Talk Elections

What is your opinion of the recent massive health care legislation passed in the US?

I oppose it from the right.

As a non-fascist, I oppose ObamaCare, period.

Oppose it from the left.

Since I'm not a leftist that lives in a fantasy-land and because I think that the bill does a lot of good things, I support it.

Strongly oppose it from the left. It does some good things (and some other things I find very questionable), but a bill securing a public option would have been an infinitely better use of congress's time.

You're right, you don't live in any developed nation other than the U.S. (or as you call it, "fantasy-land"). I'm glad to hear you're not a "leftist", like the Tories, Aussie Liberals, Canadian Conservatives, CDU, etc etc. Those Che-tshirt wearing bra burning Trotskyite pinkos are so far out there...

Hopefully from what I have heard it violates interstate commerce laws and will be struck down as un-constitutional.

Presumably the rest of the developed world is a fantasy-land.

The idea that we could pass anything like single-payer in one go in this country is a fantasy. Now, the system that the Democrats did pass, puts us on the track to transition our healthcare system into something like Germany or the Netherland's, which would be a fine one. But it won't happen over-night or in a single bill.

I would love if our country was normal, like the rest of the Western developed world, where our Democratic party represented the center-right, we had some sort of sensible center-left social democrat/labor party, and the Republicans were a fringe party that got 10% of the vote if they're lucky. But we're not.

Ok, so an entire Europe which doesn't leave citizens to die without health care is fascist?

He's going to say yes. Why did you ask that. :P

Who on earth would call this Health care bill 'massive', other than a right-wing propagandist, wormyguy?  It only spends insignificant amounts of money on a problem which deserves about triple the resources.

I oppose it.

First of all I don't think the federal government should be involved in health care. It should be a state or local issue. At the state or local level though I would support a "single payer" or whatever as long as it didn't include abortions.

Second of all it mandates the purchase of a corporate product. You cannot really get more corporatist than that.

So ultimately I oppose it both from the right and the left. I would have preferred the original house bill as at least it had a public option so it didn't mandate the purchase of a corporate product, but I still didn't support that one either.

Since most of what passed won't be taking effect for quite sometime, who knows, and who knows if the Senate will keep it's promise to put a public option in it......who knows, ya know????

I'd oppose it from the left. I'd much prefer a system that would liberate business, and employers, from the 'burden' of providing it

I'd prefer a system of single payer for all children and young adults under 25, the elderly over 65, and the indigent and disabled.

The government option should then also be offered to the working poor with income and number of dependents determining out of pocket costs.

Working adults should get their health insurance on their own through a myriad of choices like health insurance cooperatives, non profit insurance organizations, and health saving accounts that are tax free for any amount spent on health care.

Support, though it's not what I wanted.

Well, considering that it spends more money per year than the entire GDP of Hungary, and it radically restructures the American healthcare system, I think that it's fair to call it "massive." I suppose that makes me a "right-wing propagandist."

Oppose, label me what you want. I actually don't have that firm of an idea of what I think we should do for healthcare, certain aspects of both Paul Ryan and Mike Gravel's voucher plans appeal but that's really all that comes to mind. Honestly the way things are now I think discussing healthcare reform is almost a moot point though, given the severity of our problems and the total inability for people to discuss any real comprehensive reform given the HMOS/AMA/AARP/etc...

Oh and hi Wormy, I recognize you from The Ark!

Hi - who are you?

AH.com is much better.

PMed you that info. :P


They have some good timelines and things still but I really can't stomach the 'culture' at this point.

Prefer something else, but support it since it's better than what we had before.

I suppose other than the total failure to address the entitlement problem and all the goodies contained in this is the very weak provisions against excluding based on 'pre existing conditions.' If we're going to have 'compulsory insurance' we should have more than a $100 fine (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/hundred-dollar-car-wash/) for excluding people (and vice versa). It's only fair.

I oppose this for one simple reason: it is not a single payer system. All this does is officially sanction the place of the insurance companies in the economy almost guarantees that they will not fail. I feel this sanctions a new aristocracy in the United States. If there were at least a public option I could deal with it.

Do any of you think my 50% rate hike (which I didn't accept of course, I found something else) would have occurred sans Obamacare?  Not rhetorical.  I think they raised it because of what they see on the horizon.  Thoughts?

Apparently.  What does the GDP of Hungary have to do with it?  A trillion dollars over a decade is nothing, considering the size of the US, and especially compared to the amount wasted on military and privileges for the rich.

Privileges? Are you saying that the rich don't have rights to their money and that the fact that taxes are low for them is a privilege? And if so, what property rights do you believe people have?

Property is a privilege, not a 'right' (what is a 'right' anyway?)

Property means you have power over other people, that's all.

link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right)

When people acquire property, they've something to gain it, therefore they have rights to that property, as they have a claim to that property. It sounds (and I'm sorry if I'm misconstruing your argument) that you don't believe people have rights, but that they have privileges. If people only have privileges, that means that the government can take away people's privileges at a whim, which would mean that the government could arbitrarily kill people (non criminals for the sake of the argument), as people would only have privileges to live. Is this a world you really want to live in? People have rights, and people have rights to property. I can see arguments for why those rights may not be unconditionally inviolable (such as taxation and the death penalty), but I believe people have rights.

Those rich people (excepting criminals) have somehow done something to acquire that money, and have claims to that money. They deserve to keep it, and I don't think letting them keep most of that money is a privilege that we grant them.

I very reluctantly support it, as an almost insignificant step forward which is still a step forward.

However, to be honest, I have only a vague idea of what the reform exactly is, and to have a better opinion I'd need to know better how it works. If someones has a precise idea of what the bill actually says and can sum it up in a post or a PM, I'd ask him to explain me better.

I think the 15% of people that will get insurance will not consider it an "insignificant step".

Opposed, hello from fantasy-land.

I oppose it from the right.

We read through the bill in its entirety in a focus group (over the course of many, many meetings). What I like about the bill is that the health care exchanges should allow costs to decrease because it allows individuals to truly see the entire spectrum of health care costs. I also like the fact that health insurance providers must provide coverage to those until age 26 on parental plans and that pre-existing conditions are no longer. Certain clauses in the bill prevent the health insurance companies from raising your premiums/annual costs to cover these measures.

I also like the individual mandate. Just like paying your school property taxes, you may never use the services of public education, but should you need it or have a use for it, it is there. This is actually a conservative piece of legislation because it prevents people from jumping onto government health care if they can afford their own health policy. The health care mandate will actually begin to save money for the government. The bill also contains a Patient's Bill of Rights which I like. The bill also gives a $250 prescription drug rebate to taxpayers from their tax dollars. The insurance companies by this fall, will also be prohibited from dropping policyholders (unless they fail to pay things such as co-pays, etc.). This is a practice that happens for several reasons, especially when a policyholders partakes in an extremely expensive procedure such as cancer treatment or surgery.

Limits: Previously, health insurance companies put lifetime limits or dollar expense limits on insurance policyholders. This bill eliminates limits. The reason being: too many sickly people have "used up" their limit expenses and have suffered/died/been unable to purchase treatments because their insurance company essentially dropped them.

$15 billion has been invested to help combat smoking/obesity. The Prevention and Public Health Fund will provide incentives for inner-city and impoverished youth to eat healthier foods: will include grants for health foods and other foods stores to open up in poorer areas. In our study group, we spent several hours researching obesity costs, and found on several different occasions that obesity is a strain on public funds and obesity reductions seriously lower government expenditures.

Rural health insurance providers will also be assisted by government resources in certain ways. For example, let's say in central Kansas, KansasHealth (I made it up) struggles to provide enough locations for medical care. Well now the federal gov't along with the state of Kansas can help provide funding to open up several other health centers (if need be) so long as these health centers follow the laws provided by the Patient Protection and Affordability Act.


What I don't like: The bill will put a requirement on small business to provide health insurance, though despite many complaints and misinformation, the federal gov't provides generous tax decreases to these businesses, rebates, and new exemptions from business income tax.


There are truthfully so many more things in this bill that we discussed such as Medicare Donut Hole Reform, and an expansive new agency that is going to seriously eliminate medicare fraud. In our research in the study group, we also found that preventive care can seriously reduce debts for not only the federal and state governments but also for the policy holder and insurance provider. If anyone wants me to continue on what else the legislation does, let me know!

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

You support the mandate. What are you some sort of authoritarian thug?

The economic system in which you live is authoritarian, States.

I oppose it from the left.

I wanted single payer, but that was never even put on the table.

Hurr

Massive? It's objectively less radical (using all possible political/policy meanings of the word) than the bulk of the timid social legislation passed in most European countries before the First World War.

This for me. My biggest complaint (besides no government program) is the individual mandate, but whatever.

Bumping to see if anyone's opinions on it (besides my own) has changed within the past two years since it was signed into law.... 

I oppose it from the left but am pragmatic enough to accept it gratefully as better than what preceded it. On the other hand, I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of having to purchase private insurance soon... but who knows? Maybe I will have more disposable income in time!

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

Better than status quo ante, worse than what I consider to be the acceptable minimum in a developed country.

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.

There should be something better, but something > nothing.

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.

Survival of the wealthiest?

Oppose from the left.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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?

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. (http://getbetterhealth.com/wait-times-for-medical-care-how-the-us-actually-measures-up/2010.02.02) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.