Why Obamacare is awesome

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

To all the people who say that the PPACA will be awesome, you are correct. For as you see, with this new law in place, there will be enough healthcare for everybody. Right now, insurance companies deliberately make their coverage as bad as possible, in order to gain the most profits. But Obamacare will make sure they don't do that.

Now you may be wondering: shouldn't there be one insurance company that decides to offer more coverage, which would allow them to steal customers away from those who don't? Well you see, there is a very good answer to this question.

Another thing great about the upcoming healthcare reform is that you will be able to stay with your parent's health insurance until you're 26! Thank God! There were protests and riots in the streets demanding this; it's something that really matters a lot.

Last but not least, it will insure that companies don't charge women 50% more for insurance, just because they're women. Because you see, health insurance companies hate women. Car insurance companies hate men, for some reason, but whatever. Oh and also, health insurance companies really hate heart patients.

So that is why ObamaCare is going to really help out my country. Mitt Romney is going to take it away from us; and that is why he is an even worse choice than Obama. So be sure to vote for Obama.

agreed, but not a whole lot of discussion value since you basically made all the points for yourself...

renegade7:
agreed, but not a whole lot of discussion value since you basically made all the points for yourself...

Pretty much what Renegade said but I disagree with you and I am really tired so I am not in the mood for any more debate.

Just remember, Romney's plan was the inspiration and just because he says he will repeal doesn't necessarily mean he will. It's Mitt Romney. If this guy had to hug a mother polar bear on her period to be president, he would do so.

recruit00:

renegade7:
agreed, but not a whole lot of discussion value since you basically made all the points for yourself...

Pretty much what Renegade said but I disagree with you and I am really tired so I am not in the mood for any more debate.

Just remember, Romney's plan was the inspiration and just because he says he will repeal doesn't necessarily mean he will. It's Mitt Romney. If this guy had to hug a mother polar bear on her period to be president, he would do so.

It's pretty obvious the OP is being sarcastic. This thread, much like his Right To Life thread, has virtually zero discussion value.

Obviously the US needs regulations regarding insurance, most notably banning one-sided policy changes to avoid cheating people out of their insurance (person gets diagnosed with chronic illness, insurance company cancels the contract), ban health screenings and regulate minimum coverage.

After that a fair open health insurance market will emerge, and with the cheating of customers banned, it will be the company's ability to handle money and make smart investments which determines quality.

But good luck explaining that to the republicans who seem to spend most of their time (when not trying to declare women property of the state, torturing people, or forcing religion down people's throats) crying about every form of regulation is sent by satan himself.

The ACA isn't awesome. It perpetuates a broken form of insurance driven healthcare.

We should scrap this system and implement a universal doctor controlled HMO system. That way, people who know medicine will make patient decisions, and they will have incentives to ensure that care is efficiently distributed.

Yeah, isn't it great that because the Republicans stopped Obama's original healthcare reform from passing, I had to pay out of pocket to have my impacted, infected wisdom tooth removed! It sure is swell being one of the millions out of work and uninsured, unable to pay for basic healthcare needs! Just think, if I had access to healthcare, I wouldn't have had to hallucinate for three days with a 105f temp! I could have gotten medical attention and not seen all those pretty colors! Yeah, as long as you don't have to pay a couple bucks extra on your taxes, who cares if people have to risk death or serious injury because they can barely afford rent, let alone medical bills! Saving a couple bucks is much more important!

You know, if congress would do its job and ensure interstate commerce health insurance would be much cheaper. You want to know why insurance is so expensive? It is because insurance companies are required to provide coverage on things you may not even need. Here in Texas my insurance company has to work under the assumption I am a smoker (I'm not), that I need in vitro fertilization (I don't), that I have a child with autism (unless someone has been lying to me I shouldn't), and on. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper if I could pick my own damn insurance. Even if Texas feels the need to require companies inside its borders to require it why can't I just buy from another state?

UltraHammer:
To all the people who say that the PPACA will be awesome, you are correct. For as you see, with this new law in place, there will be enough healthcare for everybody. Right now, insurance companies deliberately make their coverage as bad as possible, in order to gain the most profits. But Obamacare will make sure they don't do that.

And your proof that all insurance companies do this is?

UltraHammer:
Now you may be wondering: shouldn't there be one insurance company that decides to offer more coverage, which would allow them to steal customers away from those who don't? Well you see, there is a very good answer to this question.

And that answer is?

The OP's stance seems way too general and misinformed IMO. Almost sounds like it came from a press kit provided by the Obama administration; although they would probably do a better job being more clear.

The largest problem with Obamacare is the individual mandate that forces people to buy insurance, which will probably be ruled unconstitutional in a few months.

I understand people's revulsion to health insurance. Some companies have done some pretty crappy things and they deserve the bad reputations they get, but not all insurance companies are the same. Under Obamacare you would be forced to pay the bad insurance companies, and they would have lost all incentive to be "good."

farson135:
You want to know why insurance is so expensive? It is because insurance companies are required to provide coverage on things you may not even need. Here in Texas my insurance company has to work under the assumption I am a smoker (I'm not), that I need in vitro fertilization (I don't), that I have a child with autism (unless someone has been lying to me I shouldn't), and on. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper if I could pick my own damn insurance. Even if Texas feels the need to require companies inside its borders to require it why can't I just buy from another state?

And these are the problems which the American government refuses to look at, and that Obamacare totally ignores. More regualtaion and forcing people to provide and pay for unneccessary coverage is not the answer. I'm not saying changes have to be made; it is mostly the corporate-croney relationship between the select companies and the government that has created these problems. Obamacare would cement this relationship even further, and not for the better.

Are you pissed off about insurance comapnies and their unfair treatment of men, women, people living with their parents, and people with preexisting health conditions? Then start your own insurance company and make your own rules. Find a way to privatly provide people with health care in a fair way; just realize that you have a select few health insurance companies that will use their connections with the government to shut you down- all powered by the same government you praise.

Lupus80:
The OP's stance seems way too general and misinformed IMO. Almost sounds like it came from a press kit provided by the Obama administration; although they would probably do a better job being more clear.

OP is trying too hard to do weak satire.

Actually, I'd sort of agree with the OP: Obamacare sucks. But I'd obviously disagree with the reasoning. It is way too weak, way too watered down. It doesn't fix any of the systemic problems, it does not provide a public alternative. Frankly, an individual mandate to buy from insurance without a public insurance option is ridiculous and was only put in there under the Republican pressure anyway. Obama is pretty pathetic when it comes to handling political pressure coming from the rightists.

Tyler Perry:
This thread...has virtually zero discussion value.

*Looks over at the 785 words of substantive discussion in this thread already*

Skeleon:
Actually, I'd sort of agree with the OP: Obamacare sucks. But I'd obviously disagree with the reasoning. It is way too weak, way too watered down. It doesn't fix any of the systemic problems, it does not provide a public alternative. Frankly, an individual mandate to buy from insurance without a public insurance option is ridiculous and was only put in there under the Republican pressure anyway. Obama is pretty pathetic when it comes to handling political pressure coming from the rightists.

Yeah, it's vastly inferior to many systems that have been in-place around the world for decades. I was actually shocked when I found out how bad your health system is (tertiary education too but that's a different thread). To be honest know I've seen one too many people complaining that they might have to pay a few bucks so their neighbour can see tomorrow to think that it's going to get better any time soon.

Basically norway and Sweden have the best healthcare. Do what they do. Obamacare might have some crappy clauses in it but im afraid competition in the healthcare market doesnt work the same way capitolism forces competition elsewhere.

The insurance companies WANT customers so they pay but DONT want to treat them since it costs. Instantly we have an issue because the service YOUR life depends on DOESNT, at its core, want to help you. At all. You are a cost. And if they can avoid it they will.

We have two opposing pressures for money here. An insurance company with the most people gets the most money. However the insurance company that manages to get the biggest returns on each customer while treating them the least ALSO makes the most money. So we see a midway point between the two. A point where all insurance companies dont want to break the mould to shift one way or the other.

What a lot of people SPECTACULARLY fail to realise is that private healthcare is available in every country with social healthcare. Let me repeat. YOU CAN GO PRIVATE IN ENGLAND IF YOU HAVE MONEY. If you love your insurance company so much and think it will provide better service YOU CAN STICK with it.

OP forgot to mention that it will make it easier for people such as myself with pre-existing conditions to get insurance.

UltraHammer:

Tyler Perry:
This thread...has virtually zero discussion value.

*Looks over at the 785 words of substantive discussion in this thread already*

Trust me, any "substantive discussion" came about DESPITE your horrible attempt at satire, not due to it.

evilneko:
OP forgot to mention that it will make it easier for people such as myself with pre-existing conditions to get insurance.

I have a nasty suspicion that for some one-percenters, that's a bug, not a feature, and not just because their profit-margins depend on letting certain people die in the gutters. Some people in our society seem to be trying REALLY HARD to bring back feudalism, only in corporate form, and they don't like the fact that now sick people can theoretically quit their job without being doomed to never have health-insurance again.

In theory it might sound all good and dandy, but I don't like the government telling me I have to buy health insurance. I also don't like them telling my I need car insurance either...

Meh. I think Americans hate government too much to get socialized healthcare in any meaningful capacity.
Maybe if the US government re-branded themselves as a for-profit private organization, people would support them a lot more.

Obamacare isnt awesome, even if your a liberal. For the left it doesnt go far enough, for the right it goes way too far. Its a pile of dung with only a few gems built into it. On top of all that huge parts of it may well be unconstitutional. Don't even get me started on all the smoke and mirrors and backroom deals that were needed to get that sack of crap passed.

Seekster:
Obamacare isnt awesome, even if your a liberal. For the left it doesnt go far enough, for the right it goes way too far. Its a pile of dung with only a few gems built into it. On top of all that huge parts of it may well be unconstitutional. Don't even get me started on all the smoke and mirrors and backroom deals that were needed to get that sack of crap passed.

Yeah. It will be horrible when everyone has to pay into the health system and insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions anymore.

An America where everyone is FORCED to have health care; FORCED to be able to get regular checkups and prescription medications and surgery if needed.

Yeah, that just sounds terrible.

The Gnome King:
Yeah. It will be horrible when everyone has to pay into the health system and insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions anymore.

An America where everyone is FORCED to have health care; FORCED to be able to get regular checkups and prescription medications and surgery if needed.

Yeah, that just sounds terrible.

I have one major complaint: Where's my public option?

The Gnome King:

Seekster:
Obamacare isnt awesome, even if your a liberal. For the left it doesnt go far enough, for the right it goes way too far. Its a pile of dung with only a few gems built into it. On top of all that huge parts of it may well be unconstitutional. Don't even get me started on all the smoke and mirrors and backroom deals that were needed to get that sack of crap passed.

Yeah. It will be horrible when everyone has to pay into the health system and insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions anymore.

An America where everyone is FORCED to have health care; FORCED to be able to get regular checkups and prescription medications and surgery if needed.

Yeah, that just sounds terrible.

The pre-existing conditions bit is not what most people object to.

"An America where everyone is FORCED to have health care; FORCED to be able to get regular checkups and prescription medications and surgery if needed.

Yeah, that just sounds terrible."

Actually yeah it would. We don't need or want a nanny state. Now a tax credit or something for having health insurance and getting regular medical check ups (which you pretty much have to do anyway to keep most health insurance programs) is fine but the government's power is and should be limited.

Pingieking:
Meh. I think Americans hate government too much to get socialized healthcare in any meaningful capacity.
Maybe if the US government re-branded themselves as a for-profit private organization, people would support them a lot more.

You mean if we ran budget surpluses as a matter of course instead of it being a rare exception?

Seekster:

Pingieking:
Meh. I think Americans hate government too much to get socialized healthcare in any meaningful capacity.
Maybe if the US government re-branded themselves as a for-profit private organization, people would support them a lot more.

You mean if we ran budget surpluses as a matter of course instead of it being a rare exception?

Not being in a constant state of war, not having a massive defense budget, and having an effective income tax rate of higher than 15% would be steps in the right direction. We need another Clinton, but I doubt that even Bill would be able to get elected on a Dem ticket in this climate.

Seekster:
Actually yeah it would. We don't need or want a nanny state.

Ensuring everybody can have acces to healthcare and education is not a nanny state.

Not to mention I don't really see why you say. What's so bad about 'the government' that it must be kept out at all costs, including costing lives?

Naheal:

Seekster:

Pingieking:
Meh. I think Americans hate government too much to get socialized healthcare in any meaningful capacity.
Maybe if the US government re-branded themselves as a for-profit private organization, people would support them a lot more.

You mean if we ran budget surpluses as a matter of course instead of it being a rare exception?

Not being in a constant state of war, not having a massive defense budget, and having an effective income tax rate of higher than 15% would be steps in the right direction. We need another Clinton, but I doubt that even Bill would be able to get elected on a Dem ticket in this climate.

Well we really aren't in a constant state of war. In fact things were relatively peaceful for us up until Al Qaeda thought it might be fun to fly planes into buildings. After we get out of Afghanistan I think we will have about a decade or so without any major military operations unless for whatever reason one is forced on us...like say if North Korea just went "oh screw it".

I don't like Bill Clinton but based on his accomplishments yeah I would take him over Obama in a heartbeat. What we need is an effective leader. I don't know if Romney can effectively lead the country but I think he could and I am absolutely certain Obama cannot based on what he has shown us.

I also have my doubts that the Democratic Party would nominate Clinton again if they could, they might see him as too moderate now.

Seekster:
Well we really aren't in a constant state of war. In fact things were relatively peaceful for us up until Al Qaeda thought it might be fun to fly planes into buildings. After we get out of Afghanistan I think we will have about a decade or so without any major military operations unless for whatever reason one is forced on us...like say if North Korea just went "oh screw it".

We've been in a war-time economy since the end of the Depression. That is, in no way, sustainable.

Edit: Also, there's already rumblings of going into Iran over supposed WMDs.

I also have my doubts that the Democratic Party would nominate Clinton again if they could, they might see him as too moderate now.

The Dems and Reps alike have been moving farther right. Clinton's positions on taxation alone would place him too far left wing to get the nomination, much less win the general election.

Naheal:
We need another Clinton, but I doubt that even Bill would be able to get elected on a Dem ticket in this climate.

Fuck Clinton, we've already got Obama, who has the same sort of 'give up half before we start negotiating, then give up the other half in negotiations, and declare victory' instincts. We need another Lyndon B. Johnson. Or possibly another FDR, bless his Constitution-desecrating heart.

Naheal:
Edit: Also, there's already rumblings of going into Iran over supposed WMDs.

[rocky]"But that trick never works!"[/rocky]

Naheal:

Seekster:
Well we really aren't in a constant state of war. In fact things were relatively peaceful for us up until Al Qaeda thought it might be fun to fly planes into buildings. After we get out of Afghanistan I think we will have about a decade or so without any major military operations unless for whatever reason one is forced on us...like say if North Korea just went "oh screw it".

We've been in a war-time economy since the end of the Depression. That is, in no way, sustainable.

Edit: Also, there's already rumblings of going into Iran over supposed WMDs.

I also have my doubts that the Democratic Party would nominate Clinton again if they could, they might see him as too moderate now.

The Dems and Reps alike have been moving farther right. Clinton's positions on taxation alone would place him too far left wing to get the nomination, much less win the general election.

You mean the military industrial complex? Thats a permanent fixture of the economy and blaming it for our economic problems, while a novel approach, just doesnt make any sense.

And we aren't going to go into Iran unless they do something really stupid like I don't know, try and launch air strikes on Israel or something which is highly unlikely to happen on a good/bad day.

No the two parties are moving to their respective corners. The Democrats are much more liberal now than they were say in the 90s. The Republicans are much more conservative now than they were in the 90s.

Seekster:
You mean the military industrial complex? Thats a permanent fixture of the economy and blaming it for our economic problems, while a novel approach, just doesnt make any sense.

Oh, come on. You're not even trying.

Just because it has a larger, more technical sounding name doesn't mean that it's any better to be reliant on it. Furthermore, spending that would normally go to the military industrial complex could just as easily go into something that, I don't know, might actually help the economy or toward paying off our deficit.

And we aren't going to go into Iran unless they do something really stupid like I don't know, try and launch air strikes on Israel or something which is highly unlikely to happen on a good/bad day.

Or if it turns out to be profitable. You honestly think that the same tactics used to get us into Iraq won't be employed to get us there? Calling their nuclear power program a nuclear weapons program isn't a good start.

No the two parties are moving to their respective corners. The Democrats are much more liberal now than they were say in the 90s. The Republicans are much more conservative now than they were in the 90s.

If that were true, I'd be more and more happy with the Democrats than I am. The truth is that I'm becoming more and more annoyed and outraged at the Dems as time goes on.

Naheal:

Seekster:
You mean the military industrial complex? Thats a permanent fixture of the economy and blaming it for our economic problems, while a novel approach, just doesnt make any sense.

Oh, come on. You're not even trying.

Just because it has a larger, more technical sounding name doesn't mean that it's any better to be reliant on it. Furthermore, spending that would normally go to the military industrial complex could just as easily go into something that, I don't know, might actually help the economy or toward paying off our deficit.

And we aren't going to go into Iran unless they do something really stupid like I don't know, try and launch air strikes on Israel or something which is highly unlikely to happen on a good/bad day.

Or if it turns out to be profitable. You honestly think that the same tactics used to get us into Iraq won't be employed to get us there? Calling their nuclear power program a nuclear weapons program isn't a good start.

No the two parties are moving to their respective corners. The Democrats are much more liberal now than they were say in the 90s. The Republicans are much more conservative now than they were in the 90s.

If that were true, I'd be more and more happy with the Democrats than I am. The truth is that I'm becoming more and more annoyed and outraged at the Dems as time goes on.

The military industrial complex is a valuable strategic asset for the United States and creates an enormous amount of private-sector jobs and is a large part of the economy.

We did not go into Iraq to make money thats for sure, I hope you werent implying that we did. I remember the feeling in the country before we went into Iraq and there was a broad willingness to take on Saddam. Right now people are just tired of war so I doubt the United States will get itself involved in one anytime soon after we leave Afghanistan, well unless something crazy happens like North Korea looking south and going "oh lets just do it".

The have a nuclear program, the fear is that when they have the capability to start a nuclear weapons program they will. Hopefully Iran will give some assurances or guarantee that they wont ever pursue nuclear weapons, they seem willing to do that based on recent talks.

I don't know what to tell you, conventional wisdom is that the parties have become more ideological extreme and as a result a lot of moderates and such have become disillusioned.

Seekster:

Naheal:

Seekster:
You mean the military industrial complex? Thats a permanent fixture of the economy and blaming it for our economic problems, while a novel approach, just doesnt make any sense.

Oh, come on. You're not even trying.

Just because it has a larger, more technical sounding name doesn't mean that it's any better to be reliant on it. Furthermore, spending that would normally go to the military industrial complex could just as easily go into something that, I don't know, might actually help the economy or toward paying off our deficit.

And we aren't going to go into Iran unless they do something really stupid like I don't know, try and launch air strikes on Israel or something which is highly unlikely to happen on a good/bad day.

Or if it turns out to be profitable. You honestly think that the same tactics used to get us into Iraq won't be employed to get us there? Calling their nuclear power program a nuclear weapons program isn't a good start.

No the two parties are moving to their respective corners. The Democrats are much more liberal now than they were say in the 90s. The Republicans are much more conservative now than they were in the 90s.

If that were true, I'd be more and more happy with the Democrats than I am. The truth is that I'm becoming more and more annoyed and outraged at the Dems as time goes on.

The military industrial complex is a valuable strategic asset for the United States and creates an enormous amount of private-sector jobs and is a large part of the economy.

We did not go into Iraq to make money thats for sure, I hope you werent implying that we did. I remember the feeling in the country before we went into Iraq and there was a broad willingness to take on Saddam. Right now people are just tired of war so I doubt the United States will get itself involved in one anytime soon after we leave Afghanistan, well unless something crazy happens like North Korea looking south and going "oh lets just do it".

The have a nuclear program, the fear is that when they have the capability to start a nuclear weapons program they will. Hopefully Iran will give some assurances or guarantee that they wont ever pursue nuclear weapons, they seem willing to do that based on recent talks.

I don't know what to tell you, conventional wisdom is that the parties have become more ideological extreme and as a result a lot of moderates and such have become disillusioned.

time and time again people have told you obama is not a liberal. the democrats have moved right, its generally what happens with 2 party systems, they move closer to the centre as they try and win the moderates. for some reason though the republicans have moved way right, maybe making it seem like the democrats are liberals.

image

Hey guys healthcare is great. Obama is truly working into socialism. So that everyone has healthcare, he'll work towards fairer gap between rich into the poor. And soon you'll see tougher regulation on society. Working to a greater place.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked