Opinion of Obamacare

[perdedor]

I would prefer something else (an American NHS), but support it.

This. The individual mandate is troubling, but without Obamacare I would currently not have insurance (on my parents). Furthermore, there's long been a need to ban gender discrimination in health insurance nationwide and I'm glad that it's a part of Obamacare.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

There should be something better, but something > nothing.

[Lerom]

I support it from a practical perspective, less so from an ideological.

When you have to grapple with all the lobbies involved, I think this is a decent outcome. It is flawed, but few things that are possible to vote into law in the U.S. are.

[Yelnoc]

I oppose it from the Libertarian realm (I voted from the right, because I tend to agree with the right on this issue.)

Survival of the wealthiest?

[dialectical fetishist]

Oppose from the left.

[Fuzzy]

Support, though it's not what I wanted.

[oakvale]

Support. Certainly not perfect (but neither was, say, Social Security in its original form) by any means, but a huge improvement over the barbaric status quo.

[greenforest32]

It's no single-payer, but it's better than the status quo. Still, it should have:

* had a public option
* repealed the ban on Medicare's ability to negotiate Rx prices (love that fiscally responsible corporate giveaway)
* repealed the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption

So I guess option 4

[white trash heroes]

I don't support Obamacare, I do want a universal healthcare system like the vast majority of Americans. Not sure where that puts me other than "normal."

[For Oklahoma]

I oppose it from the Libertarian realm (I voted from the right, because I tend to agree with the right on this issue.)

Survival of the wealthiest?

Survival of the ones who don't feel like they need to depend on a "higher power" to take care of them and essentially hold their hand from cradle to grave.

[white trash heroes]

I'm sure all the people that lost their jobs and can't pay for their medical treatment anymore or have zero access to insurance even if they wanted to pay for it will appreciate your principled, Randian stance at the ripe age of 16.

[oakvale]

I oppose it from the Libertarian realm (I voted from the right, because I tend to agree with the right on this issue.)

Survival of the wealthiest?

Survival of the ones who don't feel like they need to depend on a "higher power" to take care of them and essentially hold their hand from cradle to grave.

So, stripping away the rhetoric, yes, survival of the wealthiest?

[greenforest32]

I oppose it from the Libertarian realm (I voted from the right, because I tend to agree with the right on this issue.)

Survival of the wealthiest?

Survival of the ones who don't feel like they need to depend on a "higher power" to take care of them and essentially hold their hand from cradle to grave.

So, stripping away the rhetoric, yes, survival of the wealthiest?

People are commodities and once commodities become unprofitable they are discarded by the owners. Have to keep up that return on investment

[So the Heroes Fall]

It's not surprising I've yet to hear an actual argument from conservatives/libertarians in favor of that position and instead nothing but idiotic rhetoric (like the nonsense above)

[For Oklahoma]

I'm sure all the people that lost their jobs and can't pay for their medical treatment anymore or have zero access to insurance even if they wanted to pay for it will appreciate your principled, Randian stance at the ripe age of 16.

And I'm sure they'd appreciate the lottery system-based healthcare overhaul that you're proposing that has produced cases in which patients are told to wait months for anything from routine check ups to life-altering procedures. I'm also sure they'd appreciate the vast expansion of Government that comes along with it because, you know, free healthcare comes with a price.

[For Oklahoma]

It's not surprising I've yet to hear an actual argument from conservatives/libertarians in favor of that position and instead nothing but idiotic rhetoric (like the nonsense above)

There's definitely an argument that has been and is being made, you just don't want to hear it because you prefer not to hear it. You think you're right and that's it. Childish of you, but what would I know about such behaviour?

[white trash heroes]

I'm sure all the people that lost their jobs and can't pay for their medical treatment anymore or have zero access to insurance even if they wanted to pay for it will appreciate your principled, Randian stance at the ripe age of 16.

And I'm sure they'd appreciate the lottery system-based healthcare overhaul that you're proposing that has produced cases in which patients are told to wait months for anything from routine check ups to life-altering procedures. I'm also sure they'd appreciate the vast expansion of Government that comes along with it because, you know, free healthcare comes with a price.

I'm sure waiting is preferable to dying or not being able to say, afford medication or cancer treatments, yes. Not that anyone that's bothered to study the subject would find this draconian rationing you're talking about. In fact we have quite long wait lists in our country compared to a lot of industrialized societies. And the US subsidizes something like >60% of its healthcare market anyway while spending more per capita than any other country. The reality is that a universal healthcare system would be forced to either allocate resources better or go bankrupt, like the present system is. I do not deny that, where have I ever said otherwise?

But that's not even why I replied that way, I just can't stand darwinian "bootstraps" rhetoric on this issue. I can understand the "non-aggression principle" line of morality even if I don't agree with it, but not that. That just makes me sick, to be quite honest.

[For Oklahoma]

But I'm sure if they waited long enough, they would die, no? I'll admit that I do reserve some belief that the Government may be able to provide healthcare, but I can't agree with the principle of letting the modern United States Government do it. It is my firm belief that when Government gets involved, sh*t gets f**ked up (see handling of the auto companies, banks, wars, etc.) So while I believe that the idea of universal healthcare is noble and reasonably practical idea, I cannot trust the modern Government to do it. Maybe we could see reform in which the Government only provides care to those who can't afford it, but still allow some aspect of a free market-based system? All in all, I believe we must keep the free market in play in this area. It is crucial. I support the idea of universal healthcare, but I cannot support its implementation into the modern United States.

[oakvale]

It is my firm belief that when Government gets involved, sh*t gets f**ked up (see handling of the auto companies

If you'll excuse me picking out a single aspect of your post, I feel I should point out that auto bailout's been rather successful.

[For Oklahoma]

It is my firm belief that when Government gets involved, sh*t gets f**ked up (see handling of the auto companies

If you'll excuse me picking out a single aspect of your post, I feel I should point out that auto bailout's been rather successful.

Moderately successful, but they haven't been fully paid back yet. There's still about 30-40 billion dollars to be paid back. I believe corporate welfare is not how you fix the economy and create a better job environment. Times of hardship are times that industry is tested. The auto companies could have avoided near-bankruptcy if they had better managed their money, but instead they needed help of the Government (which does not exist to keep fiscally irresponsible corporations afloat, by nature) just so they didn't go broke.

[Governor Scott]

But I'm sure if they waited long enough, they would die, no? I'll admit that I do reserve some belief that the Government may be able to provide healthcare, but I can't agree with the principle of letting the modern United States Government do it. It is my firm belief that when Government gets involved, sh*t gets f**ked up (see handling of the auto companies, banks, wars, etc.) So while I believe that the idea of universal healthcare is noble and reasonably practical idea, I cannot trust the modern Government to do it. Maybe we could see reform in which the Government only provides care to those who can't afford it, but still allow some aspect of a free market-based system? All in all, I believe we must keep the free market in play in this area. It is crucial. I support the idea of universal healthcare, but I cannot support its implementation into the modern United States.

In Canada, you are only put on a list if your operation is non-essential.  If your condition is life-threatening or emergency, you're given treatment right then and there.  It's all case-by-case.  My best friend is moving to the US from Canada someday, and she dreads what living under our healthcare system is going to be like for her compared to what she has now.  And personally, I don't think "They screw everything else up" is a very strong argument against any government action, in general.  We'd definitely be worse off if we simply didn't have government.

Also, remember that Obamacare is not NHC.  It forces you to choose a private insurance company and live with the costs.  Part of the reason why the bill sucks is because it, if anything, benefits the private insurance companies.

[MilesC56]

I'd prefer a Medicare-for-all system.

Looking back, I probably would have voted against the bill, but I wouldn't vote with the GOP to repeal it.

[Californian Tony]

It is a fact that public healthcare systems work better than private ones. Just compare the US to any other developed country.

[I left.]

It is a fact that public healthcare systems work better than private ones. Just compare the US to any other developed country.

Depends how you look at it. From a public policy and indeed moral perspective, having some strong public element is a very good idea.

The American right-wing, however, doesn't seem to interested in ensuring universal access.

[Californian Tony]

It is a fact that public healthcare systems work better than private ones. Just compare the US to any other developed country.

Depends how you look at it. From a public policy and indeed moral perspective, having some strong public element is a very good idea.

The American right-wing, however, doesn't seem to interested in ensuring universal access.

I want to believe that most American right-wingers don't actually think poor people shouldn't get any health coverage. Otherwise I'll have to conclude that they are horrible people in the proper sense of the word.