djchameleon

I don't know if we have a thread talking about this but I thought I would bring it up.

Also known as Obamacare.

I have more research to do on it. At first I was all behind it two years ago but I think there has been some changes made recently. I'm mainly trying to figure out why republicans hate it so much and they are consistently trying to stop it. The little that I do know so far is that it is going into effect in 2014 and you will be able to get healthcare regardless of pre-existing conditions. Also there was something to do with being able to be covered under your parents coverage until you are up to 26 I think the age is.

What do you guys think of it? Thoughts? Concerns? Gripes?

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.

Burning Down

The one thing I never understood about the current system you have is that insurance companies won't cover you if you have a pre existing condition. I'm guess the only reason for that is because you'd be a liability, but still it's ****ed up. If Obamacare actually does eliminate that, it's a giant step forward.

It's about time that the US government steps up and makes sure it's citizens are cared for and looked after. Even if it means just making sure that insurance policies are affordable and available to everyone, and to keep the money grubbing insurance corporations under control.

TheBig3

The pre-existing condition is, for the most part, just a misused loophole. What its supposed to prevent is you, having cancer, jumping on a plan and scooping up all the reserves of a given HMO without having contributed. That might seem callous, but you'd be able to HMO hop wihtout that.

In practice, however, it was being used by the HMO's as a liability-dump where in paying customers, who could have paid into a system for 20 to 30 years, were being dropped overnight so as to not incur the costs of caring for that persons medical ailment. For obvious reasons, people were pissed.

This wasn't just cancer. It was being used as a get out of jail free card - acne and pregnancy were being cited as "pre-existing conditions" so you can't imagine how its going over.

This might be viewed as good management - we can't save this person, and its going to jack-up the costs for all the remaining payers. But HMO's were continuing to raise rates WHILE dropping people. In otherwords, they were maximizing revenue while maintaining low costs. It was nothing short of a scam. Meanwhile, 5 major companies occupy 75% of the market - creating a de facto monopoly.

As to DJ's question of why the republicans hate it - its because their ideologies lead them to believe an embrace of the ACA will reanimate Stalin.

They can gin up any political tap dance they want, here are the facts:

1. They created this system as the free-market alternative in the late 90's to counter clinton's attempt at single-payer.

2. Its still utilizes a private system, it just mandates that have insurance. This is because costs are greatly off-set when healthy people buy in. They'd call this a ponzi-scheme, I'd call it Generation A off-setting the costs for Generation B, who will ultimately have their costs off-set by the generation that follows them.

3. Its a monopoly and operates as such, its entirely not free-market as it currently stands. They should be against this.

4. No one who pays into a joint-risk venture should be dropped when the risk manifests itself - that's the point of paying in. And its joint risk because the costs of medical treatment are too high to afford alone, and the risk itself is too sporadic to require individualized payment. (i.e. not everyone's going to get lung cancer at 37).

This flock of republicans are a bunch of tantrum-throwing crybabies who care more about their ideology than they do the country they're supposed to lead.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

hip hop bunny hop

lolololol.

Once again, TheBig3 demonstrates an inability to understand the political nature of the American system, blithe partisanship, and - amazingly enough - a stunning ignorance of economics.

srsly, here's a rebuttal in kind to Big3's sort:

1. It's like, hey, Democrats, do you even macroeconomics?
2. Increasing the cost of unskilled labour will lead to an increase of unemployment.
3. The logic in signing free trade agreements with third world nations will simultaneously dramatically increasing the cost of labour in your own country.
4. The systemic failure of existing entitlements.

...

srsly

__________________
Have mercy on the poor.

Arya Stark

YAYBAMA /aryaout

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

TheBig3

We should probably lock this thread. The conversation is not likely to crawl out of this ditch.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

FRED HALE SR.

I waited all day for this reply. Thanks for not disappointing. LOL

gunnels

I usually stay as far away from threads like this as possible, but this is still a quality thread that doesn't deserve to be sank by trolling, so I'll give my two cents in an attempt to keep it alive.

Consistently, the biggest gripe I tend to see regarding the PPACA is the Shared Responsibility Clause (aka the individual mandate that requires all citizens to have health insurance.) I can see why this may be offputting to some, because it insinuates that it will force people who can barely afford food in the first place to buy health insurance. However, under the PPACA, any family with an annual income of under $88,000 will be entitled to free government healthcare. So, unless you are living far beyond your means, I wouldn't think that this would be an issue. I'd assume that the mandate was included as part of an effort to reduce hospital costs, which are inflated primarily because of people with no insurance coming in and being unable to pay their medical bills. So, in the end, I agree with the clause.

A neat thing that the PPACA introduces that I've found quite a few people aren't aware of are the wellness and public service programs. Thee program will initiate several health boards, such as the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council, which will attempt educate the general public on various health topics. Considering the American Journal of Bioethics claims that 90 million Americans do not have adequate health literacy, and seeing how health literacy is a better predictor of health than race or genetics, this should have a considerable impact on the overall wellbeing of the country.

As far as the practical economic impacts of the bill are concerned, however, I have no idea and I think that most claims at this point are just speculation.

Man, I hate posting about heavy-duty issues like this. =\

__________________
Let's Play TF2 Sometime.|Unrepresentative Last.fm.|Puns, Pokemon, and Miscellany

Arya Stark

Lmaoooo nahh I'm not saying anymore than that.
I just posted how I feel and I have no intention of arguing!

I feel "YAYBAMA"

__________________

MB Journal.
Azucar y Especia. My blog.

djchameleon

You shouldn't hate it though, it's something that is going to affect your daily life soon and everyone else.

The only real con that I have been noticing is that Pharmaceutical companies will end up rising the price on drugs to make up for fees that they will have to pay for over a 10 year span of time. It's easier for them to pass that fee off onto customers so that's an issue.

__________________

Fame, fortune, power, titties. People say these are the most crucial things in life, but you can have a pocket full o' gold and it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't have someone to share that gold with. Seems simple. Yet it's an important lesson to learn. Even lone wolves run in packs sometimes.