 protections I listed, due solely to Obamacare. Maybe you think that since Anthem can’t give him the boot if he gets really sick (thanks to Obamacare), that makes it government run healthcare. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.</p>
<p>Ultimately, a lot more government dollars will be involved. This law is barely even enacted, yet. </p>
<p>“If you want to convince us”</p>
<p>Not easy when you have cult-like tendencies and you dismiss all logic because it conflicts with your cult beliefs.</p>
<p>To be honest, I’m tired of trying. There are three or four posters dominating this thread and arguing with them is waste of time.</p>
<p>Pooch, for the things you say, it’s not a matter of logic, but of values. You want to pay less money (in premiums, in taxes) by not covering other people’s health care. You know you won’t get pregnant, for example, and you think you won’t have a mental health disorder, so you don’t want to pay for those things for other people. Nothing illogical about that. But it reflects values that some others on this thread don’t share. </p>
<p>I don’t see the use of disputing those values on this thread. Nobody’s going to convince anyone else.</p>
<p>Rather, IMO we should investigate what is happening with this new law. Maybe we can find areas of agreement: probably we’re all happy that the California Dept of Managed Care is going after Anthem and Blue Shield, for example. Maybe we can point out areas where the proposals a person makes won’t achieve the goals the person says they have. Maybe we can better understand what is going on, maybe we can help people who need to make decisions under the new law to make better ones.</p>
<p>“California Dept of Managed Care is going after Anthem and Blue Shield”</p>
<p>That’s a figment of your imagination. The reason why all the new Obamacare plans are regulated by the Dept of Managed Care rather than Dept of Insurance is because the insurance companies can actually select their regulator for new plans. As ineffectual as the Dept of Insurance was, the Dept of Managed Care is even a bigger joke. </p>
<p>BTW, Covered Ca is calling the shots now and they are not bothered if people don’t have access to excellent medical care.</p>
<p>One last point: you have no idea what my values are.</p>
<p>The insurance companies always could select their regulator. That doesn’t come with the ACA.</p>
<p>It’s not only values, it’s also about truths. Not magnifications, hyperbole, etc, to hammer a point we do not see. I’m still wondering were the comment that “millions are stuck in an Obamacare plan they despise” comes from. Or that people will not find doctors willing to treat them. Or that meds they need will be refused. Or that one who is sick will have to duke it out with the insurer and lose. It makes it harder to find logic. </p>
<p>We may not know all your values, but at nearly a thousand pages, we do know what you have written. </p>
<p>“It makes it harder to find logic.”</p>
<p>I guess logic and truth are in the eye of the beholder. There is ample evidence to support everything I have said (not your distorted characterization of what I said) if one has an open mind and is allowing information to penetrate the cranial cavity.</p>
<p>If there’s ample evidence that millions of people despise their individual policies, then you should have no trouble producing it.</p>
<p>CF, I have a proposal that we might both agree is worth pursuing. All the big shots who run Covered Ca, and the other regulators have to buy the Obamacare plans they are force-feeding to hundreds of thousands of Californians. Also, lets include all elected state officials and all govt workers, too. It would be interesting to see if they would tolerate the nonsense they have forced on many of the citizens of Ca.</p>
<p>“If there’s ample evidence that millions of people despise their individual policies, then you should have no trouble producing it.”</p>
<p>It is remarkable how consistent the polling has been since the enactment of the Obamacare law back in 2009. Obviously, the supporters don’t care that the public has strongly opposed this law for 5 years running. Would love to find a poll of unsubsidized people with Obamacare plans. I think we both know what the results would be. </p>
<p><a href=“RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law”>RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law;
<p>The polling shows that more people oppose the law than support it. That does not imply that the people who have individual policies despise them, however. The people with individual policies may be the ones who support Obamacare. And, indeed, probably a good portion of the people who have subsidized policies do support Obamacare.</p>
<p>Also, this may be just semantics, but I took the comment that people despise their health plan to mean that they think the health plan does not offer what they want-- the networks are too narrow, for example. If someone has insurance that they like but think is too expensive, I wouldn’t have counted them in the Despise-Their-Health-Plan group. GP, did you mean to be counting people who are satisfied with what their plan gives them but think it costs too much?</p>
<p>Despise means all the above: cost, network and being given no options other than Obamacare. I am also probably referring to unsubsidized ( and moderately subsidized) people more than the people who are essentially getting their insurance for free, thanks to the folks who actually pay taxes.</p>
<p>You haven’t commented on my proposal to make the people in charge of regulating Obamacare (including politicians and everyone else in govt) eat their own cooking. You think we should give them a pass?</p>
<p>Sorry, GP, I missed the proposal.</p>
<p>I don’t have strong feelings about it either way. It’s a gimmick. I don’t support taking employee benefits away from people, but if there were a way that the people could be given the money (taxfree) that would have been otherwise used for their insurance, and then required to buy individual insurance, that would be OK, I guess.</p>
<p>I don’t much like the employer mandate anyway. I’d do away with it if I had my druthers.</p>
<p>Didnl;t some people with an employer “cafeteria” insurance plan have the option of receiving money? Was it taxable? </p>
<p>GP, you’re diverting again.</p>
<p>GP, the “disapprove” group – when the pollster asks – always includes a small group which thinks the law doesn’t go far enough. Add that small group to the larger “approve” group, and you get a somewhat different picture which is rarely highlighted and which certainly can’t be seen in the chart you posted. For example, earlier this month [url=<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?]Bloomberg[/url</a>] found that 42% oppose the law because it goes too far, 39% approve, and 11% oppose because it doesn’t go far enough. So the 53% disapprove number in the RCP chart doesn’t mean that 53% want reform to just go away.</p>