What is Obamacare?

Evilpigeon

New member
Feb 24, 2011
257
0
0
mindlesspuppet said:
Do you even realize how incredibly entitled you sound? And how very much you expect from government? You make it sound as if mankind would be helpless on their own.

The two most basic functions of government is to deal with foreign powers and establish some sort of justice, everything else is extra. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves, and that's simply not happening these days.

You can go ahead an call me callous, I see nothing wrong with that.
Nope you're right, of course the point of a society is not to look after it's constituent members. -.-

I can't believe you just called me entitled for saying that people should be given basic healthcare. Do you also believe that people should be allowed to starve because they can't afford to eat? Please don't start talking about survival of the fittest or I shall have to hunt you down and slap you for misinterpretting evolution.

Life is harsh and unfair, there is a level at which you need a net to stop people passing beyond the point of no return. Otherwise it's just a waste of potentially good people and, well, you're destroying people's lives to save a small amount of money.
 

Xanthious

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,273
0
0
Da Orky Man said:
Xanthious said:
Kordie said:
Your gonna need to elaborate on that... what does lesner have to do with healthcare? Also in my experience Canada's health care issues have more to do with being under staffed than under equipped.
No Canada is horribly under equipped too. When the CITY of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada you really can't say that Canada is sufficiently equipped. Canada is a perfect example of how socialized medicine ultimately turns into everybody waiting a long time for healthcare that ends up being mediocre at best and horribly deficient at worst.
You sure about that? Since, at least according to the following, that aint true:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.282005.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
Yep I am pretty sure. . . . . and can link websites too!

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/01/01/canadians-wait-longer-medical-care

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/horrors-of-rationed-health-care-in.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41396

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
 

Sonic Doctor

Time Lord / Whack-A-Newbie!
Jan 9, 2010
3,042
0
0
Evilpigeon said:
Sonic Doctor said:
So are you happier about paying for people's school fees and other public services? It's not a charitable contribution, it's national insurance, it's going to give you very cheap (compared to current health insurance, or so I'm told) cover against illnesses and injuries that could cause you to lose far, far more due to illness and medical bills than you are going to save on its cost.

It's not an issue of "Oh i wanna save a little bit more per year" it's an issue of there are large numbers of people who are going to suffer due to lack of healthcare, there is a high chance that you will end up paying medical bills at some point during your life and by spreading the cost you can have a more economical system (see that link I have in my last post) that serves a greater portion of the population and gives a higher basic standard of living. It's a pity that the whole idea is flawed and hamstrung by you guys having such a big and influential health insurance market but there we go, better than nothing.

I'm sorry but the whole story about your Mum is irrelevant to the argument.
The part about my mom isn't irrelevant. By telling about that, I was relating my point about how people that have money problems, shouldn't be or have to pay money to other people in need.

If I'm don't have the money to be paying my bills, I shouldn't be sending money to pay other peoples bills.

School fees are a different story, I used government services in my time in school, so yeah, my paying money to that makes sense since I used that service. I however have never taken taxpayer money to pay for medical bills.

If people do, then I eventually expect them to pay taxes to make up for the money they borrowed from the government to pay for their medical bills.

School, police, fire, road, and military, are things that have been used or are being used by everybody, so having to pay those taxes makes sense.

If I haven't taken government money to pay for healthcare, I shouldn't have to pay taxes to it until I actually have to use it.
 

Stryc9

Elite Member
Nov 12, 2008
1,294
0
41
Xanthious said:
However, unlike every other tax on the books this tax can not be enforced through liens and seizures and non compliance will not be subject to criminal penalties.
Are you quite sure about this? If this were to be true then it would mean that the personal mandate would be a completely toothless waste of time.
 

SciMal

New member
Dec 10, 2011
302
0
0
Xanthious said:
The thing is though the poor weren't dying in the streets with our current healthcare system in the US.
Dying in the streets? No. Dying because people can't afford hospital bills? Definitely.

As it currently stands if you have a medical emergency you can not be turned away regardless of the hospital.
Incorrect. Hospitals can refuse E.D. access if you don't have insurance. Hospitals do not take the Hippocratic Oath, they must turn a profit.

There are government funded healthcare safety nets in place already for the poor and elderly.
Which have exclusions - most notably college students, which are excluded from Medicare/Medicaid, and fewer practices are accepting new Medicare/Medicaid patients because the pay-out rate is about 40% of the bill charged.

America has managed to survive just fine without Obamacare just fine and amazingly enough we haven't had to sweep hordes of dead poor people out of the gutters yet.
This depends on what your definition of "fine" is. You've presented a scenario where, as long as people aren't openly dying in the gutters, things are "OK."

Other disagree on that definition, and the support of Obamacare comes from a definition closer to "People shouldn't have to die from easily preventable and treatable illnesses due to cost."
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Bertylicious said:
So no, they won't go. Still, at least they won't go bankrupt when, after the rib has punctured a lung, they have to be wheeled into hospital to be chopped up with knives. So that is something.
Eh, it takes a while to go bankrupt from surgeries if you have insurance. My dad had non-emergency neck surgery due to arthritis. The bill the surgical center sent to his insurance company was a little almost $100,000. The insurance company haggled that down to $40,000.

Now he paid his deductible of $100 dollars, but he still has to pay for part of the surgery. He hit the max of whatever his insurance will make him pay, probably somewhere close to $5,000. That kind of bill might not have bankrupted him, but only because he's allowed to make payments to the hospital. So he pays them $15 a month to keep them from sending anything to collections agencies.
 

Imthatguy

New member
Sep 11, 2009
587
0
0
Xanthious said:
The thing is though the poor weren't dying in the streets with our current healthcare system in the US. As it currently stands if you have a medical emergency you can not be turned away regardless of the hospital. There are government funded healthcare safety nets in place already for the poor and elderly. Nobody is really going without. America has managed to survive just fine without Obamacare just fine and amazingly enough we haven't had to sweep hordes of dead poor people out of the gutters yet.
Yes people with EMERGENCIES are treated and stabilized but the underlying cause is almost never treated and people with progressive and treatable diseases are left out in the cold after the ER makes sure they're not going to die today.
 

Evilpigeon

New member
Feb 24, 2011
257
0
0
Sonic Doctor said:
Evilpigeon said:
Sonic Doctor said:
So are you happier about paying for people's school fees and other public services? It's not a charitable contribution, it's national insurance, it's going to give you very cheap (compared to current health insurance, or so I'm told) cover against illnesses and injuries that could cause you to lose far, far more due to illness and medical bills than you are going to save on its cost.

It's not an issue of "Oh i wanna save a little bit more per year" it's an issue of there are large numbers of people who are going to suffer due to lack of healthcare, there is a high chance that you will end up paying medical bills at some point during your life and by spreading the cost you can have a more economical system (see that link I have in my last post) that serves a greater portion of the population and gives a higher basic standard of living. It's a pity that the whole idea is flawed and hamstrung by you guys having such a big and influential health insurance market but there we go, better than nothing.

I'm sorry but the whole story about your Mum is irrelevant to the argument.
The part about my mom isn't irrelevant. By telling about that, I was relating my point about how people that have money problems, shouldn't be or have to pay money to other people in need.

If I'm don't have the money to be paying my bills, I shouldn't be sending money to pay other peoples bills.

School fees are a different story, I used government services in my time in school, so yeah, my paying money to that makes sense since I used that service. I however have never taken taxpayer money to pay for medical bills.

If people do, then I eventually expect them to pay taxes to make up for the money they borrowed from the government to pay for their medical bills.

School, police, fire, road, and military, are things that have been used or are being used by everybody, so having to pay those taxes makes sense.

If I haven't taken government money to pay for healthcare, I shouldn't have to pay taxes to it until I actually have to use it.
I don't quite understand, healthcare is also used by everybody, more so in fact than stuff like the fire brigade, or the military - neither have done anything for me in my life, to the best of my knowledge.

And yeah, you haven't yet as the system hasn't been implemented yet :p I'm given to understand you have a real bare bones safety net for common problems right now but it's inadequate.

It's the same principle in this case as it is in the others, this is just the new addition. All of them are government taxes imposed to provide public goods that available to all citzens and will be used by most of them. I mean just going from my experiences in the Uk, just about everybody uses the NHS, if we're talking value for money I get way more out of it than I do out of the fire brigade or the road network between Newcastle and Sunderland but I get taxed to pay for both of those.

I dont see any part of your argument that can't be applied to taxation as a whole honestly. The system is there and it is the way it is to attempt to redirect money to where it's most useful for everyone. That's what this is.
 

geK0

New member
Jun 24, 2011
1,846
0
0
It's America's attempt at a proper healthcare system so that people don't have to pay $500 out of their pocket every time they want to see a bloody doctor or $6000 if they're having a child (this is why America's newborn mortality rate is so damn high).

For some reason people think this is ruining America.....
 

Da Orky Man

Yeah, that's me
Apr 24, 2011
2,107
0
0
Xanthious said:
Da Orky Man said:
Xanthious said:
Kordie said:
Your gonna need to elaborate on that... what does lesner have to do with healthcare? Also in my experience Canada's health care issues have more to do with being under staffed than under equipped.
No Canada is horribly under equipped too. When the CITY of Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada you really can't say that Canada is sufficiently equipped. Canada is a perfect example of how socialized medicine ultimately turns into everybody waiting a long time for healthcare that ends up being mediocre at best and horribly deficient at worst.
You sure about that? Since, at least according to the following, that aint true:

http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy#List_by_the_United_Nations_.282005.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
Yep I am pretty sure. . . . . and can link websites too!

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2007/01/01/canadians-wait-longer-medical-care

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/horrors-of-rationed-health-care-in.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/41396

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
So you have to wait longer. They still tend to, you know, live a longer, healthier life. And please don't link to personal blogs. They aren't very good for decent figures.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Xanthious said:
The thing is though the poor weren't dying in the streets with our current healthcare system in the US. As it currently stands if you have a medical emergency you can not be turned away regardless of the hospital. There are government funded healthcare safety nets in place already for the poor and elderly. Nobody is really going without. America has managed to survive just fine without Obamacare just fine and amazingly enough we haven't had to sweep hordes of dead poor people out of the gutters yet.
Are you seriously arguing that healthcare reform is not need because the garbage trucks aren't removing piles of dead poor?

In 2000 the World Health Organization ranked the US 37th in healthcare effectiveness overall while being number 1 in health expenditure per capita. Clearly our privatized system isn't working very well.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,683
0
0
Imthatguy said:
Yes people with EMERGENCIES are treated and stabilized but the underlying cause is almost never treated and people with progressive and treatable diseases are left out in the cold after the ER makes sure they're not going to die today.
Diabetes is one of the worst offenders in this. You can't afford insulin without insurance, so you find yourself in diabetic trouble. You're slipping into a diabetic coma. So someone sees you passed out somewhere strange, and you're carted out to a hospital. A whole bunch of doctors, nurses, tests and procedures later you're given the unfortunate news that you have diabetes and need to take insulin. Which you already knew, but can't do.

What does the hospital do? Send you on your way without insulin knowing there's a good chance you'll be back in a few weeks in another coma. Because hey, the government picks up the tab on unpaid emergency care, not on preventative care.
 

AwkwardTurtle

New member
Aug 21, 2011
886
0
0
SciMal said:
I don't know who you are, but thank you. That was really really fucking informative. I've seen this issue plastered all over the news, but I had no idea what the bill actually entailed other than it having something to do with health insurance.

That last point you mentioned about the "marketing" by the Republicans really reminds me of the things I don't like about the current American political situation (from my bare knowledge of it). The very idea of "Republican vs. Democrat" gives me a weird feeling because I feel like the initial ideal of having a two-party system is to have some varying viewpoints on things. However, the end result of that seems to be the creation of a completely binary system in which all Republicans must hate anything the Democrats want to do and vice versa and the average citizen is encouraged to simply pick a side. It simply strikes me as madness. Excuse my random ramblings.

I love you for teaching me about something political while being concise and to the point. <3

 

wrightguy0

New member
Dec 8, 2010
296
0
0
Bertylicious said:
Sober Thal said:
Bertylicious said:
Sober Thal said:
People who can't afford healthcare, will be fined...

*sigh

Canada is looking better every day!
What do they do in Canada? Is it state run medical facilities or private?
Publicly funded health care. Or as some 'people' in the states may call it, evil socialist communism. Everyone pays a little in taxes, and you (for the most part) don't have a bill when you visit a doctor.
But who owns the hospitals? Do the Doctors work for Doctor Corp. or do they work for the state?
In Canada we have what are known as crown corporations, companies (historically) created by royal charter and run by government employees, the administration of each is left up to provincial governments and they hire the doctors and nurses and general hospital staff much Like the NHS in Britain, but more regionalized with some provinces having more than one company, the service is always free and accessible for Canadian citizens, though some medications aren't covered completely
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
Basically it's forcing everyone to get health insurance or else they will be fined unless you make less than $9500 a year. The problem is for people like my family who can't afford health insurance and make more than $9500 are basically going to get screwed over somthing we don't want.
 

mindlesspuppet

New member
Jun 16, 2004
780
0
0
Evilpigeon said:
mindlesspuppet said:
Do you even realize how incredibly entitled you sound? And how very much you expect from government? You make it sound as if mankind would be helpless on their own.

The two most basic functions of government is to deal with foreign powers and establish some sort of justice, everything else is extra. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves, and that's simply not happening these days.

You can go ahead an call me callous, I see nothing wrong with that.
Nope you're right, of course the point of a society is not to look after it's constituent members. -.-

I can't believe you just called me entitled for saying that people should be given basic healthcare. Do you also believe that people should be allowed to starve because they can't afford to eat? Please don't start talking about survival of the fittest or I shall have to hunt you down and slap you for misinterpretting evolution.

Life is harsh and unfair, there is a level at which you need a net to stop people passing beyond the point of no return. Otherwise it's just a waste of potentially good people and, well, you're destroying people's lives to save a small amount of money.
Honestly, we're not going to agree, you offer nothing I haven't heard so this isn't even remotely interesting to discuss for me, and to continue would just waste both of our times.

I'll agree with you on one point, life is harsh and unfair. However unlike you, I think we need to simply accept that as life and move on, no nets required.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Bertylicious said:
Sober Thal said:
People who can't afford healthcare, will be fined...

*sigh

Canada is looking better every day!
What do they do in Canada? Is it state run medical facilities or private?
State, although it's a bit of a mess right now. Centralization of the operations has resulted in hilarious wait times at any given hospital, three hours if you're lucky and two days if you're not.

It's also a major financial drain... REALLY major. I personally wish that medical science would slow down a little bit, because quite frankly, we need to catch up.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
Sober Thal said:
Bertylicious said:
Sober Thal said:
People who can't afford healthcare, will be fined...

*sigh

Canada is looking better every day!
What do they do in Canada? Is it state run medical facilities or private?
Publicly funded health care. Or as some 'people' in the states may call it, evil socialist communism. Everyone pays a little in taxes, and you (for the most part) don't have a bill when you visit a doctor.
Sounds good enough to me to get me to move to Canada...

*Edit*

AwkwardTurtle said:
SciMal said:
I don't know who you are, but thank you. That was really really fucking informative. I've seen this issue plastered all over the news, but I had no idea what the bill actually entailed other than it having something to do with health insurance.

That last point you mentioned about the "marketing" by the Republicans really reminds me of the things I don't like about the current American political situation (from my bare knowledge of it). The very idea of "Republican vs. Democrat" gives me a weird feeling because I feel like the initial ideal of having a two-party system is to have some varying viewpoints on things. However, the end result of that seems to be the creation of a completely binary system in which all Republicans must hate anything the Democrats want to do and vice versa and the average citizen is encouraged to simply pick a side. It simply strikes me as madness. Excuse my random ramblings.

I love you for teaching me about something political while being concise and to the point. <3

Something I found interesting from studying history, when the US was first being forged after the American Revolution, there was absolutly no intention of having a two party system like we see now. That was actually a unintended consequences; they didnt want it for this exact reason.
 

DiMono

New member
Mar 18, 2010
837
0
0
Hi, I'm Canadian. In my 32 years on this planet I've been to the hospital numerous times, including for a shattered kneecap, incredible stomach pain, a bruised tailbone, a window slamming on all fingers of both hands, and most recently to get some open wounds cleaned and covered. In all that time, I've paid $15 for crutches, and some dollars for parking, while receiving excellent care with very low wait times.

My grandmother had a friend come up from the States, and while walking along the boardwalk her ankle got stuck in a crack and she fell, and her glasses broke and embedded shards of glass in her face. When they took her to the hospital, they didn't even ask her what her name was, they just took her to the OR and removed the glass and sealed her back up. No questions, no cost. She later sued the city for a sizable amount not maintaining the sidewalk (yay Americans being the most litigious society on the planet; watch where you're stepping, idiot).

My grandparents went to the States and something happened to my grandfather, and they wouldn't even let him inside the hospital until my grandmother had paid for what they were going to do to him.

Universal healthcare has been rebranded by the GOP as socialist healthcare because of the intrinsically negative connotations raised by the word socialism in the United States. It is a sick political game that's designed to keep the health care industry in the hands of private companies who can charge 20x what a procedure actually costs, in order to make as much money off the sick and injured as possible. Insurance companies have very well paid doctors and lawyers on their payroll, whose sole job is to find reasons not to pay for your treatment, because it's better for them for you to die awaiting treatment than it is for them to spend $100,000 saving you, because treating you hurts their bottom line. I pay a little more in taxes, but not having to worry about choosing between saving my leg and keeping my house makes it absolutely worth it (and there are people in the States who have to make that choice).

What the Affordable Car Act does is try to minimize that exploitation. Among the legislation is the following:

- 90% of a health insurance company's expenditures must actually be spent providing care - and getting people to sign up for insurance doesn't count
- preventative care, like physicals and mammograms, is now free
- contraceptive care is now covered
- no denying coverage for pre-existing conditions
- no dropping coverage or jacking up the price of insurance because you had the gall to get sick

Because all of that adds expenses to the insurers, everyone has to be insured, to spread the risk pool around. Making everyone buy insurance is what funds the changes. Without forcing the risk pool to expand, all it would do is add costs with no way to pay for them other than jacking up everybody's premiums. The great thing about Universal care is that all of this happens automatically; you pay taxes, the government funds the hospitals, and if anything happens you're already paid for. And because privatized care is actually illegal up here, there's very little administrative overhead, so costs are kept low and more gets covered for the same amount of money. But since everything in America must be profit-driven, that's never going to fly down there, because the GOP has put it in people's minds that getting health care without paying an arm and a leg for it is somehow a bad thing.

Basically, Obamacare is the best they can do for now.
 

Aulleas123

New member
Aug 12, 2009
365
0
0
I can't wait for government mandated car insurance, food services, or dating services. I think that we'll definitely be a lot better with the government telling me who to date and what car insurance I should buy.

To me, it comes down to a very basic question: is health care a right or a privilege? I, for one, believe that it's more of a privilege and so I generally disagree with Obamacare. I don't really think that people in the general population should be given what they do not earn from their government because it cheapens the process of actually earning it. Obviously people in need should be helped, but is that the responsibility of all citizens, even those who are also struggling? People who generally believe that it's a right believe that Obamacare is a good thing, and that's OK. I don't hate all of Obamacare, I just wish that is would be more of an incremental process instead of shoving one big bill down our legislation.

What happened yesterday was to say that Obamacare is mostly constitutional with some mild rewording. Of course, it could be a political mishap because it is a tax being placed on a wide variety of citizens, including those who make under $250k a year. This contradicts what Obama said numerous times during his campaign. Both Obamacare's survival and it's rewording are going to hit his campaign hard in the next few months.