Senate The 2nd Term of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions, and Discussions

i use to follow this guy until he said some idiotic things about sandy hook

he has made some interesting points in the past though and i wish i saw this before voting in 2008 period


this was i believe in 2009 from msnbc wich is so pro obama and she agrees it is insane





also

 

Here is the all-so-important take away Jabba. I didn't get to keep my plan. I could no longer afford it. I work for Honeywell International. And even those employees who stayed with Cigna have the same plan in name only. It went from being a great plan (In 1999 I had cancer. For the surgery and radiation I paid less than $500 over 10 years) to being a catastrophic plan with a $3,000 deductible.

Before The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 it would have cost me over $1500 for the same care. I can see how the prices have gone up. But now I would have to pay $3,000 before Cigna would have to pay a single dime. And come next year we will have to pay taxes on our company match for our premiums. For many of us that will put us in another tax bracket entirely!!!

It's a bad law.

 

How are we, the covered, relying on a certain number of people being uncovered?

 

Cost-shifting to cover them. It's terrible and unsustainable. Not sure how the ACA is going to pan out; it means well, but has many flaws.

 

Was that a response to me? Because I was wondering what anakinfansince1983 meant by "The convenience for those of us who were well covered under the old system, relied on a certain number of people having no insurance at all. Not cool." I'm not sure how someone NOT being covered helps me as an insured person. The more people who are paying premiums should, in theory, lower the premiums. That's why Obama's law mandates everyone has coverage.

 

In theory, yes, but in practice, people may choose not to join, as it is cheaper for now to just pay the fine.

 

So then we can put to bed the theory that the current system allows the insured to somehow take advantage of the uninsured?

 

Except overall, the Affordable Care Act isn't going to change that. Remember, the ACA requires a minimum level of coverage, of which the recipient chooses from various options. The most basic coverage, which does include preventive care, is still going to be tied to access. In other words, someone who lives in the Bronx, and only has basic ACA coverage, isn't going to drive to the Hamptons to get a top tier doctor, even though both live in New York.

This is most true for those at the bottom who are looking to get covered under the Medicaid expansion of the law. For another example, I think Cook County IL (where Chicago is) only has one major Medicaid focused hospital. All such patients are probably going to overwhelm that facility, which is the one that is going to experience long waiting times and "assembly line" quality care. But that isn't going to affect all the affluent people in the wealthy suburb of Hinsdale (which is about 30 miles W of Chicago) who already have their own insurance, health coverage, and doctor. So in a nutshell, what you pointed out is true, it's just that it's not going to be universally true.

The ACA mandates coverage, it doesn't mandate a certain per capita amount of doctors or health facilities. In fact, this was highlighted when the Supreme Court ruled that the Medicaid requirement of the ACA was unconstitutional, so states cannot be forced to participate in the ACA's Medicaid expansion under penalty of losing their current Medicaid funding. I'd say that the law will serve to highlight the differences, not diminish them.

 

If more people were insured there would, theoretically, be more money for more doctors and hospitals. The true villains here are the insurance companies and the cost of health care, not health insurance. We shouldn't be based on an insurance model. Care can be priced at an affordable lever. And it should be. We should do away with insurance altogether. Every dime that an insurance company makes as profit is a dime that we paid for healthcare that didn't go to health care.

That aside, even Warren Buffet admits this is a bad law. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

im all for healthcare for everyone but id like to have the option of being able to decide to have it without a fine

thats really my one of many issues

 

The current system is not far worse though. Most people are insured. And many of the uninsured are young and statistically won't need it. Many of us, myself included, aren't covered when we are in out 20's. So why would we make it worse for ALL of the insured just to help the 15% or so who aren't insured?

 

Because the mentality of "I'm young and healthy can go without insurance" is false? Yes, most won't need it, but one of the factors in driving up costs for everyone is when the uninsured go without it then end up in some kind of emergency where they need it. For example, my younger brother (23) and fresh out of college - and before he starts his first real job - broke his arm playing basketball this year. He's still covered under my parents care (thanks to Obamacare) but otherwise my parents would have had to pay out of pocket for that. And we don't make enough to pay for that. In a similar story, my best friend's sister was diagnosed with cancer two years ago in between jobs at the young age of 24. Just because a majority don't need it doesn't mean it can't ruin your life without it. You're one car crash, sporting accident, or premature diagnosis away from bankruptcy.

 

Serious question - what does happen to the GOP when Obamacare doesn't destroy America, but works - as it did in Massachusetts under that guy's plan who was their party nominee last year? They've made the centrality of their party that it will ruin our country and they're going to defund it (which is a pipe dream) - so what happens next?

My hope is that it discredits their party back into sanity and pragmatism, but I don't see that happening. My guess is when the abstraction becomes a reality, most people will realize the sky isn't falling and going to ruin their lives. We've seen the conservative movement make fatalistic predictions with issues before (Medicare and Social Security, same-sex marriage, desegregation, Iraq).

 

Here is where we part company. It is not my responsibility to make sure you have insurance coverage. It is not your responsibility to make sure I have coverage. That's not the idea that started this country. In fact it's closer to the idea that lead to the Revolution in the first place. And on a logical level, why would you think it's ok to hurt those who've worked their asses off to get to a place where they can be covered in order to cover the minority of those those who have not/will not? That's not fair to ANYONE? No one wins. The uncovered will no longer have the opportunity to have insurance like I used to bec ause that insurance plan will no longer exist for ANYONE. Everyone loses.

It's my understanding that it's running in the red up in Massachusetts. That aside, what may work in a small state may not work in a population of 320,000,000. As my own experience is showing.

 

It may or may not. Your own anecdotal evidence doesn't mean it won't work as a whole (just as I could point to one individual who it positively benefits). Romney sure thought it should be implemented on a national scale - as did many Republicans - until Obama embraced it, that is. Ezra Klein addressed both these questions (using academic papers - one from an MIT economist who was an architect of Romneycare) that shows that Romneycare is working and will likely have similar benefits on a national level.

Either way, it's ignorant and premature to point to small effects of Obamacare and say "see! not working" as it's not fully in place yet, may take years - like most programs - until it's capable of being fully graded, and won't ever be perfect for everyone.

 

While it isn't my responsibility to make sure you have health insurance coverage, your decision to go without it affects my own insurance costs. When you lack insurance but are in a car crash - that raises my rate. They're interconnected.

From another angle, whose "responsibility" it is to make sure one is covered is rather meaningless in this debate. The individual mandate is derived more to protect against moral hazard in an insurance market where one can no longer be denied for having a preexisting condition. Otherwise, most wouldn't pay for insurance until they need it - as they can't be denied - then go again without it whenever they receive the care they need. It's the same as waiting until you're in an accident to buy auto insurance. It undermines the entire economic system and concept of insurance. And as I've pointed out a hundred times before, this concept developed as a conservative idea.

 

both sides suck im sorry. they both ruined this country and the scary thing is despite all the outrage of what president did what people are still dumb enough to vote for politicians that share the same view.

 

Except Shinjo, that's the wrong way to look at the issue, as you're substituting political demagoguery for what the basic concerns are. Easily, there are just as many criticisms coming from traditional left groups(Recently, the AFL-CIO was going to call for it's repeal, and still issued the sharpest criticism it could without burning bridges) as there are from what you call "republicans." It's not as simple as blaming the side that you always blame.

See, the Affordable Care Act was rushed, and therefore is as just about as fatally flawed as anything can be without being dead on arrival. My own personal opinion is that the President's hubris got the best of him since it was supposed to be his "legacy issue," and the party mindset went along with it. I seriously doubt the law would pass today, from either party. The problem is that I think universal healthcare is a potentially noble goal. One that is more like the National Health Service in the UK. (and even the NHS has A LOT of problems) But the focus of the ACA is all wrong, as it puts the burden on the wrong people, and there is no follow up to move people off of it.

So, for example, the ACA mandates that children can remain on their parent's policy until they are 26. (although the term "children" and 26 seem eh, dissimilar) But what happens when the same "child" turns 27? The only difference being 12 months? They have to buy their own coverage through an authorized provider without any build-up, ease in, or break in. Sure, so that same child can't be denied for having a pre-existing condition, but the coverage they select (remember the law's infamous bronze, silver and gold levels of coverage?) will have to match the out of pocket costs for that same condition. That's why there is all the talk of that it may just be cheaper to not select coverage anyway, and just take the fine from the government. The end result is that nothing has changed.

The employer mandate is even more convoluted, and it's already having the overall effect of reducing the net worth of the entire population. Instead of filling full time positions that have good salaries and benefits, companies are making due with 3 part time employees that have reduced salary and benefits because of the costs associated with this. The long term effects is that this could realistically create a permanent class of "under-employed" workers for their entire lives. This isn't going to impact the older, established workforce, but rather the very same younger "under 26" demographic that is just entering the workforce. Case in point, last year, when the fist tier of the ACA law took effect, a full 45% of all college graduates up to age 24 lived at home, and basically worked at Starbucks (or similar)..ie were underemployed...Even if one were to extend the age range to a practically elderly 34(!), then one still finds that 21% of college graduates up to 34 live at home because of financial reasons. And this boomerang effect is only going to get worse when the full employer mandate kicks in. (remember, it had to be delayed because of all the bugs in implementation)

So as it is being implemented, the ACA doesn't reduce the difference between the poor and the wealthy as some are claiming here, it realistically makes it worse. It's also why it's certainly worth looking into scrapping the entire thing and starting over.