User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 365

  1. #41
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It makes it more expensive to run a business.

    It was passed using extreme measures (ie the reconciliation process) to get around the filibuster on a strait party line vote.

    The American public was never asked if they wanted this. Obama was elected on the hope and change wave, there was no mention of a fundamental health care over hall before he got in office. He was elected on the assumption that the economy would be his top priority. Instead, he (being the savvy political operator he is) saw the opportunity to pass the biggest piece of liberal wet dream legislation in generations and went for it. I would wonder how campaigning on a promise to force every one to buy healthcare would have worked out for him in '08.

    It raises taxes on those who have already had their taxes raised.

    It funnels benefits to the half of the country that voted for Obama, and forces the other half to pay for them.

    It doesn't bend down the cost curve (it's whole reason for existence).

    It masks its inability to lower costs by shifting the burden to young invincibles who can ill afford it in the current economic environment.

    It doesn't address the flaws at the heart of our health care system. Where is the Doc fix, and Tort reform, and consumer leverage against insurers?

    Its language reflects the will of at most half of the country. There was never an attempt to include Republican input in its creation.

    There was never a discussion with the American people about what role we would like the government to play in health care.

    Surely there are problems in our health care system and they need to be addressed, but with any kind of reform this large, the representatives of the entire voting public need to be involved in constructing the legislation.
    I don't like the fact that it forces companies who work employees more than 30 hours a week to provide insurance for their employees. This is making all the jobs go part-time to avoid paying the insurance, and is creating a part-time America. I also don't like the fact that it forces people who don't have insurance to buy insurance, because this to me is just plain unconstitutional. However, I do like the fact that it helps people that don't have insurance to buy insurance and get care, and also that it helps people with preexisting conditions to get insured at an affordable rate. This makes me have mixed opinions about Obamacare.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The ER can't turn people away.
    They might as well though. If you have almost any condition that is non-life threatening and needs secondary testing or a secondary specialist, they will basically tell you that you are fucked in a very nice way and not give you the tests. It costs the hospitals too much money.

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I don't like the fact that it forces companies who work employees more than 30 hours a week to provide insurance for their employees. This is making all the jobs go part-time to avoid paying the insurance, and is creating a part-time America. I also don't like the fact that it forces people who don't have insurance to buy insurance, because this to me is just plain unconstitutional. However, I do like the fact that it helps people that don't have insurance to buy insurance and get care, and also that it helps people with preexisting conditions to get insured at an affordable rate. This makes me have mixed opinions about Obamacare.
    For the amount of legislative time and $ spent on the ACA, it remedies remarkably few problems in US healthcare.

  3. #43
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The ER can't turn people away.
    Which is a great reason for giving everyone coverage. It's cheaper than having everyone wait until they need to go to the ER.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    For the amount of legislative time and $ spent on the ACA, it remedies remarkably few problems in US healthcare.
    Most of the time and money probably comes from Republican resistance.

    But you're right in that it solves fewer problems than it ought too. The problem is, the too most obvious ways to make the bill more useful would make Republicans oppose it even more.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #44
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I don't like the fact that it forces companies who work employees more than 30 hours a week to provide insurance for their employees. This is making all the jobs go part-time to avoid paying the insurance, and is creating a part-time America.
    This part in particular is my concern. They've already started cutting hours for people in some major corporations and businesses. Obviously not all businesses will go to this, but many less-important workers on the totem pole I could see suffering from this.

    I also don't like the fact that it forces people who don't have insurance to buy insurance, because this to me is just plain unconstitutional. However, I do like the fact that it helps people that don't have insurance to buy insurance and get care, and also that it helps people with preexisting conditions to get insured at an affordable rate. This makes me have mixed opinions about Obamacare.
    It depends entirely for this. I'm currently healthy(ish) without health insurance. The thing is, whether we buy into it with tax dollars or with monthly payments, on a global factor we really DO need everyone on health insurance of some sort. If we don't, we'll keep breaking people's banks with costly emergency room visits for things they cannot control, or we'll keep draining money from resources not designed to handle paying for those patients.

    At the same time.. I feel like if the government is requiring something of me, it should come out of my tax dollars, not my monthly budgets. $95/year, doubled each year, gets costly. I don't really need much in the way of health insurance. If something in my taxes covered emergency room visits that could be enough for me entirely since I rarely visit the doctor otherwise. Getting coverage after that could be cheaper and on my own terms through a monthly budget, since they're only covering doctor visits, exams, etc.

    I actually quite like the way dental plans are set up. $15-25 a month per person, and you can go in and get routine things done, and a few discounts on common ailments. Anything outside of that, and you either need to expand your coverage, or save up and/or pay in payments.

    I think if children, elderly, and emergency room only visits were covered in taxes (even if that means taxes go up) so that no one has to worry about those three major events, then we'd have a LOT off our minds in terms of opening up discussions to how to cover the rest of america for important things like preventative care, immunizations, cancer, etc.

    They might as well though. If you have almost any condition that is non-life threatening and needs secondary testing or a secondary specialist, they will basically tell you that you are fucked in a very nice way and not give you the tests. It costs the hospitals too much money.
    True story. My sister was in a bad accident, and while they went through a lot of trouble to ensure she was okay, in the end they pretty much did nothing but cut her clothing off of her, run some priority tests, told her she'd be sore the next few days, and charged her nearly $4,000 for the entire thing. And that's because she lacked insurance. Had she had it, they would have tried billing insurance $30,000.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #45
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It makes it more expensive to run a business.
    It does increase the documentation requirements somewhat, which is a cost. The business mandate (delayed a year) affects approximately 3% of businesses (businesses with more than 50 employees that don't offer insurance). There will be a business insurance exchange, which should enable more cost competition for insurers of those businesses. The effect of the business mandate is at least a year away, though, so we can't yet see its effects.

    Conversely, we might see an effect where very small business may find it easier to hire employees, since those their employees will have the option of buying insurance from a health care exchange. This could improve worker mobility and the appeal of smaller companies. Time will tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It was passed using extreme measures (ie the reconciliation process) to get around the filibuster on a strait party line vote.
    Correct, the Republicans showed a lot of filibuster discipline during that period.

    And this was the same "extreme measure" that passed the Bush tax cuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The American public was never asked if they wanted this. Obama was elected on the hope and change wave, there was no mention of a fundamental health care over hall before he got in office.
    Ummm... incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    He was elected on the assumption that the economy would be his top priority. Instead, he (being the savvy political operator he is) saw the opportunity to pass the biggest piece of liberal wet dream legislation in generations and went for it. I would wonder how campaigning on a promise to force every one to buy healthcare would have worked out for him in '08.
    Well, given that ObamaCare was designed to include conservative ideas and was meant to be a compromise plan (including no single payer options, individual mandate, etc), it's probably not what he would have wanted in the ideal world, but he was going for the possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It raises taxes on those who have already had their taxes raised.
    Who, since when? Are these the same people who have been beneficiaries of huge tax cuts over the last 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It funnels benefits to the half of the country that voted for Obama, and forces the other half to pay for them.
    Looking at this list, it's hard to argue that states whose votes went to Obama were the states with the greatest proportion of uninsured (and hence would benefit more from ObamaCare).

    If you are just saying that rich folks tend to vote more Republican and that Republican policies tend to favor the rich, that's hardly big news (although it is interesting that that effect is much more pronounced in poorer states).

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It doesn't bend down the cost curve (it's whole reason for existence).
    That first goal was to get more people covered by health insurance. Cost containment was a secondary goal, and some of the mechanisms for that were watered down (thanks to "death panel" hysteria, etc). Still, we don't know exactly what ObamaCare will do to the cost curves, although it makes some efforts in that direction.

    Can additional cost containment mechanisms be added? Absolutely. Should it be fined tuned over time? Absolutely.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It masks its inability to lower costs by shifting the burden to young invincibles who can ill afford it in the current economic environment.
    Yes, you do need healthy people in your insurance pool to pay for sick people, and young people tend to be healthier. By requiring everyone to pay something, and then subsidizing those who are poor, you broaden your pool without punishing the poor (including young working people). If healthy people opt out, then you end up with rates going up, which causes the healthier people remaining to drop out... rinse and repeat.

    And yeah, young people graduating into the great recession definitely got a bum deal. While allowing people to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 25 helps a little, it certainly isn't enough, I agree. What would help young folks more than anything is a better job market... a government shutdown (or worse, debt default) isn't helping that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It doesn't address the flaws at the heart of our health care system. Where is the Doc fix, and Tort reform, and consumer leverage against insurers?
    I would love to see more leverage against insurance companies. Individuals people able to shop for plans on exchanges is a decent first step in that direction, as is removing the bar based on pre-existing conditions. It seems to me it is more possible to shop for insurance, and to switch to a better insurer if your current insurer is doing a bad job.

    I do like the provision of ObamaCare that 80% of the premiums goes to actual care. I agree, though, that more can be done to reign in spending on defensive tests and procedures.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Its language reflects the will of at most half of the country. There was never an attempt to include Republican input in its creation.
    There were attempts, but they were rebuffed.

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group—in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe—met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill.

    [...]

    By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas—the same basic outline was supported by former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill's drafters hoped to increase the chances of getting the necessary votes for passage.

    However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections [...]
    Which makes the lack of Republican involvement sound like the result of a political calculation to me. Maybe I'm too biased.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    There was never a discussion with the American people about what role we would like the government to play in health care.
    Just electing the candidate who ran (in part) on extending healthcare to everyone, and then, after it was passed, re-electing him over the person who was running, in part, against ObamaCare. Plus keeping the majority of the Senate Democratic. (Granted, the House of Representative changed hands, but there factors like mid-term elections, redistricting, etc. that also have effects)

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Surely there are problems in our health care system and they need to be addressed, but with any kind of reform this large, the representatives of the entire voting public need to be involved in constructing the legislation.
    Are you proposing an alternate means of creating laws? Doing away with non-up-or-down vote measures? Implying that compromises couldn't have been had at various points? The problem with no compromise "my way or the highway" approach is that sometimes it means you get the highway. Democrats have been far more willing to compromise to the point that it's actively depressing.

    If the Republicans wanted big cuts in government spending and a rapidly shrinking deficit imposed during a shaky recovery... well, they've already won. Now they want to roll back health care reform and replace it with... umm... the promise of something better, some day? And when will that get passed? In another 60 years?

    And, if the will of the people is so important, why is is okay to shut down the government to try to block or delay ObamaCare when under 35% of voters wanted such a thing to happen? What about everyone else? What about the majority of representatives who would pass a clean CR if it came up for vote?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I don't like the fact that it forces companies who work employees more than 30 hours a week to provide insurance for their employees. This is making all the jobs go part-time to avoid paying the insurance, and is creating a part-time America. I also don't like the fact that it forces people who don't have insurance to buy insurance, because this to me is just plain unconstitutional.
    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    This part in particular is my concern. They've already started cutting hours for people in some major corporations and businesses. Obviously not all businesses will go to this, but many less-important workers on the totem pole I could see suffering from this.
    There's no statistical evidence (at least not yet) that ObamaCare is forcing people into part time status. See this post, that includes links to articles from Forbes and Bloomberg that looked for such an association and couldn't find evidence to that effect (despite being motivated to do so).

    And, what if ObamaCare had instead raised income taxes somewhat, but given a tax breaks to those who paid for their own insurance (thereby rewarding taking responsible for one's own health)? Would that be okay if it worked out to monetarily the same thing? Is the problem in the phrasing ("you must"), rather than the outcome (people who obtain health insurance pay less in taxes, people who aren't so responsible pay more)?

    It being a mandate does suck... it raises my hackles, too. But it's difficult to imagine a healthcare system in which costs are not shared (even private insurance is a shared cost model). We could have a single payer system, and just tax people enough to pay for it. That would be far simpler than ObamaCare, but getting such a thing passed wasn't politically realistic. What we got was at attempt at a compromise system that mostly kept the existing system in place and added to it. That makes for lots of complication.

    As a programmer, I know that adding features to something existing results in more complication than starting over from scratch and designing all those features in from the beginning. ObamaCare is a patch on our existing health insurance system, not a total rewrite. It's inelegant in many ways, but it was designed to be possible, not perfect.

  6. #46
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Ohh this is going to be fun.

  7. #47
    Senior Member The Great One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    6w7
    Posts
    3,461

    Default

    @Seymour

    There may be evidence of jobs all going part time yet, but Obama care doesn't kick in fully until January 1st after all. Let's see what happens then. Also, I am also a programming student at the moment and am learning both Java and VB right now, so I get your code reference, lol.

  8. #48
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    @Seymour

    To quote your quote:
    However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threaten to filibuster any bills that contained it. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who lead the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections
    Put this in contrast to what you wrote above:
    Well, given that ACA was designed to include conservative ideas and was meant to be a compromise plan (including no single payer options, individual mandate, etc), it's probably not what he would have wanted in the ideal world, but he was going for the possible.
    It was designed to seem anodyne enough to draw Republicans to the table. Once we had been there long enough for Democrats to claim that whatever was produced was bipartisan, they adopted the individual mandate (knowing that that was a line in the sand for us) and went about their way crafting the bill completely to suit their needs foregoing any bipartisan pretenses the bill may have contained at its creation.

    There were no market oriented solutions and no real cost savings. There are no conservative policy inputs here, just one more lurching step towards the kind of central planning about half the country holds in such high regard.

  9. #49
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    There were no market oriented solutions and no real cost savings.
    Yep, I'm telling you, they should have gone for single payer and setup a body to determine health care prices.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #50
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Yep, I'm telling you, they should have gone for single payer and setup a body to determine health care prices.
    And how well does single payer poll with the populace?

Similar Threads

  1. If the inferior function is so bad than what's made of the remaining four functions?
    By Willow Tree in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:31 PM
  2. What is so fascinating about gender politics?
    By Ingrid in grids in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-02-2016, 05:58 AM
  3. [ENTJ] ENTJ Ladies . . . what do you see is good/bad about being an ENTJ?
    By Windigo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 09:38 PM
  4. What's so bad about wanting a Union job?
    By miss fortune in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 11:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO