Thread: Serious question about "Obamacare"

Now that Boehner is hell bent on repealing the Affordable Care act, calling it a "monstrosity" and that it will actually cause "Armageddon", I need to know a little more about what makes it so atrocious. I know a little about its main provisions that seem reasonable and some details that seem stupid, but what really is so bad about it?

Honest question, I'd like to see both sides and what the non-supporters think is the big problem, other than "government takeover of healthcare" which is clearly not the case, the government is not running state hospitals now.

I'd like to know why Prescription Drug Care is not the same amount of evil. Perhaps that's Boehner's constituency?

children born into poor families shouldn't get a free ride

Originally Posted by Socialist

children born into poor families shouldn't get a free ride

/\like China

Originally Posted by 4matic

I'd like to know why Prescription Drug Care is not the same amount of evil.

It's not the same amount of evil for the same reason you can boil a frog by slowly turning up the heat. It wasn't a big enough change to wake people up and they quickly became accustom to it.

Obama turned up the heat too fast and the American people jumped out of the pan.

Originally Posted by 4matic

/\like China

No, like America. Liberty precludes a government mandated privileged class that gets a free ride on the backs of others. And before you try to point to examples of where that already exists in this country, more of a bad thing does not a good thing make.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

It's not the same amount of evil for the same reason you can boil a frog by slowly turning up the heat. It wasn't a big enough change to wake people up and they quickly became accustom to it.

Obama turned up the heat too fast and the American people jumped out of the pan.

Not the answer to the question. Why isn't Boehner talking about repealing prescription drug? The costs are similar to Health Care Reform Act?

It's politics plain and simple. Geezers vote and vote Republican AND they will vote with their wallets.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No, like America. Liberty precludes a government mandated privileged class that gets a free ride on the backs of others. And before you try to point to examples of where that already exists in this country, more of a bad thing does not a good thing make.

So you are against public education? I don't disgree with that and it should be a "conservative" goal. Why isn't it? Politics maybe?

If Boehner had a clue he would have come out with something. He's against it because Obama was for it. Simple as that. Once the people from big Pharm and the Insurance Companies who pay for his tan said they could work around it, he just kept up the rhetoric. Interested in hearing other thoughts. Especially those on the right.

Originally Posted by 4matic

Not the answer to the question.

It's the answer to the question I thought you asked. You asked:

Originally Posted by 4matic

I'd like to know why Prescription Drug Care is not the same amount of evil. Perhaps that's Boehner's constituency?

Since the OP was asking about the supporters and opponents of Obamacare, I misunderstood and thought you were doing the same. My mistake.

Why isn't Boehner talking about repealing prescription drug?

That's a question I don't have an answer to.

The costs are similar to Health Care Reform Act?

Costs have very little to do with the furor that has resulted from the passage of Obamacare. It has far more to do with the overreach of government.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

It's the answer to the question I thought you asked. You asked:



I misunderstood and thought you asked about the people, not about Boehner himself. My mistake.



That's a different question than the one you asked and one I don't have an answer to.






Costs have very little to do with the furor that has resulted from the passage of Obamacare. It has far more to do with the overreach of government.

Just like the GOP and Tea Party. You have no answers and its all about politics. Same ole same ole. I'll throw the Dems in there too. They don't have solutions either.

Originally Posted by 4matic

Just like the GOP and Tea Party. You have no answers and its all about politics. Same ole same ole.

No, dunce, I don't have answers about the motivation and selective attention of a single politician, which is what you were asking about. You are not an honest debater.

Originally Posted by 4matic

So you are against public education?

Public education should be left entirely to the states. The federal government should have no involvement in it IMO.

I don't disgree with that and it should be a "conservative" goal. Why isn't it? Politics maybe?

More likely it is a victim of the tyranny of the urgent. There are only so many hours in the day.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

You are not an honest debater.




Public education should be left entirely to the states. The federal government should have no involvement in it IMO.
.

You're right about that public education thingy. We should allow states to decide. Who cares if Mississippi and Alabama head right back to pre-civil rights act. Who cares if an entire race of citizens in Arizona aren't allowed to attend public school.

Did you run on the same ticket as Rand?

So back on track...

When the bill passed, I read a brief synopsis of it and was like, "this is what people are fired up about? this seems pretty modest to me."

The two answers gleaned from Rubicon's...uh...responses so far seem to be:
1. government overreach
2. something about not wanting people, presumably those who couldn't otherwise afford it, to get free rides.

Other responses might be:
3. Something about rationing.
4. Something about it being unconstitutional to require people to buy health insurance.

Wow. That was really hard to do without sarcasm.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

You're right about that public education thingy. We should allow states to decide. Who cares if Mississippi and Alabama head right back to pre-civil rights act. Who cares if an entire race of citizens in Arizona aren't allowed to attend public school.

Did you run on the same ticket as Rand?

If the states infringe on the people's rights, there are already remedies in place to address that.

One of the reoccurring criticisms of liberals is that they disregard the constitution when it suites them.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you believe in our system of governance or not?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Costs have very little to do with the furor that has resulted from the passage of Obamacare. It has far more to do with the overreach of government.

lulz....

I still don't know much about the Obamacare. A lot of people don't. Maybe instead of just calling everybody a bunch or dumbfucks who don't know what's good for them, the Democrats could explain to us the high and low points of Obamacare. That shouldn't be too hard and would go a long way towards repairing the image they currently have of being a bunch or condescending douchebags.

Originally Posted by Jer

I still don't know much about the Obamacare. A lot of people don't. Maybe instead of just calling everybody a bunch or dumbfucks who don't know what's good for them, the Democrats could explain to us the high and low points of Obamacare. That shouldn't be too hard and would go a long way towards repairing the image they currently have of being a bunch or condescending douchebags.

Resistance is futile, dumbass.

Originally Posted by butterscotch

The two answers gleaned from Rubicon's...uh...responses so far seem to be:
1. government overreach
2. something about not wanting people, presumably those who couldn't otherwise afford it, to get free rides.

Number 1 is correct.

Number 2 is not. I don't care if somebody gets something without having to pay for it out of pocket. I do care that the federal government would create a class of people that have their needs meet at the expense of the tax payers.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

If the states infringe on the people's rights, there are already remedies in place to address that.

One of the reoccurring criticisms of liberals is that they disregard the constitution when it suites them.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you believe in our system of governance or not?

The reason the feds are involved in education is because the states proved incapable of respecting every class of citizens rights with regards to education.
Do you know what equal protection means?

Do you believe in our system of governance or not?

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

The reason the feds are involved in education is because the states proved incapable of respecting every class of citizens rights with regards to education.

Federal funding of public education came about in response to civil rights violations? Really?

Do you have anything to support this assertion, or is it just your speculation? I ask because I was under a different impression about it's origins.

Originally Posted by Jer

I still don't know much about the Obamacare. A lot of people don't. Maybe instead of just calling everybody a bunch or dumbfucks who don't know what's good for them, the Democrats could explain to us the high and low points of Obamacare. That shouldn't be too hard and would go a long way towards repairing the image they currently have of being a bunch or condescending douchebags.

Just because more than half of us aren't capable of understanding it, much less have the time to break it down, doesn't mean it's bad or that it should be 'simpled down'...or that anyone was called a dumbfuck (where'd that come from). It's a tough thing to fit into sound bites to placate the masses. Anyway, here's my go at it...I'm sure I'm missing some important things on both sides.

Good:
- No more prexisting conditions exclusions (which you can not have without a mandate for coverage, period) or recission.
- Additional focus on preventive care
- A super rad all-inclusive web-site quoting portal - one stop shopping if you will - that will greatly reduce the need and costs of agents who are a big chunk of $$ in the system. You will eventually be able to actually get rates and sign up for coverage here.
- Lot's of funding for electronic medical records infrastructure and investing in coordinated care (the only real solution to lower the cost curve)
- Additional access to gov't programs for poor people
- Children can be covered through age 26 on their parents plan if they are not offered coverage at their work
- Subsidies for coverage for poor to middle class people
- tax breaks for business offering coverage
- Additional scrutiny of insurers with an 80% loss ratio floor (75% for individual coverage) which will keep insurers with monoplies in certain markets in check. Should not be an issue to bottom lines if insurance companies are run properly.
- Greatly reduced numbers of uninsured reducing their burden on the system.
- Additional tools to fight fraud in both public and private sectors

Bad:
- The mandate (a necessary bad that you can't not have if you get rid of preexisting conditions exclusions - it'll blow the whole thing up)
- Weak employer mandate no mandate for employers under 50. More of the onus is on the individual (this being a bad thing is my own opinion.
I thought the original house bill was perfect)
- The cost - which is mostly from the tax breaks, the subsidies and additional access to medicaid. This is the cost to the gov't. The aggregate cost to individuals should be positively impacted in the long term (YMMV of course)
- It won't cover enough people (because of the weak mandate - pick your poison)
- additional regulations (changes) so people like me have to do a little bit more work (just kidding, it's actually kind of fun )

One thing I'm concerned about that may or may not be addressed:
Physician shortage / cost of becoming a physician - we should invest in our best and brightest to fill holes and so they can give back without $200,000 in student debt.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Now that Boehner is hell bent on repealing the Affordable Care act, calling it a "monstrosity" and that it will actually cause "Armageddon", I need to know a little more about what makes it so atrocious. I know a little about its main provisions that seem reasonable and some details that seem stupid, but what really is so bad about it?

Honest question, I'd like to see both sides and what the non-supporters think is the big problem, other than "government takeover of healthcare" which is clearly not the case, the government is not running state hospitals now.

I think a big problem for many folks is the fact that the bill was signed into law and not enough (if any people) really fully knows what's in it totally.

Should have been a bi partisan bill so the repubs came out as jerks to many because they fought it, but I'd rather someone vote no if they don't really know what the hell they're voting for.

Originally Posted by Corky

Good:
- No more prexisting conditions exclusions

As has been said by others, coverage for preexisting conditions is not insurance, it's welfare.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As has been said by others, coverage for preexisting conditions is not insurance, it's welfare.

wow. You are a KOOK.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No, like America. Liberty precludes a government mandated privileged class that gets a free ride on the backs of others. And before you try to point to examples of where that already exists in this country, more of a bad thing does not a good thing make.

Public schools? Medicare? Social security? You think these are unequivocally bad?