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.
Wow. Republican heads would have REALLY been spinning had THAT gotten passed instead of the Obamacare that did pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
it turned into a 2400 page bill (the actual law is somewhat less than 1,000 pages) which left the Insurance Corporations and Drug Companies at the top of the heap and will increase the average middle-class household's insurance premiums as much as $2,500 according to some estimates. This is in direct opposition to Obama's claims that ObamaCare would decrease health care costs for the average American.
Actually the system of insurers that states will have to provide to citizens (insurance exchanges) will go a long way to reducing health care premiums. Those insurers in the exchange will compete with each other, and competition helps lower prices. Plus, I firmly believe that if more people HAVE insurance, fewer uninsured people end up getting expensive hospital emergency care with the hospital increasing prices to cover for having to serve those people, and insurers increasing premiums because hospital costs are so high. Plus, the whole "pay for 1 set of tests, not 5" reduction of waste from the system will also help with costs.
Another thing you have to remember is that Obamacare has the government giving significant tax breaks for people who can't afford the insurance. So from my standpoint, even if premiums went up $2,500 initially, if the government offsets that, then I'm good, and again I would expect those things I mentioned to bring down costs over the more medium term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Medicare was already a broken system, Obama just managed to break it more. As a side note, predictions are now showing a shortage of 69,000+ doctors once ObamaCare takes effect.
The AARP, despite not taking sides in this election, has endorsed Obamacare as good for seniors. I seriously do not believe that if all of a sudden seniors were not going to be able to get medical care from doctors as you suggest because of Obamacare, that AARP would have endorsed the program. And actually the reports I've seen have said that Obamacare has actually EXTENDED the solvency life of Medicare. More work still remains, but the reports say the effect of Obamacare is extended solvency.
I do know this- in DECADES of Reps and Dems in office, Reps always pass the health care buck, and Dems have tried to make reform with Reps screaming bloody murder. All health care systems around the world have one problem or another, there is no perfect system. But better to improve than to accept the status quo IMO, especially when the status quo is me having to pay higher prices because of how many freeloaders there are getting health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
On Foreign Policy, the only difference I see between Bush and Obama is that Obama is sneakier about his attacks.
That's because you're listening to Romney's words. I'm looking at his foreign policy advisory team. Folks listened to Bush's "no nation building" words in 2000 and DIDN'T look at his foreign policy advisors. And when the time came, we nation built in Iraq. Lesson learned- look at who the candidate has advising them on foreign policy if they have no such experience themselves. Romney's advisors- same George W. Bush think tank. That's all I really need to know. THAT tells me what type of foreign policy Romney is likely to adopt, despite his peaceful plattitudes in front of the cameras at Debate 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
The idea that he's less of a warmonger than Bush was is laughable, considering the number of drone attacks that this administration has authorized in countries that we aren't even at war with.
He's no Ron Paul, that's for sure. But he also isn't quick to want to find any opportunity to send American soldiers into war trying to "shape the middle east" or nation build as we all call it. He WAS quick to build a coalition, even with Russia on board, to enact sanctions against Iran. Romney is all talking about giving arms to Syrian rebels, and Obama is hesitant. THAT highlights the difference I'm talking about. No doubt that Romney idea came straight from his Bush foreign policy team. So while Obama is no Paul, he's also nowhere near the warmonger that Bush was. Meanwhile Bush's think tank- ready to occupy the White House again, escorted in by Romney. I'm hoping NOT to see that happen.
I'm the opposite, I voted for Nader in 2008 and will vote for Obama in 2012... actually I already have in FL's early voting. There were many others doing the same as well.
Wow. Republican heads would have REALLY been spinning had THAT gotten passed instead of the Obamacare that did pass.
Actually the system of insurers that states will have to provide to citizens (insurance exchanges) will go a long way to reducing health care premiums. Those insurers in the exchange will compete with each other, and competition helps lower prices. Plus, I firmly believe that if more people HAVE insurance, fewer uninsured people end up getting expensive hospital emergency care with the hospital increasing prices to cover for having to serve those people, and insurers increasing premiums because hospital costs are so high. Plus, the whole "pay for 1 set of tests, not 5" reduction of waste from the system will also help with costs.
Another thing you have to remember is that Obamacare has the government giving significant tax breaks for people who can't afford the insurance. So from my standpoint, even if premiums went up $2,500 initially, if the government offsets that, then I'm good, and again I would expect those things I mentioned to bring down costs over the more medium term.
The AARP, despite not taking sides in this election, has endorsed Obamacare as good for seniors. I seriously do not believe that if all of a sudden seniors were not going to be able to get medical care from doctors as you suggest because of Obamacare, that AARP would have endorsed the program. And actually the reports I've seen have said that Obamacare has actually EXTENDED the solvency life of Medicare. More work still remains, but the reports say the effect of Obamacare is extended solvency.
I do know this- in DECADES of Reps and Dems in office, Reps always pass the health care buck, and Dems have tried to make reform with Reps screaming bloody murder. All health care systems around the world have one problem or another, there is no perfect system. But better to improve than to accept the status quo IMO, especially when the status quo is me having to pay higher prices because of how many freeloaders there are getting health care.
That's because you're listening to Romney's words. I'm looking at his foreign policy advisory team. Folks listened to Bush's "no nation building" words in 2000 and DIDN'T look at his foreign policy advisors. And when the time came, we nation built in Iraq. Lesson learned- look at who the candidate has advising them on foreign policy if they have no such experience themselves. Romney's advisors- same George W. Bush think tank. That's all I really need to know. THAT tells me what type of foreign policy Romney is likely to adopt, despite his peaceful plattitudes in front of the cameras at Debate 3.
He's no Ron Paul, that's for sure. But he also isn't quick to want to find any opportunity to send American soldiers into war trying to "shape the middle east" or nation build as we all call it. He WAS quick to build a coalition, even with Russia on board, to enact sanctions against Iran. Romney is all talking about giving arms to Syrian rebels, and Obama is hesitant. THAT highlights the difference I'm talking about. No doubt that Romney idea came straight from his Bush foreign policy team. So while Obama is no Paul, he's also nowhere near the warmonger that Bush was. Meanwhile Bush's think tank- ready to occupy the White House again, escorted in by Romney. I'm hoping NOT to see that happen.
" even if premiums went up $2,500 initially, if the government offsets that, then I'm good, and again I would expect those things I mentioned to bring down costs over the more medium term."
Nowadays in this economy that could be enough to put someone out of their homes that are just hanging on now.
That includes many that have what once were good jobs to support themselves but with costs skyrockting they just don't cut it anymore.
Addf to that the dollar not being worth the paper it's borrowed on and getting worse all the time this can well be a recipe for disaster.
Obama put so much into this instead of what was even more pressing.
Big loans and taxpayers holding the bag was not a good nor long term solution.
Short term ill advised fixes is all he has wrought.
I'm undecided between Obama and a third party candidate. If I vote against Obama, it would be more of a protest against the Democratic Party than against Obama himself. I haven't entertained the idea of voting for Romney at all. Not only am I equally un-fond of the party, but the way his campaign has patronized the American people is, in my opinion, a disgrace.
Voting for Obama for the second time. I think he will be much more judicious when sending our troops into harms way. Also feel he is a better person in the Gay rights department. In the past I would never care about this but with children now I want my kids to have the same rights regardless of their sexual orientation. I also would hate for abortion to become illegal as we already have too many children being born.
Finally the Dow jones industrial has nearly doubled since he took office and this has been good for me. So Obama it is for me.
I'm undecided between Obama and a third party candidate. If I vote against Obama, it would be more of a protest against the Democratic Party than against Obama himself. I haven't entertained the idea of voting for Romney at all. Not only am I equally un-fond of the party, but the way his campaign has patronized the American people is, in my opinion, a disgrace.
He does. It's just that whereas he's been willing to give up some of what he wants, the Grover Norquist Republican stooges REFUSE to give up tax cuts for the wealthy. They refuse to compromise, so when you have one side willing to give a little in the interest of compromise and you have the other side REFUSING to give a little in the interest of compromise- you have the one way street.
I mean you DO know that Republicans are refusing to compromise on the tax cut for the wealthy, right? You DO know that Democrats proposed voting on tax cuts for the middle class and tax cuts for the wealthy in separate votes and Republicans REFUSED, right? At every turn, it's Republican refusal to compromise when Obama is trying to work toward common ground. And you want to blame lack of compromise on him?
This is likely why few have responded. Nobody feels like arguing with a stump.
" even if premiums went up $2,500 initially, if the government offsets that, then I'm good, and again I would expect those things I mentioned to bring down costs over the more medium term."
Nowadays in this economy that could be enough to put someone out of their homes that are just hanging on now.
No, an increase that is covered by the government = net 0 to that family's pockets.
And the status quo versus kids on insurance until 26, covering the donut hole for senior prescriptions, making preventive care for seniors have no co-pay, insurance exchanges which really should make it so that families DON'T have to pay $2500 more per year, coverage for pre-existing conditions, makes the overall effect of the plan a PLUS for citizens. No plan has ZERO minusses. But all things considered, this is much better for Americans in general but particularly for seniors and folks over 50 than the status quo was- that is what the AARP has concluded.
Nowadays somebody in the family getting seriously ill or injured can be enough to bankrupt a family and put them out of their home. A college graduate without being able to still be on his/her parents' insurance who gets in an auto accident but doesn't have a job will bankrupt his family or bankrupt his own future so that even if he got a job and insurance next year, he would STILL have a mountain of medical bills to pay back from this year's auto accident. The status quo before Obamacare is EASILY a lesser situation for Americans than the results after Obamacare. You highlighted one minus, the truth is NO health care reform plan has ZERO minusses, so you really weigh all the plusses with minusses and determine is the result better, worse, or no difference. As I've outlined here, the Obamacare results are better, and that's the same conclusion AARP came to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke
"Short term ill advised fixes is all he has wrought.
Again, kids on parents insurance until 26 is not ill advised. Covering the donut hole in seniors' prescription bills is not ill advised. Covering pre-existing conditions is not ill advised. Insurance exchanges in which insurers actually compete and must provide comparative pricing (much like banks and APR laws on loans) and must provide preventive care with no copay- is not ill advised. Reducing the numbers of health care freeloaders throughout America is not ill advised.
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.
