Why are liberals in support of Obamacare

[francoHFW]

Take your doctor and your affordable health care and like it, chumps. Ay caramba...

 

[konradv]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

The real question is, why don't conservatives? They're in the position of defending one class of freeloaders, while railing against the others. What's the difference?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm an independent but I get branded as a liberal because I support things like the Affordable Care Act. I also support draconian measures to ensure voters are ID'd when they cast ballots....

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26, that insurance companies cannot turn you down because of PECs, and that the medicare donut hole will be closed.

I'd like to focus on pre existing conditions for a moment. I say this because I think this is the one item that gets eliminated once the Act is fully implemented. It gets scuttled because it is not only unaffordable, it's unsustainable. I cannot see how every person with a disease or other ailment can receive coverage without having to pay a very high deductible. There's just no way the taxpayers can subsidize it.
Medicare takes a huge hit with ACA. Where the replacement funding to take care of the ever increasing number of seniors is a mystery.
Ok....With the things in Obamacare that make you happy, which of these directly affects you?

Right now, none.

My parents are both dead but we did have trouble with the donut hole for her medicine. What was $10 when it was covered was upwards of $200 when it wasn't. A few weeks or months later, it was $10 again.

I do not have kids. My assistant has two children she now keeps on our insurance plan at work. One is a special needs child and she is going to save upwards of $4,000 dollars if I heard correctly.

Sidebar: This is one of the things about the Affordable Care Act that pissed me off frankly. My assistant has 2 kids who are in the 18-26 range and two more who are not. She has 4 kids on the insurance basically. I know many nurses in our system that have the same set-up...multiple kids on the company insurance. Good for them.
Me, I don't have kids. Why can't I be allowed to put my widowed/widower parent (if they were still alive) on our insurance albeit at a higher rate than she pays for a 10 year old?

As for the PEC's, I do not have any that preclude me from getting insured. As for your statement about PECs, I do not have any information about the premiums and how much the pricing will be when implemented fully.

Here's my take on including others on insurance plans...
I think if a family member is a dependent, that should be enough for the primary policy holder to carry coverage. The age of the dependent should not matter.
Today, many people have taken in their elderly parents or have an immediate relative which is unable to take care of themselves due to illness or disease. Insurance companies should permit those people to be covered as well.
PEC....Ok, it is my understanding that a person that has ANY pre existing condition is uninsurable.
My take is this. If a person has a PEC, the person should be covered for all other maladies unrelated to the condition. In other words say a person has a heart condition. They suffer a broken bone. That's unrelated to the heart condition...The insurance company should cover that.
Now, if the person requires hospitalization for an intestinal ailment. During the stay, the person has a mild non fatal heart attack...Ok, cover the intestinal thing, do not cover the heart attack.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Take your doctor and your affordable health care and like it, chumps. Ay caramba...

It will not be affordable and we will not be able to choose our medical professional.
We will not have the access to care we do now.
Waits for care will increase dramatically. Same as Canada and Europe.
Care will be micro managed by bureaucrats and rationed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

The real question is, why don't conservatives? They're in the position of defending one class of freeloaders, while railing against the others. What's the difference?

Do not tell me what the question is. You do not control the narrative here.
Now, if you wish to decline participation in the thread based on the thread title and question, politely decline to comment.

 

[Black_Label]

That's right. Thank god finally...

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

You can bet if Willard brought the exact same thing with Romneycare to the table, the right wing trolls would be applauding it like it was the greatest thing on earth.

The goons going nuts over the ACA are just doing so because they are programmed to hate everything Obama does no matter what.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

The issue isn’t so much ‘support’ but countering the lies used by the right to make the ACA out to be something it is not for perceived political gain, particularly as a weapon against Obama.

The Act does not force anyone to buy health insurance, for example – although conservatives continue to insist it does, exhibiting either their willful ignorance or propensity to simply lie.

Individuals pay taxes on many things they do not directly benefit from and in many cases don’t necessarily support, such as public assistance, public schools, Social Security, and defense spending. And although one many not realize a direct benefit from such programs, it can be argued we all indirectly benefit. Healthcare is now one among such programs, from which everyone will benefit directly or indirectly.

Other provisions of the ACA are also beneficial, such as no restrictions on pre-existing conditions, greater choice concerning health delivery, and the elimination of coverage caps.

Is the ACA perfect? Not by a long shot. But it’s a start, it does bring us closer to affording most Americans health insurance.

In addition, Conservatives misconstrue liberal pragmatism for ‘support,’ regardless its drawback liberals know the ACA is the best that can be expected in such a hostile, hyper-partisan, polarized political environment where facts are trumped by rhetoric and hyperbole. The many threads in this very forum are evidence of that.

Over time, should reasonableness return to politics, the ACA can be replaced with a single-payer, Medicare for all program. But for now that’s politically impossible.

As for documentation in support of the program’s benefits, the OP is as capable as anyone else of researching the evidence, the only question is does he have the desire to do so and the objectivity to accept the facts.

There is "force" One must buy a policy or pay a fine. I cannot think of a better example of force.
I conclude only those who currently live off the public dole will benefit. Add those who earn under 400% of poverty. The rest of us will pay far more for less care. We will be forced to the government exchanges because employers will drop their employee coverages.
ACA is simply another government entitlement which to fund it will drain a significant portion of the earnings and wealth of the nation. Perhaps as much as 20% of the US economy will be redirected to Obamacare.
The "no restrictions on pre existing conditions" will be impossible to fund.
IN fact, none of the European countries do this.
Single payer. That is the ultimate goal of this ACT.
As we have seen, just about every nation in the Eurozone is being crushed under the weight of massive debt. This debt is mostly due to socialized medicine and other safety nets.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's right. Thank god finally...

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search

You can bet if Willard brought the exact same thing with Romneycare to the table, the right wing trolls would be applauding it like it was the greatest thing on earth.

The goons going nuts over the ACA are just doing so because they are programmed to hate everything Obama does no matter what.

Ok..You are not participating the thread as asked.
I will not permit this to become a whiny assed mud slinging spat.
Romney and Obama have NOTHING to do with this thread.
Now, you can either answer the questions in the original post or decline to comment.
For the record OI oppose ANY government run health insurance program. As far as I am concerned, and based on the evidence produced by other similar programs, they are doomed to failure or are terrible economic burdens.

 

[konradv]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

The real question is, why don't conservatives? They're in the position of defending one class of freeloaders, while railing against the others. What's the difference?

Do not tell me what the question is. You do not control the narrative here.
Now, if you wish to decline participation in the thread based on the thread title and question, politely decline to comment.

I'll do anything I damn well please. I did answer the question, just not the way you wanted. Here, I'll restate my answer for the hardheads. Liberals are taking a play out of the conservative handbook and insisting that people not freeload on the rest of us. The fact that you're turning it into a "liberty" question, just shows the hypocrisy of the right. In any other situation they'd be screaming about wanting the "liberty" to not pay for someone else's needs.

 

[occupied]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

A flat-earther asking to be proven wrong is a futile exercise.

 

[blackhawk]

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

You stole my thunder Bro staying on your parents insurance till your 26 is ridiculous geez you might as well pay their bills and buy there clothes for them as well.

 

[Black_Label]

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

You stole my thunder Bro staying on your parents insurance till your 26 is ridiculous geez you might as well pay their bills and buy there clothes for them as well.

Many people can be in grad school until their early 30's. The legislation is to help those in college that need it the most during those years.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

Yes!...The inclusion of people this age is probably due to the Administration's idea that the cost of higher education is too high and will eventually become an entitlement.
As a matter of fact I saw a young woman comment about this very issue.
Her claim that the moment she graduated from college she had to start repaying her $40k student loan debt and that Obamacare would allow her to remain on her parent's policy.
Really, sweetheart? How much more free shit do you want?
The way I see it is once a person gets their degree they are out of the nest. Time to grow up.
I am pretty sick and tried of hearing people say things in reference to "what benefits and entitlements can I get my hands on".

 

[blackhawk]

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

You stole my thunder Bro staying on your parents insurance till your 26 is ridiculous geez you might as well pay their bills and buy there clothes for them as well.

Many people can be in grad school until their early 30's. The legislation is to help those in college that need it the most during those years.

If you can afford to pay for college into your early 30's you can find a way to pay for your own insurance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

You stole my thunder Bro staying on your parents insurance till your 26 is ridiculous geez you might as well pay their bills and buy there clothes for them as well.

Many people can be in grad school until their early 30's. The legislation is to help those in college that need it the most during those years.

Grad school is a CHOICE. And as adults, we must pay for our CHOICES.
No one is owed Grad School. So if one CHOOSES to go to grad school, I suggest they work to pay for it themselves at a job where health insurance is available.
I do not think the taxpayers should be on the hook for CHOICES.
Don't ask "what if" questions.
A person capable of achieving educational success should be capable of procuring employment at a fairly high level of salary. If they cannot, their degree is one for which few employers have a need. Again, a CHOICE.

 

[thereisnospoon]

As you can see, this question is for liberals.
So go ahead. Fire away.
A couple of conditions...If you elect to make a statement such as " all Americans will be covered" , you will provide facts to support the claim accompanied by link(s).
If you render an opinion, word it as such and quantify it as opinion.

A flat-earther asking to be proven wrong is a futile exercise.

So you do not wish to add anything constructive to the thread? You'd rather make snide juvenile remarks and run? Fine.
So is it possible you support Obamacare because it's a liberal idea and for no other reason?
BTW genius, I made no statements of fact, nor did I render an opinion. I simply asked a question. If you decline to answer, fine. Don't. You will not take this thread where YOU think it should go.

 

[Black_Label]

You stole my thunder Bro staying on your parents insurance till your 26 is ridiculous geez you might as well pay their bills and buy there clothes for them as well.

Many people can be in grad school until their early 30's. The legislation is to help those in college that need it the most during those years.

Grad school is a CHOICE. And as adults, we must pay for our CHOICES.
No one is owed Grad School. So if one CHOOSES to go to grad school, I suggest they work to pay for it themselves at a job where health insurance is available.
I do not think the taxpayers should be on the hook for CHOICES.
Don't ask "what if" questions.
A person capable of achieving educational success should be capable of procuring employment at a fairly high level of salary. If they cannot, their degree is one for which few employers have a need. Again, a CHOICE.

What is wrong with you? The taxpayer isn't paying anything for kids to be allowed to be on their parent's insurance plans until they are 26

 

[candycorn]

Anyway, I support the Affordable Care Act because of the provisions that you can have your children on your insurance until they turn 26

Shouldn't a 26 year old be taking care of himself?

It costs only the policy holder.

It allows people to ascend into adulthood with a measure of security they didn't have before.

 

[candycorn]

So, according to you; a 20 year old in perfect health and an Alzheimer's patient will pay the same premiums to Blue Cross or Aetna or Humana or United Healthcare? Is that what you're saying?

Did you read the Bill. They can not for Example Charge a women more on Average, even though most Women Cost them more, and tend to use more Care.

You people really need to read what is in the Bill. I swear there is a lot of Ignorance on Both sides, but it just seems the Supporters are Particularly Ignorant of what is actual in this bill.

And Forcing them to take on people regardless of pre existing Conditions, now that one is really costly. Insurance works on the Principle that you pay in more than you use Most Years. But with someone with an Expensive Condition, Knowing Full well they will lose thousands of Dollars a year on them until the day they die.

Do you people really think that is going to make them Lower prices?

I mean wake the fuck up.

I'll ask again:

So, according to you; a 20 year old in perfect health and an Alzheimer's patient will pay the same premiums to Blue Cross or Aetna or Humana or United Healthcare? Is that what you're saying?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

As for reading the thousands of pages, I'll admit I did not read it. I'll wager you didn't read every word of it either...right?

Okay then....

Is there some sort of premium chart that you can cite for me that shows the 20 y/o and the Alzheimer's patient paying the same thing?

Well, are the premiums going to be the same?