I think an awful lot of people are mis-reading the headline as:
Obamacare Rathole.
Obamacare Rathole.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If people are not smart enough to realize they need something, and not having it affects others financially and otherwise, then yes, it's time for the government to step up and make a difference.
First of all, not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. Obamacare is going to reduce premiums so that people who couldn't afford insurance before and were not qualified for Medicaid, are able to do so, now. That's a good thing. And other things have affected our country's finances, so let's not get crazy and cut out the things that benefit the Middle-class and the poor.
That is so freaking lame, because the taxpayers end up picking up the tab for those who think they can just saunter into a hospital, get medical attention, and then leave without paying. So people that don't want or think they don't need it, should just go until they do and then let others pay for it? I'm surprised to hear any conservative offer that up as a solution, considering their mantra on "moochers".
Yeah, well, before Obamacare became law, there was nothing to stop insurance companies from refusing people for what they determined was a pre-existing condition. Sometimes it wasn't, but if they say it is, who's going up against insurance companies?
Don't know how you figure that. Maybe a link would help?
I don't think people are dumb they just rationally refuse to pay for something when the government will mandate they get it for free. The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation
the gov. is not capable of nor should they be running an operation that covers this big a spread, no gov., period.
Now, as far as a mandate, or TAX, I would not be averse to that IF they truly bent the cost curve for medical costs, but, they haven't. Minus that, they will just move $$ around and play central planning.....that has never and will not tun out well.
The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation
The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation
This is what I meant by talking points. Absolutely no defense of Obamacare, just attack anyone who questions it by:
1. Name calling - Tea Party types;
2. Improper motive - hatred of Obama; and
3. Irrelevant misdirection - Heritage Foundation.
You and other Tea Partiers, hope, but it ain't happening.obamacare is supposed to fail spectacularly and painfully.
Lets just wait until everyone that is under Obamacare realizes that the GOP was lying, and it's really not what they painted it to be before you go making assumptions that something else is going to take its place.Then people will accept universal single payer healthcare where medical care is doled out by political patronage.
Unless it's the Democratic organizations that are being denied, then the IRS is acceptable and superb!If the IRS deciding who gets exemp status pliases you then the IRS running health care will make you ecstatic.
The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation
This is what I meant by talking points. Absolutely no defense of Obamacare, just attack anyone who questions it by:
1. Name calling - Tea Party types;
2. Improper motive - hatred of Obama; and
3. Irrelevant misdirection - Heritage Foundation.
I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.
The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.
This is what I meant by talking points. Absolutely no defense of Obamacare, just attack anyone who questions it by:
1. Name calling - Tea Party types;
2. Improper motive - hatred of Obama; and
3. Irrelevant misdirection - Heritage Foundation.
I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.
The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.
So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?
It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to compromise your otherwise reasonable post by resorting to name calling (e.g., reactionary right). I must also assume that my request to avoid talking points struck an emotional nerve that required a somewhat juvenile response.
Anyone who actually reads my posts knows that I do not engage in simply repeating the talking points of others; indeed, I find many conservative talking points to be quite imbecilic. However, neither am I cowed by PC condemnation into refraining from raising legitimate questions of fact and logic.
I am far from democratic talking points. I grew up Republican and as pointed out by others the ACA was largely a Republican idea. I am independent today.
The motivations behind peoples actions is highly relevant to the discussion.
So the Republicans want to stop Obama from taking credit for their idea?
Yes, It Is John Boehner's Fault - Businessweek
No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.
Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?
If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?
Please be specific. Thank you.
The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.
The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.
Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?
The Tea Party types are so irrational in their blind hatred of Obama they refuse to acknowledge the mandate on individuals came from the Heritage Foundation
You and other Tea Partiers, hope, but it ain't happening.obamacare is supposed to fail spectacularly and painfully.
Lets just wait until everyone that is under Obamacare realizes that the GOP was lying, and it's really not what they painted it to be before you go making assumptions that something else is going to take its place.Then people will accept universal single payer healthcare where medical care is doled out by political patronage.
Unless it's the Democratic organizations that are being denied, then the IRS is acceptable and superb!If the IRS deciding who gets exemp status pliases you then the IRS running health care will make you ecstatic.
Lower premiums so that more people can afford to buy health insurance, and yes, to keep from having to use taxpayer's money to pay for the ones that use the ER and can't afford to pay. And, really, is there anyone in the world that doesn't need health insurance? The only reason some people don't want it is because they couldn't afford it (which Obamacare will make a difference) and those who like a free ride by going to the ER and then not paying.
No talking points, please. I am trying to understand why it was deemed necessary. It seems to me that there are three existing groups of people with respect to health insurance: People who have it, (young) people who didn't want/need it, and people who can't afford it. The last group can receive health care through Medicaid, but they have to exhaust their resources first.
Was the purpose of Obamacare to lower the government's cost of providing health care to those who don't have health insurance? If so, is simply shifting this burden to people who don't want/need health insurance really a legitimate way to do it? Aren't there other ways to do this (e.g., tort reform)?
If not, what was the purpose? Was it to lessen the stigma of receiving government assistance and/or to promote Social Justice (e.g., "voluntary" affirmative action programs by "approved" health care providers)?
Please be specific. Thank you.
The premise of your question isn't quite right--or at least it's a bit limited.
The ACA isn't just insurance for more people. It's new options for states to improve their Medicaid programs; it's Medicare reform; it's a new emphasis on measuring, rewarding, and improving health care quality; it's investment in public health infrastructure; it's workforce development so there are more health care professionals to meet the need; and so on.
Even within the insurance reform pieces, it's not just about more insurance for more people. It's about making markets that work, in which insurers have to compete on price and quality in a coherent, transparent marketplace. That was something that hasn't traditionally existed in the individual health insurance market. Do we really need to go into the rationale for why functioning markets are desirable?
Than what we had before.....Obamacare is better. Not being able to deny people by trumping up excuses such as pre-existing conditions is a big plus, not to mention "affordable" so that many who couldnt afford it now can. Also, being able to keep your college students on parent's policy is also a big plus. Anyone who claims that what we had was better is either on Medicare, or doesn't care about anyone but themselves (because they happen to have a good policy).
Better than what ?
Companies being forced to carry kids longer is no gain. Somebody pays for that. You might keep your child on there longer, but you will pay for others being on there longer....well after your kids are off your policy. No gain there.
Of course somebody pays for that...that's the way most insurance works, and the fact that they were not able to do that before only benefitted the insurance companies. Safe drivers pay for reckless drivers, doesn't mean that your insurance isn't necessary just because you happen to be a safe driver.
I guess you've never heard of "action speaks louder than words"?Your last statement is nothing but a judgement. Pray tell, just how do you know whoi or what others care for or don't ? I'd be really interested to know the secret of your insights.
******************
Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?
Was keeping 21-25 year olds on their parents' policies a device for postponing political sticker shock when this group is forced to buy Obamacare?
Doubtful. Keeping young adults on parental policies was a way to make the parents pay for the policies at the increased rates because the young adults can't.