Obamacare is GREAT! Here's Why -

[Ausm]

It's not like the serfs have any choice in what the master offers no matter how ill thought out it is. Kudos, m'lord.

Just keeping it real dude....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just keeping it real dude....

I understand the left poking fun at the right. It and the reverse have always been the case, but I still wonder why people never learned anything about health care and what reform is needed, and why it was never approached with forethought. Scratch that last part. I know why the politicians did it this way as they don't know how to think any differently, but their followers live outside the beltway and one would like to think they'd become educated or ask questions.

Meh, too late now. Whatever comes next will be built upon this. This is the foundation and cornerstone of everything from this point as it's become part of the bureaucracy, and supernovas can't touch that.

 

[Zivic]

The odds of you Rightists appealing the ACA is comparable to the odds of you getting into the WH. It ain't looking good for the Party of racist,homophobic,misogynistic,Holy Rolling,war mongers,Corporatists and angry old white dudes.

how'd that recall work out for ya?

 

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




GREAT!







.

 

[MovingTarget]

Making health insurance mandatory defeats the entire purpose of our country and the insurance industry. Insurance was designed to pay to reduce your risks. Now that it is mandatory - WHY even call it insurance?

Pre-existing conditions: Sorry, but as far as insurance goes - that is the point. You have higher risks, therefore your premiums are higher. If someone gets in a lot of car wrecks, is the government going to keep my rates down ? Yeah, right....

Like I said, this isn't insurance anymore, this is full blown socialism. I'm not saying healthcare doesn't need a reform, but this is a reform on insurance - not healthcare.

Why call it insurance? You answered your own question...to reduce your individual risk. Mandatory or not, it still serves that purpose.

Your second paragraph is why we shouldn't have an insurance industry at all for the financing of medical care. People aren't cars. Many health conditions that require care, especially "preexisting" ones, are not the result of individual choices.

Finally, socialism? I'm calling bullshit on that one. Socialism requires the takeover of private industry by the state. Obamacare does nothing of the sort. It is still as privately operated, financed, and delivered as it was before. The government hasn't taken over squat. Even the public option was DOA. Socialism not found. If you want to call it fascist because it requires that you go through private entities, you may have a leg to stand on.

 

[Zivic]

Finally, socialism? I'm calling bullshit on that one. Socialism requires the takeover of private industry by the state. Obamacare does nothing of the sort. It is still as privately operated, financed, and delivered as it was before. The government hasn't taken over squat. Even the public option was DOA. Socialism not found. If you want to call it fascist because it requires that you go through private entities, you may have a leg to stand on.

you are splitting hairs on that one...

 

[MovingTarget]

you are splitting hairs on that one...

I don't think so. A socialist healthcare system would be along the lines of Britain's NHS (publicly financed, publicly delivered....doctors are government employees) or a single payor system such as Canada's (public finance, private delivery). We are still largely privately financed (our insurance industry) and privately delivered (by independent doctors, medical organizations, hospitals, etc....that are not government owned or run).

 

[Zivic]

I don't think so. A socialist healthcare system would be along the lines of Britain's NHS (publicly financed, publicly delivered....doctors are government employees) or a single payor system such as Canada's (public finance, private delivery). We are still largely privately financed (our insurance industry) and privately delivered (by independent doctors, medical organizations, hospitals, etc....that are not government owned or run).

you say private ... but when the government states specifically how things need to go down, and then penalizes, heck, expands the IRS because of the new policy, it becomes close to the same thing in the end.

it may not be govt "owned" but I think we are crossing the bridge to consider it being govt "run"

 

[stormkroe]

Would anyone be upset about Obamacare if it was left for the states to use or not use it? They should have started that way, if for no other reason than to have some control groups to see if it works or not.

As far as pre-existing conditions go, hell yes people with als and crippling deformities etc should be covered. People who live on cigarettes and 72 oz sodas should have to pay their fat diabetic emphazyma asses through care.

I've lived in Alberta for the last 8 years, the care here SUCKS. Once you get treated it's not too bad (though still not great). But the waits are days to over a YEAR depending on what you're having. At least Canada has a few good ideas we could learn from in uhc though, like $10 packs of cigarettes to subsidize the increase strain smoking puts on the healthcare system.
Let me also point out, not from hurp durp internet regurgitation but from experience, health care isn't free here what so ever. My taxes would make most Americans die of a heart attack. You can't contribute it to high wages here either, because even though I have to pay my journeymen $30+ dollars per hour, a box of cereal is $8.50, a nice Honda fourwheeler is $12k, and a CHEAP house is $285k. Thank the Lord for corporate tax rates.

So yeah, just let states vote on it individually and problem solved.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would anyone be upset about Obamacare if it was left for the states to use or not use it? They should have started that way, if for no other reason than to have some control groups to see if it works or not.

As far as pre-existing conditions go, hell yes people with als and crippling deformities etc should be covered. People who live on cigarettes and 72 oz sodas should have to pay their fat diabetic emphazyma asses through care.

I've lived in Alberta for the last 8 years, the care here SUCKS. Once you get treated it's not too bad (though still not great). But the waits are days to over a YEAR depending on what you're having. At least Canada has a few good ideas we could learn from in uhc though, like $10 packs of cigarettes to subsidize the increase strain smoking puts on the healthcare system.
Let me also point out, not from hurp durp internet regurgitation but from experience, health care isn't free here what so ever. My taxes would make most Americans die of a heart attack. You can't contribute it to high wages here either, because even though I have to pay my journeymen $30+ dollars per hour, a box of cereal is $8.50, a nice Honda fourwheeler is $12k, and a CHEAP house is $285k. Thank the Lord for corporate tax rates.

So yeah, just let states vote on it individually and problem solved.

The problem is that it's a hammer being used as a cooking implement. It's entirely inappropriate for real needs. There are some aspects of it which I can support, namely making an attempt to get more people covered. However it's extremely dishonest in other ways. Somehow people with preexisting illness will be covered and it will cost less. Well that doesn't happen with medicaid, where the costs of few dramatically skew costs upwards. That's how math works and there's no getting around it. Now if as a society we were to say we want to bear the costs, then fine. Let's look at the situation in toto and find out precisely where we stand, define a common understanding and goals, then work towards understanding true costs and trade offs and ultimately acting on that information provided by experts, not politicians. That was not how this was done. The effort put into this was intense, but not broad in scope nor led by those who have a firm grounding. The Dems had to have something and the Reps had to oppose whatever. This is the result, an ill conceived plan which does little relative to the task required to provide a healthy and functional system. It's bitching about insurance, and that's health care reform.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/


Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality

Boston Scientific

In October of 2009, Boston Scientific CEO Ray Elliott, warned that proposed taxes in the health care reform bill could "lead to significant job losses" for his company. Nearly two years later, Elliott announced that the company would be cutting anywhere between 1,200 and 1,400 jobs, while simultaneously shifting investments and workers overseas - to China.

Medtronic

In March of 2010, medical device maker Medtronic warned that Obamacare taxes could result in a reduction of precisely 1,000 jobs. That plan became reality when the company cut 500 positions over the summer, with another 500 set for the end of 2013.

Others

A short list of other companies facing future layoffs at the hands of Obamacare:

Smith & Nephew - 770 layoffs
Abbott Labs - 700 layoffs
Covidien - 595 layoffs
Kinetic Concepts - 427 layoffs
St. Jude Medical - 300 layoffs
Hill Rom - 200 layoffs
Beyond the complete elimination of a significant number of American jobs is another looming problem created by the health care law - a shift from full-time to part-time workers.

 

[Bill Wiltrack]

.

.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

.

.

Yes we are my little house negro. What an interesting phrase you picked.

 

[stormkroe]

I agree it's full of huge flaws, the way it was passed being the first one. You have to agree though that a lot of people want it (for some reason). I say, let the states that want it, have it. If it works, I guarantee the other states will adopt it. And everyone has to agree that 50 different problem solving machines (in the form of states) will make it viable much faster than one giant governtment (which has to be out of touch with around half the population to even be in power) could ever do.

Personally, I hate it. My parents lost their house due to job changes directly linked to it (my father worked for the state), my sister works for the federal government and took around a 30% pay cut, and my other sister might have to lay off employees because the obgyn she works for is estimating $300k increase in operating costs annually due to Obamacare. I mention this so you can get a feel of how much I hate obamacare.

Having said that, I hate $80k dollar price tags on child delivery and other nonsense too, in the same way I hate professional ball players making $10 million dollars per year, but at least sports don't directly affect our survival cost.

Let people have obamacare, just don't force it down everyone's throat.

 

[nageov3t]

OP, any chance you could link the source(s) of your spam? I'm seeing your sentences verbatim in multiple places throughout the internet.

 

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Hey, um...


Let's drop that house negro thing.


I'm trying to distance myself from that.


If ya know what I mean?







Thanks - in advance.


.

 

[Zivic]

how have we not discussed the waivers?

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/01062012/Employer_01062012.pdf

http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/01062012/MultiEmployer_01062012.pdf

 

[Munky]

For point 1:
Not all preexisting conditions are from one’s own actions... there are genetic conditions that made it nearly impossible for some to get insurance.

And not all of them are genetic. Either way, the person who will cost more to the insurer should be paying more - that's fair. Shifting the cost on others is the kind of equalist bullshit that amounts to robbery and wealth redistribution.

For point 2:
That definitely has nothing to do with the recession we were in now does it?
Hint... given the high costs that employers currently pay for their employees insurance the fee for doing not doing so is almost laughable.

Oh, I thought the recession was over and we're in a recovery? Funny how the leftists can't keep their arguments straight.

For point 3:
Ever hear of medicare and medicaid?

You mean those ponzi schemes that will go broke unless the government finds more suckers to rob?

For point 5:
Just admit you're sexist or that you are fully willing to help pay to raise said child and I very much doubt it is the latter.

Oh, I see - refusing to give special privileges to women in sexist. The liberal doublespeak never ceases to amuse me. We should just support the strong, independent victims... even though they are equal to men and can do anything that men can... but really they are oppressed by the patriarchy... even though they don't need men, and have surpassed men in education and starting salaries... they are still just victims... and if you don't give in to their demands then you're a misogynist and sexist... although it's really all about equality. LMAO.