On the divorce issue, when there are children involved it makes a tremendous difference and the fighting over custody rights especially over which mommy gets the child, the birthing mom or moms will bring tremendous headaches to the legal system especially if one mom has one child and the other child is born by the other mom. Before there was marriage the issue of who got to keep the kid was not an issue. Now the real fight will start.cb1000rider wrote:That doesn't make sense to me. Marriage has nothing to do with having children in this day and age and divorce courts have nothing to do with how well people can divide assets. It can be just as ugly among non-married couples and potentially just as litigious. Just because we've now got a potential divorce court, that doesn't result in additional break-ups and broken households.rotor wrote:Gays want to get married doesn't bother me although I don't agree with it on a philosophical basis. More money for lawyers though as the divorce courts will be filled with vicious cases and I can tell you that the child custody cases will be terrible and they do have children. I know many lesbian couples that decide to have children where one has the first, the other is supposed to have the next and they split up. Nasty fights. Now at least the courts can decide who mommy and mommy really are.
1) Entitlements are progressive. It's not exactly all or nothing.rotor wrote: The ACA case really bothers me and touches me financially though as my insurance premium for my wife is $532 a month for a $6000 deductible now and it was about $220 with a $5000 deductible before ACA. We don't get any of those subsidies that make it "affordable" I guess. I am on Medicare and my premiums with plan D and supplement run probably another $550 or so a month. So I am **ssed that Joe Schmoe that never worked a day in his life can still keep his affordable health insurance (paid for by my taxes- and yours) while we try to struggle through retirement and are told that what we are getting is an entitlement which we are not really entitled to but Joe Schmoe is entitled to getting subsidized or free health insurance, food stamps, housing vouchers, free cell phones, and whatever other goodies there are. Now all the big insurance companies are consolidating, Humana, Cigna, Aetna, all going to try to merge. You realize what this means don't you? Target pharmacy being sold to CVS. All one big controlled universe. Massive government-industrial complex. Watch the prices go through the roof.
2) Joe Schmoe who never worked a day in his life and has medical bills, you and I are already paying for them. We're paying for them with $10 / aspirins and our already-ridiculous healthcare costs pre-Obamacare. Largely, the difference is that you and I weren't as directly billed for it before Obamacare. Where do you think Joe got his healthcare before?
3) It wasn't on a sustainable path before. It's not on a sustainable path now.
4) Your listed premiums pre and post Obamacare are striking. Are your coverages exactly the same? Apples to Apples. Not discounting your story at all, but again, all of the data is important. One thing that makes Obamacare much more expensive for many people is that they threw out some plans that had much lower levels of coverage.
On the insurance for my wife, she had BC policy one day and the next it was a new BC policy, higher deductible, higher premium, maybe now she had ob but at her age who cares and she already had a hysterectomy. Less drug coverage. Lucky to get it. What can I say. I would be better off being Joe Schmoe, at least financially.