If Obamacare is so great why......

[Falvlun]

Most liberals don't think that Obamacare is "great", largely because it maintained the status quo of the necessity to feed into for-profit insurance in order to obtain healthcare, when a really good argument can be made that this capitalistic method is much more expensive and unwieldy than it really needs to be.

However, Obamacare did address and fix some of the more extravagant grievances with the current healthcare system, such as denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. It also will give people greater opportunity and options in finding a cheaper insurance plan (particularly for those who don't get insurance through their employers). In addition, the Medicare over-haul will save Americans a lot of money without affecting the level of care given to seniors by closing loopholes and fraud.

The ACA was basically a bandaid, meant to cover up some of the worst problems. It really shouldn't be considered to be a "new" healthcare plan. Essentially, the current method of paying for healthcare in America was simply strengthened, rather than scrapped for something else.

 

[esmith]

Most liberals don't think that Obamacare is "great", largely because it maintained the status quo of the necessity to feed into for-profit insurance in order to obtain healthcare, when a really good argument can be made that this capitalistic method is much more expensive and unwieldy than it really needs to be.

However, Obamacare did address and fix some of the more extravagant grievances with the current healthcare system, such as denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions. It also will give people greater opportunity and options in finding a cheaper insurance plan (particularly for those who don't get insurance through their employers). In addition, the Medicare over-haul will save Americans a lot of money without affecting the level of care given to seniors by closing loopholes and fraud.

The ACA was basically a bandaid, meant to cover up some of the worst problems. It really shouldn't be considered to be a "new" healthcare plan. Essentially, the current method of paying for healthcare in America was simply strengthened, rather than scrapped for something else.

Why not try allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines? Why not allow people to take their medical insurance with them when they move jobs. Why not take a hard look at tort reform? Oh wait, that was what the Republican ideas.
So now we foster expensive health insurance onto young people who probably only need catastrophic insurance or something more tailored to them that would cost less that the premiums under the ACA, oh wait if they did that how could the ACA afford to cover older people and those that can not afford insurance. Oh wait, you don't have to prove you are eligible for premium assistance from the taxpayers.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Why not try allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines? Why not allow people to take their medical insurance with them when they move jobs. Why not take a hard look at tort reform? Oh wait, that was what the Republican ideas.
So now we foster expensive health insurance onto young people who probably only need catastrophic insurance or something more tailored to them that would cost less that the premiums under the ACA, oh wait if they did that how could the ACA afford to cover older people and those that can not afford insurance. Oh wait, you don't have to prove you are eligible for premium assistance from the taxpayers.

1. Interstate purchase seems like a good idea, but first we must address individual State insurance regulations and requirements without stepping all over States rights.
2. You can keep your insurance if purchased through the exchange, you can also keep your insurance from your employers plan in many instances, but will likely lose the benefit of the portion paid by your employer.
3. I agree with Tort reform.

Don't be under the false assumption that all Liberals love this plan. It is a compromise and slight improvement but I for one will be a lot happier when the Insurance companies are not involved.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

1. Interstate purchase seems like a good idea, but first we must address individual State insurance regulations and requirements without stepping all over States rights.
2. You can keep your insurance if purchased through the exchange, you can also keep your insurance from your employers plan in many instances, but will likely lose the benefit of the portion paid by your employer.
3. I agree with Tort reform.

Don't be under the false assumption that all Liberals love this plan. It is a compromise and slight improvement but I for one will be a lot happier when the Insurance companies are not involved.

This.....this right here. I'm not sure why esmith believes we're all the same on ObamaCare. Personally I'll take the ACA over what we currently have.....I mean, it's not like I'm not already paying for those who show up at the emergency room seeking care but don't have insurance...If republican's plan to repeal and replace then what will they be replacing it with....what is there plan......

 

[Falvlun]

Why not try allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines?

The argument against this was that all the insurance agencies would then flock to states with the loosest restrictions. People would be screwed. That's why insurance regulations themselves needed to first be passed.

Why not allow people to take their medical insurance with them when they move jobs.

This would detonate the way healthcare insurance is currently obtained in America; it would be a huge change, far vaster than anything the ACA did. This would effectively unlink employers and healthcare (think about it: it's not like an employer can be responsible for providing all the different plans that its employees would be bringing with them, nor should they be responsible for health care plans of employees who have since moved on).

Unlinking the two is something that should eventually happen, but you have to have the infrastructure in place first-- like the healthcare exchanges that the ACA sets up.

Why not take a hard look at tort reform? Oh wait, that was what the Republican ideas.

We should look at tort reform. (Although, I-- and most conservatives I know who tout it-- really have no idea what it means. They just know that that's something they should be for.)

The Republicans had gobs of time to present a plan, to come up with something. Instead, they chose to squander all of their-- and our-- time with fighting against anything proposed on the other side of the aisle. The party of No strikes again!

So now we foster expensive health insurance onto young people who probably only need catastrophic insurance or something more tailored to them that would cost less that the premiums under the ACA, oh wait if they did that how could the ACA afford to cover older people and those that can not afford insurance. Oh wait, you don't have to prove you are eligible for premium assistance from the taxpayers.

That's why the vast majority of liberals are for a public option. It does away with this whole insurance issue.

If we want to keep healthcare insurance as the method of paying for healthcare, then yes, this is what needed to happen. That's the only way such a system will work in the long term.

The ACA went the healthcare insurance reform route, rather than the much more reasonable, useful, and drastic public option route, because Republicans can't fathom getting rid of a capitalistic system that parasitically feeds off of people when they are at their weakest, and have absolutely no other option.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The ACA went the healthcare insurance reform route, rather than the much more reasonable, useful, and drastic public option route, because Republicans can't fathom getting rid of a capitalistic system that parasitically feeds off of people when they are at their weakest, and have absolutely no other option.

And I'd go as far to say that many of them are getting kickbacks from the insane amount of lobbyist fighting to keep the status quo....

 

[Mister_T]

Don't be under the false assumption that all Liberals love this plan. It is a compromise and slight improvement but I for one will be a lot happier when the Insurance companies are not involved.

Exactly. We wanted Universal/Single payer but all the insurance lobbyists came out of the woodwork to fight that tooth and nail. The ACA only covers the bare minimum of what needed to be fixed, like not being denied for health insurance, more accessibility for people to enroll, etc.

 

[Mister_T]

And I'd go as far to say that many of them are getting kickbacks from the insane amount of lobbyist fighting to keep the status quo....

There were also Blue Dog Democrats like Max Baucus that had direct ties to insurance companies like Blue Cross. You can bet your biscuits that him and the others are just paid shills when it comes to health care in this country.

 

[freethinker44]

Exactly. We wanted Universal/Single payer but all the insurance lobbyists came out of the woodwork to fight that tooth and nail. The ACA only covers the bare minimum of what needed to be fixed, like not being denied for health insurance, more accessibility for people to enroll, etc.

There were also Blue Dog Democrats like Max Baucus that had direct ties to insurance companies like Blue Cross. You can bet your biscuits that him and the others are just paid shills when it comes to health care in this country.

I know, right. I don't see why conservatives are against the ACA. It's a capitalists wet dream. Corporations have successfully bought the government and are now making it illegal for people to not buy their products. There is nothing socialist or liberal about the ACA or Obama. He is a conservative president and the ACA is a capitalist program from a corporate controlled oligarchy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know, right. I don't see why conservatives are against the ACA. It's a capitalists wet dream. Corporations have successfully bought the government and are now making it illegal for people to not buy their products. There is nothing socialist or liberal about the ACA or Obama. He is a conservative president and the ACA is a capitalist program from a corporate controlled oligarchy.

How is it in anyways a capitalist program?

 

[Mister_T]

I know, right. I don't see why conservatives are against the ACA. It's a capitalists wet dream. Corporations have successfully bought the government and are now making it illegal for people to not buy their products. There is nothing socialist or liberal about the ACA or Obama. He is a conservative president and the ACA is a capitalist program from a corporate controlled oligarchy.

Somehow I think that if Obama's name wasn't attached to the ACA and it was born on the Right, the amount of resistance it would have received would have been vastly lower. The there's also the people in there who think the lazy, filthy "poor" people should just be stuck with medical bills that rival entire mortgages, be happy about it and shut up.

 

[freethinker44]

How is it in anyways a capitalist program?

They are mandating we buy policies. That's not socialist. That's the government using their powers to increase corporate wealth at the expense of the general public.

If a capitalist and socialist set out to fix the healthcare problem in US, this would be the plan a capitalist would create.

 

[freethinker44]

Somehow I think that if Obama's name wasn't attached to the ACA and it was born on the Right, the amount of resistance it would have received would have been vastly lower.

That's exactly what happened when Mitt Romney did it first.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They are mandating we buy policies. That's not socialist. That's the government using their powers to increase corporate wealth at the expense of the general public.

If a capitalist and socialist set out to fix the healthcare problem in US, this would be the plan a capitalist would create.

If it were capitalist, there would be no mandate, and there would be no involvement to try to manipulate prices.

 

[freethinker44]

If it were capitalist, there would be no mandate, and there would be no involvement to try to manipulate prices.

I don't see why not. It's supply and demand. If capitalism is about maximizing profit, what better way is there to do that than by buying government and mandating a demand for your supply? If people can't choose not to buy their products, they can do whatever they want with the prices.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see why not. It's supply and demand. If capitalism is about maximizing profit, what better way is there to do that than by buying government and mandating a demand for your supply? If people can't choose not to buy their products, they can do whatever they want with the prices.

Capitalism is about the free market being guided by the invisible hand. No one makes you buy something, no one sets the price, it's all up to what supplies are resources are available, what to produce with them, and letting the supply and demand set the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Corporatocracy /ˌkɔrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, not to be confused with Corporatism, is a term used as an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is a generally pejorative term often used by critics of the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] The term has been used by liberal and left-leaning critics, but also some economic libertarian critics and other political observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization.[18] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.[18]

 

[freethinker44]

Capitalism is about the free market being guided by the invisible hand. No one makes you buy something, no one sets the price, it's all up to what supplies are resources are available, what to produce with them, and letting the supply and demand set the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

So are we just arguing semantics then, or what? If so I'm done.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Somehow I think that if Obama's name wasn't attached to the ACA and it was born on the Right, the amount of resistance it would have received would have been vastly lower.

True. When Romney passed the Massachusetts healthcare bill (which isn't much different from the Affordable Care Act), there wasn't the widespread resistance we saw when the Obama bill was proposed.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There were also Blue Dog Democrats like Max Baucus that had direct ties to insurance companies like Blue Cross. You can bet your biscuits that him and the others are just paid shills when it comes to health care in this country.

Yep....even though I'm a Dem...I do realize that both parties stand to make money off of insurance companies. Shucks...we got them raking in plenty of money from farm subsidies....

 

[Magic Man]

1. Interstate purchase seems like a good idea, but first we must address individual State insurance regulations and requirements without stepping all over States rights.
2. You can keep your insurance if purchased through the exchange, you can also keep your insurance from your employers plan in many instances, but will likely lose the benefit of the portion paid by your employer.
3. I agree with Tort reform.

Don't be under the false assumption that all Liberals love this plan. It is a compromise and slight improvement but I for one will be a lot happier when the Insurance companies are not involved.

Agreed except for Tort reform. It's possible there could be some changes that benefit everyone, but it's a dangerous concept for reasons laid out in the documentary Hot Coffee. It's also not going to have a big effect on health-care costs, even if it is done.