Obamacare: Do Expats Need To Buy Health Insurance?

I think you should enlighten all as to the quantum improvement over today... I have been researching and researching and can't find the benefit. But I am certiainly open to facts rather than platitudes. But what I see so far is the law give us the right to buy insurance from insurance companies with no guarantee that any doctor will accept it and no guarantee that I can actually "afford" it. Enlighten us.
Perhaps you overlooked this?
http://www.foxnews.c...y-theyre-gonna/

and this? "Kimmel Asks Americans to Choose: Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act" http://gawker.com/ki...ffor-1433866673
 
That is definitely not what reality is telling us. From The Economist, based on a World Bank report:

"[font=Lucida Sans Unicode']Across Europe, healthcare is barely managing to cover its costs. Not only are the methods for raising funds to cover its costs inadequate, but, of even greater concern, the costs themselves are set to soar. According to World Bank figures, public expenditure on healthcare in the EU could jump from 8% of GDP in 2000 to 14% in 2030 and continue to grow beyond that date. The overriding concern of Europe’s healthcare sector is to find ways to balance budgets and restrain spending. Unless that is done, the funds to pay for healthcare will soon fall short of demand.[/font]

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode'][background=transparent]Read more: http://www.managemen...0#ixzz2ggLwunK3"[/background][/font]

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode'][background=transparent]So let me try again:[/background][/font]

[background=transparent]In a reality of spiraling health costs in Europe, stagnant and debt ridden economies, and one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, how does continues to provide "free health care" to an aging population? [/background]
I read the article, which is dated 17 Mar 2011, in the depth of the latest financial crisis, when everybody was sobbing and dropping tears into the porridge.

"The Economist Intelligence Unit bears sole responsibility for the content of this report." They are undoubtly right about the Southern European countries, but that's it. The debt ridden economies? Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, which are countries, I did not mention, see above.

Whatever 'The Economist' told their readers, I happen to live in the middle of it (and I did study national economy for two years under prof. Stephenson so I have some idea of the works), and so I ignore The Economist.

I live in a country where we have had a comfortable trade surplus during the last 12-13 years, 2013 looks even better than the previous decade. We also have a comfortable foreign currency reserve, a reasonably small state debt and a solid private investment in foreign countries, resulting in a rather large net fortune (Norway is even better of, the misers ;) ) . Foreigners buy our state bonds with a negative interest rate just to make sure their money is still there in a few years.

At least the Scandinavian countries - and undoubtly also Die Schweiz, Nederland, Deutschland and Ôsterreich - keep close tab on their future health care expenses.
 
True which is why Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Boehner, etc use it. And I answered my own question using GS' comment vis-a-vis the rational versus the emotional voter.

Of course I was being sarcastic b/c ajoknoblauch who has not been elected to anything actually drinks the Kool Aide of his/her almight leaders and then thinks he/she can spout it out here as if he/she were actually educated or barring that elected to something. Instead it is just noise, hot air that proves to provide no value to anyone, kind of like the Federal Govt.
Obama uses it, but he cannot compete with the trash thrown at him - non-american citizen with a faked birth certificate, a muslim who wants to steal every single penny you earn. The Obama who started the NSA surveillance, is responsible for the 4-6 trillion US$ the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will have cost (and he wasn't even the president when that started).

Obama is blamed for not stopping all the crazy things started by George Wingnut, while scarce anybody blames G. Wingnut and the GOP.
 
That is definitely not what reality is telling us. From The Economist, based on a World Bank report:

"[font=Lucida Sans Unicode']Across Europe, healthcare is barely managing to cover its costs. Not only are the methods for raising funds to cover its costs inadequate, but, of even greater concern, the costs themselves are set to soar. According to World Bank figures, public expenditure on healthcare in the EU could jump from 8% of GDP in 2000 to 14% in 2030 and continue to grow beyond that date. The overriding concern of Europe’s healthcare sector is to find ways to balance budgets and restrain spending. Unless that is done, the funds to pay for healthcare will soon fall short of demand.[/font]

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode'][background=transparent]Read more: http://www.managemen...0#ixzz2ggLwunK3"[/background][/font]

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode'][background=transparent]So let me try again:[/background][/font]

[background=transparent]In a reality of spiraling health costs in Europe, stagnant and debt ridden economies, and one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, how does continues to provide "free health care" to an aging population? [/background]

How about some real numbers:


Current_healthcare_expenditure%2C_2009_%281%29_YB2013.png


Source URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Current_healthcare_expenditure,_2009_(1)_YB2013.png&filetimestamp=20130805131905
 
Obama uses it, but he cannot compete with the trash thrown at him - non-american citizen with a faked birth certificate, a muslim who wants to steal every single penny you earn. The Obama who started the NSA surveillance, is responsible for the 4-6 trillion US$ the Afghanistan and Iraq wars will have cost (and he wasn't even the president when that started).

Obama is blamed for not stopping all the crazy things started by George Wingnut, while scarce anybody blames G. Wingnut and the GOP.
Not sure that everyone blames Obama. I for one blame both parties as I made clear previously so not sure who your comment is thrown at.

For the record, however, since you opened the box, the democrats have had the senate and executive for a few years and Gitmo is sitll open. If my memory serves me correctly, Obama ran on a platform which closing Gitmo was central. Obama is as bad as all the others who came before. And in fact, I would argue worse with his childish drowns and kill lsit garbage. .

If the Federal Govt has to show its force by shutting down public land then we the people should be very scared. Those in power on both sides are alittle to ambitious in demonstrating their power. In this case closing down monument is a cynical action designed to demonstrate their power over we the people not designed to show that they work for we the people.

If you want to defend any modern welfare state, which is a worldwide phenom, depsite the fact that history shows centralization is a failure, go for it. I don't and won't
 
Not sure that everyone blames Obama. I for one blame both parties as I made clear previously so not sure who your comment is thrown at
1. At no one in particular, 2. at those who blame him but forget to blame those who started the mess, 3. as a general remark ,-)

You are rasonably new to this forum; I suggest you read through a number of threads and get a feeling of how things unfold, e.g. that (just about) every thread with more 10 posts change subject to 2-3-4-5-6-7 more or less related ones.
 
You are rasonably new to this forum; I suggest you read through a number of threads and get a feeling of how things unfold, e.g. that (just about) every thread with more 10 posts change subject to 2-3-4-5-6-7 more or less related ones.

What?
You are rasonably new to this forum; I suggest you read through a number of threads and get a feeling of how things unfold, e.g. that (just about) every thread with more 10 posts change subject to 2-3-4-5-6-7 more or less related ones.

Why? Have I violated some unwritten code I would pick up on by reviewing old threads? I have been around this forum under this name since 2012 May. That's 18 months. At what point do you judge me to be no longer "new" ? I have lurked for longer than that. My ratio of posts to likes is currently 63:29 Yours is 1457:482.

My 46% like ration blows your 33% like ratio away by 40%. Maybe you should go review some posts and add some more value before giving me advice about how to post. Then again, you proably support the nanny state thus you have earned your right to not only tell us all how to live but also how to post ona forum.. Thank godness for do gooders like you. Where would be all be without you... hahah
 
What?


Why? Have I violated some unwritten code I would pick up on by reviewing old threads? I have been around this forum under this name since 2012 May. That's 18 months. At what point do you judge me to be no longer "new" ? I have lurked for longer than that. My ratio of posts to likes is currently 63:29 Yours is 1457:482.

My 46% like ration blows your 33% like ratio away by 40%. Maybe you should go review some posts and add some more value before giving me advice about how to post. Then again, you proably support the nanny state thus you have earned your right to not only tell us all how to live but also how to post ona forum.. Thank godness for do gooders like you. Where would be all be without you... hahah
I judged by
1. your number of posts plus
2. that you wrote "so not sure who your comment is thrown at." - why would you think it was at you? experienced debaters don't.

You can shove the childish ad hominem up the far end of your alimentary canal.
 
Back
Top