Why are liberals in support of Obamacare

[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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

 

[The Infidel]

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.

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.

So it takes 2/3's of the American economy, and nearly two trillion in ten years to do it???
How on earth is this a good idea??
Plus, there wont be insurance companies left after a while if they have to insure you no matter what... its that or no one will be able to afford the insurance.

This is a bad law... no if ands or buts about it.


What difference daes it make anyway? No one is listening.

 

[Intense]

I would think that there are easier ways to accomplish that, and more.

 

[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.

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?

 

[The Infidel]

I would think that there are easier ways to accomplish that, and more.

I think I read somewhere that only about 15% of Americans were uninsured

If that is true... WOW

One thing is for sure... we have to do everything we can to get this TAX repealed.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

So it takes 2/3's of the American economy, and nearly two trillion in ten years to do it???
How on earth is this a good idea??
Plus, there wont be insurance companies left after a while if they have to insure you no matter what... its that or no one will be able to afford the insurance.

This is a bad law... no if ands or buts about it.


What difference daes it make anyway? No one is listening.

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

 

[The Infidel]

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.

So it takes 2/3's of the American economy, and nearly two trillion in ten years to do it???
How on earth is this a good idea??
Plus, there wont be insurance companies left after a while if they have to insure you no matter what... its that or no one will be able to afford the insurance.

This is a bad law... no if ands or buts about it.


What difference daes it make anyway? No one is listening.

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

It is unsustainable.


30 million is a drop in the bucket and you should know that.

 

[dblack]

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

No kidding. Corporate welfare through and through.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

because they are hardwired that way, and if they changed they would lose all programming.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

So it takes 2/3's of the American economy, and nearly two trillion in ten years to do it???
How on earth is this a good idea??
Plus, there wont be insurance companies left after a while if they have to insure you no matter what... its that or no one will be able to afford the insurance.

This is a bad law... no if ands or buts about it.


What difference daes it make anyway? No one is listening.

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

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.

 

[candycorn]

So it takes 2/3's of the American economy, and nearly two trillion in ten years to do it???
How on earth is this a good idea??
Plus, there wont be insurance companies left after a while if they have to insure you no matter what... its that or no one will be able to afford the insurance.

This is a bad law... no if ands or buts about it.


What difference daes it make anyway? No one is listening.

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

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.

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?

 

[Charles_Main]

I mean read the Law, a Person can now Ignore the Law, Pay a small Penalty and then if all the Sudden they find out they have Cancer, Force and Insurance company to take them on as if they were a Normal Healthy Customer.

That's not Insurance.

 

[Charles_Main]

So the insurance companies getting 30 million more customers will cause them to go out of business?

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.

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 **** up.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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 **** 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?

 

[francoHFW]

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

 

[francoHFW]

romney care for all! They call it Obamacare and lie like sobs...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[tererun]

Technically i would be a liberal, but I do not support most faux liberals in government.

Anyway, from what I have seen obamacare does a few things.

1. It stops people from being dropped from insurance just because they got a long term condition. I have seen this sort of thing happen and it is impossible to get insurance after that. You pay insurance to cover those things, and the company should pay up when it is time. This is actually my main reason for not supporting privatized health insurance. Your insurance comapny should be your ally, but instead it is your enemy when you get sick

2. It offers up health insurance to everyone. Face it modern medicine has had it's enormous costs somewhat socialized through health insurance. Your individual cannot afford expensive treatments, but together those treatments are provided. Health insurance is really a shitty form of socialism. Do notice I did not say it insures everyone, but everyone is offered insurance.

3. it starts to address the huge problems in for profit health insurance. It is not a solution to the health insurance industry, but it is a start, and we really needed to start doing something to regulate it.

It does attempt to pay for itself and keep costs lowered through the mandate. It is a solution for a really shitty industry, and of course it is going to look like crap. They are trying to fix up a rusted trycicle to be a train engine. It is just not going to work. This is what you get when you try to socialize medicine without socializing medicine. The problem with Obama care is not in what it is trying to do, but in the system that it had to work with.