The purpose of Obamacare

[Boatswain2PA]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

Do you think the purpose was truly to improve our healthcare system and lower costs?

Do you think it was meant as a big step toward a single payor system in the US by getting as many people onto Medicaid as possible??

Do you think it was meant to take over an even greater portion of our healthcare system, fail miserably and thus creating another "crisis" which could only be solved by full implementation of a single payor system?

Or do you have another idea??

I'm conflicted between the three. I don't think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their staff are stupid, but perhaps they were naive enough to think that this would actually improve health while lowering costs. On the other hand, I think both of them have said, on the record, that they are FOR a single payor system enough times that this very well could have been their goal in the first place.

What do you think?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s a stop-gap measure that will bring relief to most Americans with no access to affordable healthcare. Once we realize more enlightened political times, we can complete the process by expanding Medicare for all Americans, allowing health insurance companies to return to the business of selling health insurance, not health maintenance.

 

[Mac1958]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

Do you think the purpose was truly to improve our healthcare system and lower costs?

Do you think it was meant as a big step toward a single payor system in the US by getting as many people onto Medicaid as possible??

Do you think it was meant to take over an even greater portion of our healthcare system, fail miserably and thus creating another "crisis" which could only be solved by full implementation of a single payor system?

Or do you have another idea??

I'm conflicted between the three. I don't think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their staff are stupid, but perhaps they were naive enough to think that this would actually improve health while lowering costs. On the other hand, I think both of them have said, on the record, that they are FOR a single payor system enough times that this very well could have been their goal in the first place.

What do you think?

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I can understand why some on the Right are saying that it's meant to destroy the private insurance market and get us to single payer. I have a pretty good working/professional knowledge of health care economics and markets, and I don't understand how anyone was taking those two elements into consideration when they put this thing together.

Either that or maybe this thing was put together in pieces with different groups of people working on just their piece without regard to the others.

I think we all would have been better off if the Democrats had just slowed down and made an honest effort to win a public debate on single payer. This just seems like they're trying to get there in a very cynical, backhanded way.

.

 

[boedicca]

I quote myself:

Obamacare was created to provide medical insurance for those that couldn't currently afford it.

Good post, but you need to check your premise. The dysfunction of ObamaCare is not a bug, it's a feature. It was NOT created to provide medical insurance for those that couldn't currently afford it. That was the pretex-pablum spoonfed to the gullible portion of the population.

The true purpose was to expand Government control over our lives, to expand the ranks of those who are dependent upon government via income transfers, and to enrich the usual suspects of Big Government Cronies.

If the true purpose were to provide a safety net for the uninsured, that could have been done via welfare-style taxes and benefits for a far lower cost than the Obamanation.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8385927-post3.html

 

[percysunshine]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

....

What do you think?

It was a brain fart by a speech writer in Obamas 2008 presidential campaign. After that, it sort of took on a life of its own...consuming everything it encountered.

Like one of those old sci-fi movies with globular things...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In my opinion Obamacare was never intended to be our healthcare system.
It was intended to be the first step to a single-payer system.

 

[Bluedog]

In my opinion it was the equivalent of "doing something" about healthcare. The insurance lobby had to be dealt with. It was a first step, even if to start a dialogue about it. With this in place it can be modified or changed in addition to keeping the issue on the front lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Granny]

Obamacare is meant to be a huge step toward complete overthrow of American government as it is set out in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.

We are slowly but surely losing all our personal freedoms of every kind. Open practice of religion and/or ownership any kind of religious items is very close to illegal in this country (with the exception of course of Islam). Safe lightbulbs or other lighting of our choice in our homes is just about a thing of the past. We will soon have no choice but to purchase lightbulbs loaded with mercury and require disposal in a hazmat facility. Now we don't have the freedom of choosing our healthcare.

We already had healthcare for the poor ... it's called Medicaid ... and that program is and has been for quite some time out of control. No healthcare for the uninsured? Why not set up a privately controlled health insurance trust fund for people who are uninsurable? We know from the state of Medicare and Medicaid programs that the government is incapable of managing those programs (or any other for that matter). Every business that sells or operates as a health insurance company would have to contribute a pro rata share of funding to this trust based upon each company's profits. Perhaps the government might have to contribute something to pick up the slack but it would still be a better idea to set up a separate means of insuring, say, 19% of the population, than it is to fuck up healthcare coverage for 100% of the population.

 

[Intense]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

....

What do you think?

It was a brain fart by a speech writer in Obamas 2008 presidential campaign. After that, it sort of took on a life of its own...consuming everything it encountered.

Like one of those old sci-fi movies with globular things...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OICbxwdm2fo]The Blob (1958) - YouTube[/ame]

Great Movie.

On the plus side all movies end one way or another. I think Obamacare was designed to suck the life out of us, by bankrupting the system. It is collectivist in nature and cannot sustain it's own appetite. It did a good job of transferring the burden for paying the Medical Bills of the Indigent away from the Federal and State Governments on to the unsuspecting. Less for more should be it's sigline.

 

[Listening]

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is practically dead. Meanwhile, the old system it was meant to replace is dead. Thus, Americans face a long and bitter struggle over what kind of health care system they will have.
Looking at it from Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the situation isn’t all bad. True, he took a huge credibility hit with his oft-repeated promise that Americans could keep their doctors and health insurance if they liked them. His political standing isn’t likely to recover from that.
Still, he moved the country several steps closer to governmental control over health care, which is what he really wanted. As the country struggles to pick up the pieces from the mess he created, one big option will be a system even more fully under governmental control. Expect a new liberal push for something approaching a single-payer system, in which the government pays for all health care costs, either through governmental contracts with insurance companies (as in Canada) or by constructing and running its own health care program (as in the United Kingdom).


Read more: MERRY: The real purpose of Obamacare - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

Someone else calls it a Single Payer Trojan Horse:

The Affordable Care Act is already doing a fantastic job at it's true purpose: taking great health insurance plans away from people and replacing them with either a much higher-priced, inferior plan or....nothing.
In all the discussion about ObamaCare, many people are missing the point about the true purpose of the law. Supposedly, the purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to lower health insurance costs and provide better health insurance plans for people to purchase.
Far from it.
The actual purpose of the ACA is to prepare the ground for a single payer system to come later.
ObamaCare was designed to 'fix' the problem of a country in which most had health insurance coverage and were happy with the status quo.
Progressives realized they were never going to get this backwards country to a single payer system as long as 85% of Americans had coverage and the majority of them were satisfied with the health insurance plan they had. The top leadership of the Democratic Party rightly recognized this situation as a huge obstacle to ever getting a single payer system implemented on the entire country from Washington DC.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...pose-Of-ObamaCare-A-Single-Payer-Trojan-Horse

 

[The Professor]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

....

What do you think?

It was a brain fart by a speech writer in Obamas 2008 presidential campaign. After that, it sort of took on a life of its own...consuming everything it encountered.

Like one of those old sci-fi movies with globular things...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OICbxwdm2fo]The Blob (1958) - YouTube[/ame]

Great Movie.

On the plus side all movies end one way or another. I think Obamacare was designed to suck the life out of us, by bankrupting the system. It is collectivist in nature and cannot sustain it's own appetite. It did a good job of transferring the burden for paying the Medical Bills of the Indigent away from the Federal and State Governments on to the unsuspecting. Less for more should be it's sigline.

Damn, I was 19 when I saw that movie. However, the blob was not the only dangerous creature in 1958.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKR-mzJaNo]One Eyed One Horned Flying Purple People Eater Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

As for Obamacare, I apparently missed something. For decades the only complaint I heard was the cost of health CARE. I am unaware of anything Obama has proposed that will reduce the cost of health CARE. Since health INSURANCE adds to the cost of health CARE, I cannot understand Obama's approach. I know that Obama said one of the major problems was people using the ER and his plan would eliminate that problem. However, that is not likely to happen and Obama should have known this.

The best case study for health care reform is in Massachusetts, where universal health care was enacted in 2006. According to state data, emergency room visits increased 6 percent from 2006 to 2010. In recent years there has been a slight decline but the number of ER visits is still higher than it was in 2006.

Hospitals Brace for More ER Visits Due to Health Care Reform | KSTP TV - Minneapolis and St. Paul

Mass. Sees Increase in Emergency Room Visits, Nurses Assoc. Wants to Limit Patient Numbers | WAMC

In the state of Oregon, after an expansion of Medicaid (which will happen under Obamacare) even more people went to the ER.

“That’s the decisive verdict of a study of new Medicaid residents in Oregon, where expanding Medicaid actually increased emergency room visits and did not improve the health.”

Non-Partisan Study Predicts Obamacare?s Next Broken Promise | TheBlaze.com

Finally, a recent study has concluded that Obamacare will actually result in increased usage of the ERs which means that Obama's plan will make what HE called a serious problem even worse.

Harvard Study: Obamacare Drives up ER Visits

Years ago I listened to a documentary about people using the ERs for non-emergency care. One woman who went to the ER to get treatment for her son's common cold said she preferred the ER because she got better treatment and didn't have to make an appointment. Common sense tells me that with increased premium and increased deductibles, the use of ERs will increase.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

 

[longknife]

IMHO, I completely agree that the ACA is just another effort to socialize this nation and move us away from our constitutional rights by people who are doing everything they can to destroy the very document designed to limit the role of government. [lord! Did I write a run on sentence like that?]

It was not just aimed at the insurance industry, but private commerce in general. Part of the aim that society owns everything and individuals own nothing.

 

[Doubletap]

ACA is all about government control over the individual.
Why do it's supporters value their life so little that they would surrender their right to free choice & place medical decisions in to the hands of incompetent despots?

 

[Steven_R]

In my opinion Obamacare was never intended to be our healthcare system.
It was intended to be the first step to a single-payer system.

This, right here. Obamacare was designed to be unworkable and to destroy the private healthcare model. People would demand something be done, and that something would be European-styled government run healthcare.

Congress creates the problem and then brings out an even worse solution and claims "it's progress".

 

[mudwhistle]

I don't think the Obama Administration has the skills to be able to run anything well other than a political campaign.

Everything they do relies on smoke and mirrors.

 

[Listening]

In my opinion it was the equivalent of "doing something" about healthcare. The insurance lobby had to be dealt with. It was a first step, even if to start a dialogue about it. With this in place it can be modified or changed in addition to keeping the issue on the front lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A terrible strategy....

Was George Washington wrong when he stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

In my opinion it was the equivalent of "doing something" about healthcare. The insurance lobby had to be dealt with. It was a first step, even if to start a dialogue about it. With this in place it can be modified or changed in addition to keeping the issue on the front lines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A terrible strategy....

Was George Washington wrong when he stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

do you have a source for that quote?

 

[auditor0007]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

Do you think the purpose was truly to improve our healthcare system and lower costs?

Do you think it was meant as a big step toward a single payor system in the US by getting as many people onto Medicaid as possible??

Do you think it was meant to take over an even greater portion of our healthcare system, fail miserably and thus creating another "crisis" which could only be solved by full implementation of a single payor system?

Or do you have another idea??

I'm conflicted between the three. I don't think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their staff are stupid, but perhaps they were naive enough to think that this would actually improve health while lowering costs. On the other hand, I think both of them have said, on the record, that they are FOR a single payor system enough times that this very well could have been their goal in the first place.

What do you think?

The idea was simple; get as many covered as possible and stabilize costs. Reducing costs is and has been pretty much out of the question. The real objective is to keep healthcare spending from going from 17% of GDP to 30% of GDP, while offering quality care to as many as possible.

 

[auditor0007]

I enjoy the Clean Debate Zone much more than the rest of these boards because the anti-flaming rules typically keep the extremists at both fringes away. Without flaming, we can have real conversations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on what the true "purpose" of Obamacare is/was.

Do you think the purpose was truly to improve our healthcare system and lower costs?

Do you think it was meant as a big step toward a single payor system in the US by getting as many people onto Medicaid as possible??

Do you think it was meant to take over an even greater portion of our healthcare system, fail miserably and thus creating another "crisis" which could only be solved by full implementation of a single payor system?

Or do you have another idea??

I'm conflicted between the three. I don't think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and their staff are stupid, but perhaps they were naive enough to think that this would actually improve health while lowering costs. On the other hand, I think both of them have said, on the record, that they are FOR a single payor system enough times that this very well could have been their goal in the first place.

What do you think?

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I can understand why some on the Right are saying that it's meant to destroy the private insurance market and get us to single payer. I have a pretty good working/professional knowledge of health care economics and markets, and I don't understand how anyone was taking those two elements into consideration when they put this thing together.

Either that or maybe this thing was put together in pieces with different groups of people working on just their piece without regard to the others.

I think we all would have been better off if the Democrats had just slowed down and made an honest effort to win a public debate on single payer. This just seems like they're trying to get there in a very cynical, backhanded way.

.

I think they were putting this thing together while looking at Romneycare and the Swiss system, and trying to make it all work. The problem is that much of it is piecemeal and it doesn't really come close to the Swiss system. This has led to many problems. The biggest problems I have seen is that rates are too high for older people and too low for younger people. Secondly, there is no real incentive to force people to carry heatlh insurance. In Switzerland, as in Massachusetts, compliance is around 97%. We will not come close to that on the national level the way it is set up currently.

There are many other issues, but we will just have to wait to see if they ever are resolved.