Affordable Care Act - Discussion

[BTGBullseye]

First, please do not post in this thread if you aren't going to be civil.

 

Now, on to the topic at hand, the Affordable Care Act. More commonly known as 'Obamacare'.

 

This is a recent article highlighting one of the more significant 'beneficial' aspects of the legislation, and it's total failure in all but 1 state.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/02/13/busted-obamacare-co-ops-are-underwater-and-sinking-fast/

 

Your views on this article, and the ACA in general are welcomed.

[ThePest179]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2015/02/13/busted-obamacare-co-ops-are-underwater-and-sinking-fast/

 

Statements like "socialized medicine" already make this a questionable source. It also fails to recognize that leftist are not all for "ebil restrictions" like the Republicans like to claim, not to mention all the claims they make about "leftists" that they don't even try to back up. This is just an attempt to bash something which was basically crippled in Congress, and implies that sick people shouldn't get healthcare because "it causts too much!". I won't lie, there are problems with Obamacare, but fuck me if it hasn't been hyped to be Satan incarnate among Tea Party and Republican circles.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

 

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/safety-net-hospitals-seeing-more-patients-and-money/

[Descriptor]

Looking through the article, the whole thing comes across as becoming way too preoccupied with bashing the democrats more than giving a more in-depth analysis.

And I don't say that as a democrat who's offended, but as a moderate who sees this kind of attitude as being the very reason the ACA became what it is.

 

I mean, I think most of us can agree that healthcare funding (as well as the government involvement with that) could use a major overhaul. This applies both to the individual consumer, and also to the government budget. If you look ahead to what is going to kill this country's budget, it's the exponential increase in the cost of Medicare (as well as the cost of interest, once that causes all mandatory spending to exceed govt. revenue), which means that we need to something pretty quickly (here's a pretty interesting projection of govt. costs http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/GAO_Slide.png). But the failures in the ACA lie not merely in one party bullying the other into getting it enacted, it's in the fact that in the current political atmosphere, there really isn't any other way. Both parties have become increasingly calcified in the sense that the number of moderate congressional representatives has reached an all time low, with radicals (far left/right) becoming more common (XKCD has a really neat infographic on this trend, as well as trends through all of American history http://xkcd.com/1127/large/). This just leads to having two solid voting blocks that all vote on way or the other, making things like compromise or legitimate discussion impossible. So at best, all we end up with are waves of incredibly one-sided legislation that flip polarity every 4-6 years or so that end up causing more problems than they solve. And we all know just how difficult it is to remove established legislation.

 

So in the end, I guess my opinion on the subject is that we do need major health reform, and honestly, I'm not sure the ACA is the way to do it. But then, the whole thing is so complicated and large in scope that I really don't have the formal training necessary to comprehend all of the particulars. However, the article posted came across as being too insistent on just throwing around blame, which just kinda bugs me more than anything. If things are going to get better, these things must be discussed civilly and with the creation of good legislation in mind, and not just with an "us vs. them" mentality.

[BTGBullseye]

@ThePest179: Care to comment on the specific subject in the article as well?

 

Well, that's two opinions, but no discussion... I'll need to start gathering some articles to try and get this going.

[ThePest179]

@ThePest179: Care to comment on the specific subject in the article as well?

 

Too tired right now. Might not even get to it today.

[BTGBullseye]

How about this article?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/02/26/4-simple-and-objective-ways-to-tell-if-obamacare-is-working/

[ThePest179]

How about this article?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/02/26/4-simple-and-objective-ways-to-tell-if-obamacare-is-working/

 

Just heavy nitpickicking, from what I see.

[BTGBullseye]

So you're saying that providing actual numbers that show that around 30% of people that should be on this program actually are, is nitpicking?

 

Definition of nitpicking: looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.

 

I honestly think there is something wrong with the program when over 2/3 of the eligible people aren't even signing up for it.

[ThePest179]

I honestly think there is something wrong with the program when over 2/3 of the eligible people aren't even signing up for it.

 

You must have forgot that Obamacare is a choice. If 2/3rds of the people eligible aren't signing up, that means that they either don't feel the need or the want to use it. People do have different options.

[BTGBullseye]

You must have forgot that Obamacare is a choice. If 2/3rds of the people eligible aren't signing up, that means that they either don't feel the need or the want to use it. People do have different options.

Yeah, they have the choice of joining, or paying a fee in their taxes... What a choice. From a mini-poll that occurred at my county social services office by the workers there, 100% of the people that don't sign up for Obamacare in this county are not wanting the government to have that much control over their lives. (that's the words of the people that aren't signing up, not the employees)

 

Many people don't want to be forced to pay for health insurance. They would rather pay IF they have medical bills, not pay for other's medical bills and for care they don't need. (and I'm one of them)

[ThePest179]

Yeah, they have the choice of joining, or paying a fee in their taxes... What a choice.

 

What?

 

From a mini-poll that occurred at my county social services office by the workers there, 100% of the people that don't sign up for Obamacare in this county are not wanting the government to have that much control over their lives. (that's the words of the people that aren't signing up, not the employees)

 

Many people don't want to be forced to pay for health insurance. They would rather pay IF they have medical bills, not pay for other's medical bills and for care they don't need. (and I'm one of them)

 

I think that you are indeed telling the truth when you say this. I believe it, although I don't agree with their sentiments.

[BTGBullseye]

Yeah, they have the choice of joining, or paying a fee in their taxes... What a choice.

 

What?

What? You didn't know that even if you don't want any health insurance at all, you still have to pay hundreds extra in taxes so you're still covered by Obamacare?

[ThePest179]

What? You didn't know that even if you don't want any health insurance at all, you still have to pay hundreds extra in taxes so you're still covered by Obamacare?

 

Uh, just nevermind that. I already knew about the taxes thing.

[Riley Hawk]

It is ridiculous that healthcare is so expensive in America. When I was 5 I asked my dad why you have to pay to go the hospital, and he just said that is how it was. Now as an adult I have loads of hospital bills. This is ridiculous! I got charged $900+ for an emergency ambulance ride a year ago.

Anyone who rejects the idea of socialized medicine is either selfishly rich, a child, or ignorant. Everyone gets sick at some point.

[Jeb_CC]

Meanwhile in Australia, in some states, ambulance rides are free... Yay!

[Riley Hawk]

[BTGBullseye]

Socialized medicine doesn't affect the price of the ride to the hospital, only who pays, and how much you pay in in taxes to get that ride... I'd rather pay $900 each time less than 10 times in my life, than pay an extra $20k over my entire lifetime for unlimited rides.

[Riley Hawk]

Socialized medicine doesn't affect the price of the ride to the hospital, only who pays, and how much you pay in in taxes to get that ride... I'd rather pay $900 each time less than 10 times in my life, than pay an extra $20k over my entire lifetime for unlimited rides.

It is more than $900 one time though. That was just the ambulance. The actual hospital bill was $41k. Socialized healthcare is the answer.

[BTGBullseye]

Have you bothered to look at the tax revenue per-person, then compare to the amount of a hospital bill? The only benefit to socialized medicine is that the people who go to the hospital more often, or have more expensive bills, are essentially having the government steal money from others to cover their costs.

 

It's also contrary to the spirit of the US Constitution. (and the legality is questionable too)

[Riley Hawk]

It doesn't say anything about healthcare in the constitution. They didn't even know what bacteria was when the constitution was written. Expensive bills are not a rarity. Have you ever been to the hospital?