Why are liberals in support of Obamacare

Why are liberals in support of Obamacare

I can't tell you why "liberals" are but I can give you some reasons I support it.

  1. The law tackles deficiencies in the existing health insurance markets, particularly for the minority of folks who have to buy it in the poorly regulated individual market because they don't get it as part of a group through their jobs. It creates new, competitive marketplaces in which those people can shop for insurance, a marketplace that's transparent, has consumer protections, and levels the playing field to make comparison shopping easier and meaningful. These marketplaces are designed and generally under the jurisdiction of state governments to meet the needs of their populations and their market conditions. The law also creates marketplaces for small businesses that can offer a bit more predictability in their future health costs.
  2. It reforms Medicaid, offering support for states to replace the often antiquated IT systems they use to manage the program. The law expands it, largely at federal expense (though after Thursday's ruling, that expansion is now a state option, as opposed to a condition of continued participation in the Medicaid program). It simplifies the enrollment process to make Medicaid more accessible to those eligible for it, and it gives states a number of new options and opportunities to experiment with ways to contain costs and improve the way care is delivered.
  3. It starts the process of reforming Medicare, most importantly by starting to change the way Medicare pays for services to shift it towards paying for quality instead of just some quantity of procedures. This is where it really starts getting at health care reform (you can already see reorganizations among providers of the way they deliver services to offer more value for what they're paid). It also fixes some expensive deficiencies in the way we pay for the privatized portion of Medicare.
  4. It makes needed investments in prevention and public health. The provisions in that section of the law are too numerous to list here but includes bits like support for school-based health centers, grants to communities to build up their infrastructure for preventing chronic disease, resources to support epidemiology and public health labs at the state and local level, and a hodgepodge of other provisions aimed at either prevention or public health.
  5. It starts the ball rolling on building up the health care workforce to meet the current and coming demands on it. It has loan repay opportunities, training programs, additional funding for health centers, provisions for re-allocating residency slots and grants to establish new primary care residency programs, and things like that.

If you want a shorter answer: our health care institutions--from private insurance markets to provider organizations to our public programs and our public health infrastructure--are not set up to meet the demands of the 21st century. We literally can't afford for them to approach the problems of the next 50 years the way they tackled the problems of the last 50 years. They need to be more nimble, more data-driven and evidence-based, more accountable, more outcomes-oriented, and ultimately much better at delivering bang for buck (i.e. value). The ACA takes this approach and it does so on a number of different fronts simultaneously, including by building up other major pieces of health legislation passed by the 111th Congress.

The oversimplified panaceas folks fling back and forth at each other ("tort reform!" "insurance across state lines!" "single-payer!") are missing the forest for the trees big time.
 
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.

Because it is the most important step towards bankrupting private insurance and establishing a nationally socialist healthcare system.

In fact, Senator Obama said himself in 2007 that he is a proponent of a single payer system, but that it is going to have to happen incrementally over a period of ten years.
 
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
Wanna bet? What the hell do you think funds Obama care. Remember the subject matter of the thread?
 
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.
Because they love socialism.
 
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.

We're ascending now? What happened to getting out in front and preparing?
Security? Please. There is no such thing as security.
Each of us is expected to go out and earn what we need and what we want.
Measure of security?..Holy shit.
"Yeah, ok, I have security. I can relax while someone else takes care of me even though I've been an adult for the last 4 years"...Holy shit. I cannot fathom the amount of enabling the lazy we have on here.
Newsflash....The policy holder is out of the picture once Obama care kicks in. Then it falls to the taxpayers.
 
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.

We're ascending now? What happened to getting out in front and preparing?
We were ascending before you added whatever that was...

Security? Please. There is no such thing as security.
Ohhhhhhhhhhkay....

Each of us is expected to go out and earn what we need and what we want.
Measure of security?..Holy shit.
"Yeah, ok, I have security. I can relax while someone else takes care of me even though I've been an adult for the last 4 years"...Holy shit. I cannot fathom the amount of enabling the lazy we have on here.

I imagine you have trouble fathoming how a can opener works.

Newsflash....The policy holder is out of the picture once Obama care kicks in. Then it falls to the taxpayers.

Not true.
 
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?
Yer kidding, right?
Use a little common sense. Ask yourself...Should the premium of a perfectly healthy 35 year old be more, less or the same than a 35 year old alcoholic who smokes pot and has a family history of heart disease?
I would be incensed if a person my age who has bad habits, a shitty diet and other vices gets to pay the same as me even though, I keep in shape, eat well and generally take my health seriously..Really pissed.
This is my take on government programs. They ALWAYS hurt the people who do the right thing. ALWAYS.
 
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?
Yer kidding, right?
Use a little common sense. Ask yourself...Should the premium of a perfectly healthy 35 year old be more, less or the same than a 35 year old alcoholic who smokes pot and has a family history of heart disease?
I would be incensed if a person my age who has bad habits, a shitty diet and other vices gets to pay the same as me even though, I keep in shape, eat well and generally take my health seriously..Really pissed.
This is my take on government programs. They ALWAYS hurt the people who do the right thing. ALWAYS.

I agree....

Charles_Main seemed to indicate that the premiums would be the same.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/231997-why-are-liberals-in-support-of-obamacare-2.html#post5547917

I don't think they are; the gist being that you can't be turned down for insurance for a PEC but you don't have to be offered the same premium as someone without PEC's.

I was trying to get a clarification on the matter from him.

Interestingly, Governor Romney says that he will ensure that persons with the PECs still have access:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp6d3JBLiAE]Watch Full Romney Response to Health Care Ruling: "I Will Act to Repeal Obamacare" - YouTube[/ame]
 
You do Understand that they operate on a Profit Margin of less than 3% right. When you do things like force them to Take on people with Pre Existing Conditions with out so much as Charging them more, Or don't let them charge more for groups who statistically cost more to Cover, plus heap new taxes on them. You cut Dramatically into an already tiny Profit margin. Forcing them to Either Raise Prices, or Wither and Die.

The Latter I believe being the Ultimate Goal of Obama care.

It is not less than 3%, it is closer to 4% and still they managed to spend $102 MILLION dollars in 15 months time fighting against Health Care Reform. Somehow I'm not feeling sorry for the "poor" health insurance companies.
 
You do Understand that they operate on a Profit Margin of less than 3% right. When you do things like force them to Take on people with Pre Existing Conditions with out so much as Charging them more, Or don't let them charge more for groups who statistically cost more to Cover, plus heap new taxes on them. You cut Dramatically into an already tiny Profit margin. Forcing them to Either Raise Prices, or Wither and Die.

The Latter I believe being the Ultimate Goal of Obama care.

It is not less than 3%, it is closer to 4% and still they managed to spend $102 MILLION dollars in 15 months time fighting against Health Care Reform. Somehow I'm not feeling sorry for the "poor" health insurance companies.
Stop it...Ya wanna know who helped write Obamacare?..The Insurance companies. Yes, that's right. The insurers WANTED the mandate. They saw tons of new potential customers. Of course with the inevitable increases in premiums and the provisions in the law itself, most Americans will end up buying their insurance via the government exchanges. Health coverage from private insurers will become non existent...Again, the insurance co's favor this. Why? Because health coverage is very expensive for them. The carriers WANT to get rid of Health lines.
 
You do Understand that they operate on a Profit Margin of less than 3% right. When you do things like force them to Take on people with Pre Existing Conditions with out so much as Charging them more, Or don't let them charge more for groups who statistically cost more to Cover, plus heap new taxes on them. You cut Dramatically into an already tiny Profit margin. Forcing them to Either Raise Prices, or Wither and Die.

The Latter I believe being the Ultimate Goal of Obama care.

It is not less than 3%, it is closer to 4% and still they managed to spend $102 MILLION dollars in 15 months time fighting against Health Care Reform. Somehow I'm not feeling sorry for the "poor" health insurance companies.
Stop it...Ya wanna know who helped write Obamacare?..The Insurance companies. Yes, that's right. The insurers WANTED the mandate. They saw tons of new potential customers. Of course with the inevitable increases in premiums and the provisions in the law itself, most Americans will end up buying their insurance via the government exchanges. Health coverage from private insurers will become non existent...Again, the insurance co's favor this. Why? Because health coverage is very expensive for them. The carriers WANT to get rid of Health lines.

You didn't bother to read the linked article did you? Try it.

Busted! Health Insurers Secretly Spent HUGE to Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending to Support Obamacare
 
It is not less than 3%, it is closer to 4% and still they managed to spend $102 MILLION dollars in 15 months time fighting against Health Care Reform. Somehow I'm not feeling sorry for the "poor" health insurance companies.
Stop it...Ya wanna know who helped write Obamacare?..The Insurance companies. Yes, that's right. The insurers WANTED the mandate. They saw tons of new potential customers. Of course with the inevitable increases in premiums and the provisions in the law itself, most Americans will end up buying their insurance via the government exchanges. Health coverage from private insurers will become non existent...Again, the insurance co's favor this. Why? Because health coverage is very expensive for them. The carriers WANT to get rid of Health lines.

You didn't bother to read the linked article did you? Try it.

Busted! Health Insurers Secretly Spent HUGE to Defeat Health Care Reform While Pretending to Support Obamacare

Sweetie pie...That's an opinion piece.
The fact is the insurance companies helped write the bill. Their expenses covered that and the provisions they did not want implemented.
Try to understand the WHOLE story. Not just the parts that make you feel comfy.
Now, why are you in support of Obamacare?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top