Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obamacare has been the gift that keeps giving for the Republicans. In March 2010 when signed into law, Democrats controlled WH, Sen, and House. In Nov. 2010, the GOP took back control of the House. In 2014 the GOP took back the Sen, and a major campaign ad theme was replaying videos of Senate Democrats who had repeated Obama's "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" line. Democrats even held a 26-24 majority of governorships in March 2010. GOP now holds 31, Democrats 18.
How cute, you ignore the 2012 Senate results because they don't fit your narrative. In 2012, there were 33 seats up for reelection. Democrats and Independents (who caucus with Democrats) won 23 of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
The only Democrat not victimized by Obamacare has been Pres. Obama himself, and he won in 2012 only because of his mastery of identity politics. Obama lost the white vote by 59% in 2012, but won the non-white vote by 80% and thus was able to keep his job.
White vote was 59(R) to 39(D). That a 20% spread, not 59%. Hey, minority votes count as much as white votes - I know, this must be a shocker for you. Romney got crushed in not only African-American demographic, but both Latino and Asian demographics were also over 70% in favor of President. Maybe it was Mr. Romney who was "mastery of identity politics" in your words.
Fascinating that people argue for or against "obama care" not because it is a good or bad plan, but because they identify as being democrat or republican.
I don't think that is the case, but I do think in general Democrats are more for things like Universal healthcare and Republicans are more for free market capitalism, is that really something you didn't know? I don't like the ACA as much as I would have liked truly Universal healthcare, there are a lot of problems with it, and I'm certainly not happy my insurance now costs me $617 a month. It's better than nothing, though, and it's all we have thanks to a political climate where compromise and real solutions can't even be talked about civilly and that resulted in a plan with flaws.
I don't see how going backward and taking away people's insurance is going to give us anything better, though. They only want it repealed, it's not like they want a better, more Universal plan in its place. That's only going to put us where we were before...in a country where large numbers of people don't have real access to health care.
I think your statement is only accurate in the broader sense that Democrats tend to argue for health care for all with government assistance to accomplish it if needed, and Republicans argue against it.
That would be awesome, and is exactly what everyone wanted, except the republicans, who did what they do best, scaring the general public, until there was no support for Universal health care. Vote liberal and in the future maybe we can get it.
How about we have both private and public?
If you want to be in the public plan, you pay into it and join. You'd pay extra in order to subsidize those who want in but can't afford to pay.
If you want to be in a private plan, you pay for it yourself and you don't have to pay into the public plan; however, you have to cover yourself and your family so that you can't "opt out" and then jump into the public plan when you need it.
If you want to be in the public plan, you pay into it and join. You'd pay extra in order to subsidize those who want in but can't afford to pay.
If you want to be in a private plan, you pay for it yourself and you don't have to pay into the public plan; however, you have to cover yourself and your family so that you can't "opt out" and then jump into the public plan when you need it.
I don't know, and I don't really think there's a purpose in debating various options, (it's actually not appropriate here)...but there's no evidence anyone is planning to replace ACA with a different plan, at least not that I have seen or heard. It seems to me they just want to repeal it and go back to the status quo the way it was before, with many uninsured people.
I've always had the feeling that the GOP want to kill the ACA more to make the President look bad, rather than they think it's a bad law for the country. I wouldn't be surprised if their efforts to kill it fade away after he's no longer in office. But I guess that could depend on who's elected in 2016.
That's because it is. Just like Dems to bash the GOP for wanting to get rid of a bad health care law that millions of Americans can't afford anyway. I vote a split ticket BTW, but the ACA is seriously flawed and needs dismantled or at least reworked.
At the end of the day this is a war republicans can not win. The question is how many battles will republicans loose before they start treating it like medicare.
Obama-care is redistribution. We should make a conscious decision to bump welfare benefits, not set up a Rube Goldberg mechanism that costs a ton in administrative expenses and distorts medical care.
Location: Subconscious Syncope, USA (Northeastern US)
2,365 posts, read 2,148,847 times
Reputation: 3814
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
If you remember, one of the selling points of ACA was to stop people from using the ER as a doctor's office.
As for Universal Healthcare? That will only work if a way can be found to avoid the pitfalls found in the other countries that currently have it.
That would take a bi-partisan group of legislators that don't consider the general public as STUPID.
Odds of that happening in our lifetime?
Well, it hasnt worked, lol. People still go to the ER for any silly thing. At a teaching hospital, they are encouraged by young doctor's in training to return to the ER for things like suture removal and dressing changes. Ive been told for years that this is because those doctors are trying to build a patient following.
The insurance company, of course, denies the claims because the patient could obviously wait to see their normal doctor for those things. It wasnt an emergent situation. Plan provisions place responsibility for the bill squarely on the patient, although that patient was simply following the directions of the doctor that initially treated them.
After getting a large bill like that for seeking follow up treatment where I was told to, Im not sure I would want to see that young doctor in training ever again, lol. Fortunately, it is a little known fact that most teaching hospitals have sliding fee scales. If you qualify, you can pay as little as nothing, and the tax payers subsidize the hospital with grants that make up for any lack of reimbursement.
I do feel sorry for young mothers who have their baby's ER visit denied as non-emergent. The child has a high fever in the middle of the night and wont stop screaming. What mother wouldnt rush that baby to the ER?? Wouldnt that mother be considered negligent if the baby died because she was following the plan provisions?
I'm quite healthy so I guess it's selfish of me to say this, but I am looking forward to watching the ACA crumble right in front of the Republican congress, and then I will stand back and observe them doing nothing while the entire health insurance industry collapses shortly afterward. I can pay my doc cash for a very long time, and it will be worth it to watch Republicans implode and lose their chance to every hold public office again.
If the supreme court wants to create a crisis, they'll agree with the plaintiffs. There's no way the situation turns out well with Obama as president and both houses of congress Republican. It's a recipe for deadlock plain and simple. The 2016 election, which has so far been about nothing, will become about health care.
I feel ashamed as an American that we cannot have a mature discussion about our health care problem. It's a problem literally 100 years in the making and our method of dealing with it involves trying to repeal a flawed, compromised, watered-down reform because of flawed wording.
I remember when Nicholas Sarkozy visited the U.S. early in Obama's term as the debate over Obamacare was going on - even to a French version of a conservative the debate is bizarre to them --
Quote:
"But if you want me to be really honest, when we see the U.S. debate on the healthcare reform from Europe, it's difficult to believe," he said.
"The idea that we have such a violent debate so that the poor are not left on the streets without a cent when they are sick ... Excuse me, but we've solved this problem more than 50 years ago (in France)."
Perhaps a crisis is what's needed to really overhaul the healthcare system. Eventually something really serious will have to be done and it won't be pretty - all of the entrenched interests will have to be taken on. Obamacare nibbles at the edges of some of the big problems but in the process created new problems. It's a transitory solution at best but is at least successful reform effort after EIGHT failures over 100 years.
If nothing else, Obamacare has changed the paradigm of what level of health care access the American people believe the general population should have. Say what you will - but health care featured as one of the two central issues of the 2012 campaign (the other was tax cuts for the wealthy). Mitt Romney started every speech by proclaiming he'd "repeal Obamacare on Day 1." Mitt Romney lost that election. The American people want some kind of health care reform that keeps the popular parts of Obamacare.
The only unpopular parts are where the money is involved, truly. People like what Obamacare does but they flinch when they see the bill. The only way to lower the bill are to take on the moneyed interests.
Here are the entrenched interests:
- Doctors
- Nurses and other lower level providers
- The pharmaceutical industry
- Insurance companies
- Hospital systems
- Malpractice lawyers
They all have A TON of money wrapped up in the system as it exists. In all of their cases, a collapse of Obamacare is probably just as bad as keeping it.
The single biggest problem that should be tackled is to de-couple health insurance from employment - that is one of the major problems. That divorce has to happen, everyone knows the relationship is not working, but no one can summon the courage to just do it. Obamacare tried to counsel the issues in that marriage but it will eventually have to break up. No other country has health care so intertwined with employment and no substantive reform can happen before that does.
Last edited by redguard57; 05-27-2015 at 06:14 PM..
Obama-care is redistribution. We should make a conscious decision to bump welfare benefits, not set up a Rube Goldberg mechanism that costs a ton in administrative expenses and distorts medical care.
Time to call it what it is.
So outside of universal healthcare what would be your suggestion to replace obama care
I personally don't find it complicated at all. Its just an extension of what employers offer their employes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
