Can someone "dumb down" what Obamacare really means? - page 6
I don't have time to watch the news or read articles so I don't understand much of what is being talked about. Can someone explain to me how it changes for citizens and what it will do to the future... Read More
2Aug 15, '12 by woohQuote from KentrnazI'm asking now. TELL US. All I've heard from the right is voucher this and voucher that. Because in Paul Ryan's world, private insurance companies are going to willingly take on elderly people with pre-existing conditions? Vouchers don't work if there's nobody that will accept the vouchers. (Of course, if they die from lack of medical care, that's fewer vouchers, which will help his budget ideas.)I have many better ideas. So do alot of other people. It is quite unfortunate that people on the left just don't want to hear them.
4Aug 15, '12 by Elinor1. It's not socializing anything. The idea of having a public health care option went out the window early on, so there is no new government-run health care. I think some people are confused about the definition of "socialized." For comparison, we do have socialized education in the US, i.e. public schools. There is nothing comparable in the health care reform. NO PUBLIC OPTION. There's really no way to spell it out any clearer. Anyone who uses "socialized" is just revealing their own ignorance.
2. If we did socialize our health care in the US, it would be awesome. Jeweles26, you can give all the anecdotal information you want about Canada, the fact of the matter is that on actual measures of health care quality -- infant mortality and life expectancy chiefly -- countries with socialized health care have us beat. Canada has a lower infant mortality rate, as does the UK, France, etc. So I wish there was a public option. I wish we would socialize our health care in the US. We would be a healthier country.
To the people who are still confused about what the Affordable Care Act actually does, see libbyliberal's post #12 on page 2, one-third of the way down. That gives the best summary of the changes that will take place, minus the fear mongering and outright lying.
1Aug 15, '12 by cdsgaAs for socialism-
I don't want a national police force, I don't want a national ed system or anything else. At this point-we do have a voice in our local states and municipalities. I don't want a socialized gov't. Federal gov't should be limited as was the intent. For example if you like the IRS being all in your business. You know how that causes fear, when they audit you. Just think about that for all things in our lives.
The middle class will be the people that will be squeezed the most, unless something is done with the tax code. The shrinking tax base, is killing us. So while healthcare is available to all-for a fee, you won't be able to get blood out of a turnip. And those that can afford, will always get the best. So not so much has changed. A strong middle class is the backbone of this country. We are thing that separates us from just another 3rd world country and keeps politicians in check.
2Aug 15, '12 by SensibilityYou don't necessarily need to be a nurse to be a member of this board. Nobody checks to make sure. Please be careful of people that might very well be plants who are obviously giving fallacious information to support socialized medicine. The one guy that said that we have 700 billion dollars in reserve for this is flat out lying. Jeweles26 is giving the right information. We are going to see huge cuts in our salaries and our taxes will go out of the stratosphere meaning less money. Will we be able to reverse this once we're in? Probably not. Most people who support the democratic agenda are constantly arguing that republicans put money into the pocket of the rich. I am sick to death of that argument because it is not true. What a system like the republicans propose does is allow people to prosper, which then causes others to prosper. It means that those people have ability to hire other people and more and more money is available to spend on the things we like. It is just a fact of life that some folks are have more money than others but those people generate jobs for others and hire small businesses to do work etc. My husband's small business is nearly going under with this democratic government especially because of food and gas prices and taxes. See, if you start out with a small business idea, you can prosper under a republican government. Often those who don't have money are the ones who don't want to work. Technically, you could get by in this world with just a few basic items and they want the government to provide those things instead of working hard and making something of themselves. Under a democratic government, it is impossible to prosper because if you make more money, it is less because it places you in a tax bracket where you have to pay more out. So in essence, your situation hasn't changed even though you are supposedly making more. Can you see that? The socialized health care will only further that agenda. Eventually, some treatments will be denied and people will die. Why? Simply because there is not enough money for chronic illnesses that might burden the system. Guess who will survive those things? People who happen to have money. So again, the rich are the only ones who prosper under this where today, those same people get excellent care.
6Aug 15, '12 by woohQuote from SensibilityI don't think "fallacious" means what you think it means if you're calling the fact that countries with socialized medicine have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies "fallacious."You don't necessarily need to be a nurse to be a member of this board. Nobody checks to make sure. Please be careful of people that might very well be plants who are obviously giving fallacious information to support socialized medicine.
But good warning. You don't have to be a nurse. The Koch brothers certainly have the money to pay people to spread lies like calling the ACA "socialized medicine." Quite a few people in this thread that could be right wing plants trying to scare nurses into thinking we're going to make less money and all wait in line for pap smears because of ACA. When most of us (the vagina owning ones) already had our pay threatened by Paul Ryan voting against the equal pay for women act. Which I guess is good for small business, if they only have to pay their penis owning employees a fair wage, they can afford the goods and services whose prices have skyrocketed thanks to the Republican deregulation of the financial industry... Which apparently Barack Obama was supposed to wave a magic wand to fix our economy overnight even though those bankers had a few years to screw it up? Maybe he should have taken a page out of Mitt Romney's business model and sent the job of fixing our economy overseas?Last edit by wooh on Aug 15, '12
2Aug 15, '12 by SensibilityQuote from woohRegulating people like this does not create goodness. Laws do not make people good and honorable. People who want to be yucky will take your boundary and find a way around it. And what in the world are you talking about in terms of mortality in infants? Give me a break.I don't think "fallacious" means what you think it means if you're calling the fact that countries with socialized medicine have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies "fallacious."
This health care is going to bury us in a financial ditch. It is going to make this country so poor until it will boggle the mind.
Obama has done nothing for this country in terms of financial improvements and please do not point to the last government as the problem. It is his socialist ideology. The gas prices are his fault.
When you take money away from business and give it to the slackers of the world, it causes a trickle down effect so that people do not have money for extras and those who could hire people can't hire them because they don't have the means. So that means less jobs and less money. Corporations hire people and to do that, they have to prosper. I tell you this because democrats constantly tell the public that they support the little guy and the republicans support the rich when nothing could be further from the truth. The little guy can't get a job or make his small business work because nobody is hiring and the price for running the business is through the roof. You can't get anywhere because the minute you step into the next tax bracket, your profit stays the same so that you stagnate at one level or go under. The only people who can prosper in a democratic government are the rich who were rich to begin with because they still have a few buck socked away. The rest of us suffer greatly.
Small businesses should create competition, which keeps prices under control. In a democratic government, the corporation has a monopoly putting the small business out of business because as I said, the corporation already has money.
Obamacare is going to send us over the cliff so that we are completely dependent on the government. And those who own corporations will put everyone else out of business. There is no way for a small business to pay X$ for every employee to have health care. So they will close shop. The business will be sucked into a monopoly and the prices will go through the roof because there's no competition. Hope you enjoy standing in line for your bread along with your health care.
0Aug 15, '12 by cdsgaWill this ACA have a yearly cap on what you can claim? How will it sustain itself with trauma or other catastrophic illness that render people in the hospital for months? Will we also be paying into a catastrophic health addendum? No one has asked that question. Wellness initiatives sound great-but guess what...we have county health depts that do many cutrate or free screenings on a daily basis.
I know with homeowners insurance-if I have tornado damage 2-3 years in a row, they threaten to drop your coverage-and as I have personally witnessed, all the natural disasters in the country have driven up my insurance premium to pay for other's loss/claims. Will that be the same deal-constantly reassessing the rate we have to pay dependent on the amount paid out per year?
1Aug 16, '12 by SC_RNDudeQuote from joshscSorry you feel the need for a personal attack.The original post asked NO ONE of their OPINION. Opinions aren't facts. Opinions don't answer the question. But you didn't hesitate to jump in there and start bashing and looking the most unprofessional. Feel free; your credibility just keeps declining.
"3:29 pm by SC_RNDude So, those who have a different opinion then yours must be making up facts for have politicial motives? How disheartening that you believe that."
Anyway... yes, I did include some opinions as well as facts. I hate to burst your bubble, but you aren't the only one smart enough to seperate the two. I'm sure the OP and everyone else can figure it out for themselves.
All those statements in this same thread about how great the ACA is going to be are also opinions. Including when they say that healthcare quality is going to be of better quality and more affordable for everyone. My new insurance year started July 1, and unless more expensive somehow equals more affordable, those opinions are wrong.
I don't see you calling all those people unprofessional or hear you questioning their credibility.
4Aug 16, '12 by SC_RNDudeQuote from woohThere have been plenty of other ideas, including some discussed in other threads in this forum. You haven't been paying attention or taken it upon yourself to look into it.I'm asking now. TELL US. All I've heard from the right is voucher this and voucher that. Because in Paul Ryan's world, private insurance companies are going to willingly take on elderly people with pre-existing conditions? Vouchers don't work if there's nobody that will accept the vouchers. (Of course, if they die from lack of medical care, that's fewer vouchers, which will help his budget ideas.)
Here is a post I made a few weeks ago:
"What we need is true health insurance in a true healthcare market. Right now, there isn't a true market or true prices for healthcare. Insurance should be for catastophic circumstances, and people should pay for routine care out of pocket. If people bought policies based on real risk against illness, trauma, etc, insurance companies would be competing for business like they do with car, home, flood, etc. insurance. When you buy car insurance, they will pay you for damages to your car in a accident. They aren't paying for your oil changes, tune-ups, new tires, car washes, etc. They also don't tell you how to repair your car. They give you the value of your damages in cash. Then you decide how the repair will be made and by who. You control your $$$, and this leads to competition, quality, and innovation in the marketplace.
Right now health insurance companies try to enroll healthier people, and try to avoid higher risk people. This is because they have to charge the same for all. This is why many with pre-existing conditions have such a hard time getting covered. If they could charge less for lower risk people, and more for higher risk people, more people would be covered. And if they were competing against each other, they would be motivated to offer the lowest premiums they could.
Insurance companies now pay for many services that many people would pay on their own. People then consume services more often. This makes insurance and healthcare services more expensive for all.
When you are sick, you often have limited choices of who and where and how you will be treated. Limited competition equals less motivation to offer a better product at a better price.
Imagine what would happen if people paid for routine care on their own (you could still use HSA's and FSA's) and when something big happened your insurance company gave you the money to be treated. Then you decided who, what, where, and how you would be treated.
A true market for health insurance and healthcare services would equal better quality and lower healthcare costs for everyone."
I would add that insurance shouldn't be tied to your employer. You should be able to buy insurance and keep it between jobs, and they can't kick you out as long as you keep paying. As a benefit, instead of providing insurance, your employer could contribute to you HSA.