ObamaCare

Selkies

Sorry I couldn't see another thread that covered this on it's own.

Can anyone explain to me what the problems are with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

I mean, is it making things worse than they were before?

Is it in any way better?

Every article I read on the issue seems to be along party lines.

Example:

1. I, the author, am a republican

2. ObamaCare is bad for America (1)

You can tell because generally when they refer to democrats they use language that makes me imagine them holding a democrat out far from their body by the tips of their fingers to prevent the smell, dirt or disease passing on to them.

Thanks in advance

mgmt

It will raise the deficit.
It has raised premiums.
It has lost people health care benefits.
It has created a bigger government.
It mandates people to buy health insurance on the penalty of prison.
It cuts medicare.
Backroom deals with the big pharma.

kev9100

mgmt wrote: »

It will raise the deficit.
It has raised premiums.
It has lost people health care benefits.
It has created a bigger government.
It mandates people to buy health insurance on the penalty of prison.
It cuts medicare.
Backroom deals with the big pharma.

Would you care to provide some evidence? And not from Fox News.

Overheal

mgmt wrote: »

It will raise the deficit.
It has raised premiums.
It has lost people health care benefits.
It has created a bigger government.
It mandates people to buy health insurance on the penalty of prison.
It cuts medicare.
Backroom deals with the big pharma.

And I would love to know how many GOP "compromises" made it into the bill also.

Selkies

mgmt wrote: »

It will raise the deficit.

Can you explain this one so that the non economist people can understand what this means and what about the health care bill is going to cause it?

mgmt wrote: »

It has lost people health care benefits.

Can you give examples

mgmt wrote: »

It has created a bigger government.

That's true, however health care reform on a federal level is important. Health care should be universal, not just in the states that choose to implement it.
Also if the people of America wanted smaller government wouldn't they have voted for a Republican candidate that offering it?

mgmt wrote: »

It has raised premiums.

Do you know by how much?
I've heard reports that say 10%, and other ones that say 112%.
However I've also heard that last year premiums went up by 7%.

mgmt wrote: »

It mandates people to buy health insurance on the penalty of prison.

From http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance

Are there penalties if you don't buy insurance?

If you ignore this mandate and don’t get health insurance, you’ll have to pay a tax penalty to the federal government, beginning in 2014. This fine starts fairly small, but by the time it is fully phased in, in 2016, it is substantial.

An insurance-less person would have to pony up whichever is greater: $695 for each uninsured family member, up to a maximum of $2,085; or 2.5 percent of household income.

There are exceptions. Certain people with religious objections would not have to get health insurance. Nor would American Indians, illegal immigrants, or people in prison.

Did you actually get your information from somewhere or has your political conviction overcome your need to tell the truth?

mgmt wrote: »

It cuts medicare.

Which is a good thing, people shouldn't get free health care based on how old they are, it should be based on a means test.

mgmt wrote: »

Backroom deals with the big pharma.

I agree that it is absolutely wrong that governments have to pander to big pharma in order to pass a law but that's the reality.
This kind of thing will stop happening once American politicians are prevented by law from accepting what are effectively bribes.
This issue is most evident when looking at the news reporting surrounding a presidential election, notice how one of the key factors for predicting an election result is the size of the "Campaign War Chest".
It must be at least $50 million for the primary and $75 million for the actual election. The same is true but on a smaller scale for congress.
They say that anyone can become the president of the United States, they meant anyone able to raise $125 million dollars at the minimum.

mgmt

Selkies wrote: »

Can you explain this one so that the non economist people can understand what this means and what about the health care bill is going to cause it?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68329587&postcount=72

Can you give examples

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68284934&postcount=63

Also if the people of America wanted smaller government wouldn't they have voted for a Republican candidate that offering it?

Most Americans did not want the health care bill. The democrats struggled to pass it when they had a healthy majority in the house and in the senate. Coming into the November elections Democrats are actually campaigning against it:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42257.html

From http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0319/Health-care-reform-bill-101-Who-must-buy-insurance



Did you actually get your information from somewhere or has your political conviction overcome your need to tell the truth?

The governments is not your friend. If you do not pay tax you can/will go to jail. A pensioner from Dundalk went to jail last year for not paying a 12.50euro dog licence.

Which is a good thing, people shouldn't get free health care based on how old they are, it should be based on a means test.

So you do not mind paying into a program all your life and then just as you come to get some benefits the government cuts you out? Would you hand your keys to your house just after your final mortgage repayment?

Denerick

The act is the result of a horrible compromise after a wave of rabble screamed Hitler and Stalin down the throats of all Americans. I'm amazed anything was passed, given the vast conspiracy arraigned against it by far right rabble rousers manipulating the naive, the stupid, and the ignorant.

This is not to say there isn't the occasional intellectual with concerns that are whollely justifiable. But the sight of the rabble protesting against this bill will be read with shock and horror by Americans in centuries to come, a supreme example of how corporate might, exploitation and mass stupidity can combine to such dangerous effect.

mgmt

Overheal wrote: »

And I would love to know how many GOP "compromises" made it into the bill also.

This is a summary of the GOP health care plan taken from their website:

• Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
• Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
• Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
• Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

I wonder why the democrats did not want to introduce tort reform. Is it because they enjoy suckling on the tits of the trial lawyers fat wallets??

Overheal

Thats not what I asked.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments

mgmt wrote:

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

The bill approved by Sen. Christopher Dodd's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, for instance, included 161 amendments authored by Republicans. Only 49 Republican amendments were rejected out of 210 considered. Yet the bill got zero Republican votes when it passed out of the committee.

You'll all remember the Senate Finance Committee process, chaired by Montana Sen. Max Baucus. Baucus and President Obama empowered a bipartisan "Gang of Six" from the committee, three Democrats and three Republicans, and they spent the summer locked in negotiations that, again, never produced one Republican vote for the bill in committee. The Finance Committee ultimately scuttled the public option in its version of the bill, looking for GOP (and conservative Democratic) support.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has noted that the final Democratic proposals have contained multiple GOP planks. To mention just a few:

* Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do
* Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower healthcare costs
* End junk lawsuits
* Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines

So you can hardly argue the GOP wasn't offered these concessions. Why did they refuse them? Oh right: Politics. It had nothing to do with what their constituency wanted. They just didn't want to be seen co-operating in a Bi-Partisan effort.

mgmt

Selkies wrote: »

That's true, however health care reform on a federal level is important. Health care should be universal, not just in the states that choose to implement it.
Also if the people of America wanted smaller government wouldn't they have voted for a Republican candidate that offering it?

Obamacare is like the EU governing the health care of Ireland. There is a strong argument that Obamacare violates the 10th amendment.

sarumite

mgmt wrote: »

It will raise the deficit.
It has raised premiums.

Premiums have risen in America year in, year out. Even without the act, premiums would have gone up.

It has lost people health care benefits.

Like the piece of **** minimeds that Mcdonalds offers their employees?

It has created a bigger government.

Thats true. Though when the private industry fails, its sometimes up to the government to take up the slack.

It mandates people to buy health insurance on the penalty of prison.

I see you have been drinking the Faux News koolaid.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002040013

It cuts medicare.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/09/25/does-obamacare-really-cut-medicare-benefits-to-senior-citizens/

Backroom deals with the big pharma.

So business as usual then.

Selkies

mgmt wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68329587&postcount=72

Douglas Holtz-Eakin was appointed by George Bush to be the CBO director.
Can you provide a non partisan source of information?

mgmt wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68284934&postcount=63

Fair enough

mgmt wrote: »

Most Americans did not want the health care bill. The democrats struggled to pass it when they had a healthy majority in the house and in the senate. Coming into the November elections Democrats are actually campaigning against it:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42257.html

Polls were done asking people if they favour ObamaCare and they responded saying they opposed it.
Another poll was done asking whether people were in favour of the individual parts of ObamaCare and they responded saying they were in favour.

Clearly there is an effective campaign against ObamaCare, mostly effective against people who don't understand what ObamaCare is.

mgmt wrote: »

The governments is not your friend. If you do not pay tax you can/will go to jail. A pensioner from Dundalk went to jail last year for not paying a 12.50euro dog licence.

Yes, but you would not be sent to jail because you didn't pay for health insurance, you would be sent to jail because you didn't pay your taxes.
Saying that you would be sent to jail if you don't buy health insurance is misleading.

mgmt wrote: »

So you do not mind paying into a program all your life and then just as you come to get some benefits the government cuts you out? Would you hand your keys to your house just after your final mortgage repayment?

This is not about being fair to people, this is about reducing the amount of harm in the country.

If I'm wealthy enough to be able to afford health insurance when I am retired I will not be claiming money from the government to cover my health insurance. There government could be paying for children's hospitals with that money.

Selkies

mgmt wrote: »

This is a summary of the GOP health care plan taken from their website:

• Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
• Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
• Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
• Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

I wonder why the democrats did not want to introduce tort reform. Is it because they enjoy suckling on the tits of the trial lawyers fat wallets??

An important point to note is that there is no GOP health care bill.
Whatever the decide to put on their website is interesting and all, but they haven't actually done anything about it.
They haven't actually paid the political price for taking on the big lobbies.
All they have done is change some text on their website.

sarumite

mgmt wrote: »

Obamacare is like the EU governing the health care of Ireland. There is a strong argument that Obamacare violates the 10th amendment.

Thats a pretty weak argument to make. It would have been true prior to the American civil war and at various times up until LBJ passed the civil rights act. The "federal v's states right" argument hasn't been seriously tested in Europe for your argument to hold any water.

Overheal

Selkies wrote: »

An important point to note is that there is no GOP health care bill.
Whatever the decide to put on their website is interesting and all, but they haven't actually done anything about it.
They haven't actually paid the political price for taking on the big lobbies.
All they have done is change some text on their website.

Well and like I've pointed out, those same 4 highlighted concessions were offered to them, along with over 150 other amendments, and they refused all of them.

Selkies

Overheal wrote: »

Well and like I've pointed out, those same 4 highlighted concessions were offered to them, along with over 150 other amendments, and they refused all of them.

I wasn't aware of that but as what I said, "They haven't actually paid the political price for taking on the big lobbies." still stands.

They had 8 years in the white house and during those 8 years, 4 years of both house and senate majority.

Why wasn't this a priority of the republican party then?

Why is it only when they are completely out of power that they want any kind of health reform?

I would suggest that their priorities haven't changed, that they are interested in making the health reform bill harder to pass, making it piss off more lobbyists and having an answer to the question "What would you do about health reform different?" that isn't "What we've always done, make sure the poor do not have the same access to live saving medical treatment that the rich do"

mgmt

Selkies wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that but as what I said, "They haven't actually paid the political price for taking on the big lobbies." still stands.

Yes, Obama really took on the big lobby groups. Cutting closed-door deals for big pharma, mandating billions of new business for insurance companies and leaving his lawyer buddies alone must have been really hard.

Selkies

mgmt wrote: »

Yes, Obama really took on the big lobby groups. Cutting closed-door deals for big pharma, mandating billions of new business for insurance companies and leaving his lawyer buddies alone must have been really hard.

Selkies wrote: »

I agree that it is absolutely wrong that governments have to pander to big pharma in order to pass a law but that's the reality.
This kind of thing will stop happening once American politicians are prevented by law from accepting what are effectively bribes.
This issue is most evident when looking at the news reporting surrounding a presidential election, notice how one of the key factors for predicting an election result is the size of the "Campaign War Chest".
It must be at least $50 million for the primary and $75 million for the actual election. The same is true but on a smaller scale for congress.
They say that anyone can become the president of the United States, they meant anyone able to raise $125 million dollars at the minimum.

In summary, just in case you didn't understand the point when I made it: attacking the interests of big lobbies looses you votes. If you lose too many votes you can't get a law passed.

InTheTrees

Denerick wrote: »

The act is the result of a horrible compromise after a wave of rabble screamed Hitler and Stalin down the throats of all Americans.

Americans will believe almost anything thats screamed at them. They have very little capacity to investigate for themselves. Together with the fact that they have an ineffective media results in Truth having very little to do with any "debate".

I'm constantly surprised they've never had another civil war.

msteiner

For those who think that ObamaCare is a good idea and live in a country that has less than 100 million people, let me explain to you why it will not be successful.

What you all must realize is that the United States is 300 million people whereas a country with pure universal health care, such as Great Britain, only has $60 million. That puts the US at five times the size of Britain, making exponentially more difficult to manage at a national level.

The main problem with ObamaCare is that it assumes that one institution, being the IRS in the National Government can manage the entire health care system of 300 million people. When we look at the NHS in Britain, we see that that system fails to meet the needs of its 60 million and now we're supposed to expect that now we can set up a system that is supposed to manage five times as many people that will completely functionally?

I don't care if you're conservative, progressive, or anywhere in between, but it is impossible to manage such a large program at such a large level. If the US wanted some form of universal health care, it would be much, much better managed at the state level.

Selkies

msteiner wrote: »

For those who think that ObamaCare is a good idea and live in a country that has less than 100 million people, let me explain to you why it will not be successful.

What you all must realize is that the United States is 300 million people whereas a country with pure universal health care, such as Great Britain, only has $60 million. That puts the US at five times the size of Britain, making exponentially more difficult to manage at a national level.

The main problem with ObamaCare is that it assumes that one institution, being the IRS in the National Government can manage the entire health care system of 300 million people. When we look at the NHS in Britain, we see that that system fails to meet the needs of its 60 million and now we're supposed to expect that now we can set up a system that is supposed to manage five times as many people that will completely functionally?

I don't care if you're conservative, progressive, or anywhere in between, but it is impossible to manage such a large program at such a large level. If the US wanted some form of universal health care, it would be much, much better managed at the state level.

The IRS manages the taxes for the entire country, it has nothing to do with the health care system.

ObamaCare isn't the single payer system that the NHS is, I wish it was but that just isn't feasible with the amount of money donated by big insurance, big pharma etc to almost every politician in the country.

Please reread the ObamaCare bill and come back with new argument.

Selkies

InTheTrees wrote: »

Americans will believe almost anything thats screamed at them. They have very little capacity to investigate for themselves. Together with the fact that they have an ineffective media results in Truth having very little to do with any "debate".

I'm constantly surprised they've never had another civil war.

Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality"

msteiner

Selkies wrote: »

The IRS manages the taxes for the entire country, it has nothing to do with the health care system.

I have read parts of the bill (its about 2000 pages, so I haven't read it all ) and if you read it, you will see that it is the IRS that has been tasked with managing and enforcing all of the new regulations on private health care.

Selkies

msteiner wrote: »

I have read parts of the bill (its about 2000 pages, so I haven't read it all ) and if you read it, you will see that it is the IRS that has been tasked with managing and enforcing all of the new regulations on private health care.

The IRS is charged with taxing people higher if they haven't got health care.
You make it sound like they are going to be performing surgery using pointy ledgers.

Even the lesser implication that they will be deciding who gets care, which doctors are assigned to you and all the other things that are the remit of the US Department of Health and Human Services is not true.

What you said, while being a hell of lot more subtle, is equivalent to me saying that the IRS are now have power over death because the government has placed a tax on inheritance, in that what you said is a gross exaggeration of their role in the situation.

I'm getting sick and tired of the quality of the arguments coming from the anti Obama side. Allow me to help, why don't you focus on the cowardice of the bill. Focus on the fact that he has failed his mandate, failed the American people and shamed his party by being a president not of half measures (as we suspected when he claimed he could break from tradition) but of eighth measures.

The natural argument response to something like that America has the politics of 16th measures and by the standards of the game he is doing twice more than anyone else for health reform in the past few years.

Where that response would fall apart is that Obama shouldn't have run for president if he was not aware of this, the democratic party failed us if they put an ignorant man forward, they failed us twice when they allowed him to claim he could do things he could not and they failed us the third time when they didn't even attempt to get behind his election promises.

This we, the supporters of Health Care Reform would have to conceed, if we are to be known as honest, that Obama is either ignorant or a liar.

And the icing on the cake is that it's all true, the argument in no way attempts to mislead anyone with exaggeration, omission or slanted view.