ForumsWEPRAffordable Care Act Decreed

47 3751
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,649 posts
425

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has just been ruled constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the law that would create universal health care for citizens was upheld. How do you think that this ruling will affect elections this November, and do you disagree or agree with the justices rulings?

  • 47 Replies
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,649 posts
425

One more thing...I'm watching Mitt McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) rant about how this bill was proposed in "deceit" to the American people, as the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate in the law counts as a tax under the Constitution. Do you think that the individual mandate counts as a tax as ruled by the Supreme Court? Or do you agree that it is a penalty for not obeying the law, as originally proposed by President Obama.

jeol
offline
jeol
3,845 posts
6,080

Heck yeah, America! I'm so angry right now, I'm happy.

Obama care was the greatest thing that has happened to our country, ever. Now everyone earns the same horrible health care for a higher price, which is at its finest a tax. A seriously big tax. Obama is coming up with great ways to ruin he country, and I think he most definitely should earn a medal for this! Sad that he got slapped in the face with this whole tax thing, because now this is the biggest tax increase in the history of ever. Now the rich get poor and the poor get poorer! A brilliant way to make America cheap as dirt. Too bad it's not as affordable as he claimed. Oh well, America is screwed, and I don't give a care. I'm wondering, would Japan, China, or England be best to move to? I don't have much of a preference, each seem equally good options to me.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Now the rich get poor and the poor get poorer!


Actually, if you look at the funding and where it's coming from, it's mostly from corporations, insurance companies and those with incomes ranging from 200,000 dollars and upwards, hardly 'poor'. So yes, it is a good move for the poor, who often cannot pay for the high medical bill prices later in life; and given that life expectancy is rising, it would definitely in the years to come, benefit quite a few people.

I'm wondering, would Japan, China, or England be best to move to?


You can move to China and limit your personal freedom, go to England and pay for the already long implemented healthcare plans, or go to Japan, where the government shoulders 70% of the bill.
Deth666
offline
Deth666
658 posts
85

That's all fine and dandy but how do I afford health insurance? I don't have the cash for insurance let alone the $700 in fines (tax?) I'd have to pay if I don't have it.

SSTG
offline
SSTG
12,615 posts
9,475

Oh no the poor insurance companies now have to give a decent services to their customers. No more deceit, abuse, etc. Nah, they'll still find a way to deceive their customers those greedy *******s!

jeol
offline
jeol
3,845 posts
6,080

So yes, it is a good move for the poor, who often cannot pay for the high medical bill prices later in life; and given that life expectancy is rising, it would definitely in the years to come, benefit quite a few people.

My cousin will not be able to pay for his insurance now that the 'affordable' bill is in place. I would hardly call it a good move.

Plus, it would give more options for better healthcare with the people that could afford it. You strip away the good healthcare and give a medium that somehow is supposed to work for everyone...?
You can move to China and limit your personal freedom, go to England and pay for the already long implemented healthcare plans, or go to Japan, where the government shoulders 70% of the bill.

I guess I'll go to China... I already know a bunch of people there. It'd be nice to see my friends again.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,609 posts
20,745

Haters gonna hate... I have to ask myself, what do all the doomsayer say about all those countries who already have health care and didn't crumble under it?

There will always be certain downsides to any projects, like healthcare, but in general I'm sure that society will gain from it. Because not all might be able to easily afford it, but far more people will now be able to get the medical treatment they need.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

Here are some basic FAQs on what will be going on with this put into place.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/consumers-guide-health-reform.aspx

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

If anything, we can at least see how this new plan will fare for our country so we can evolve it later. The other countries who now have a stable health care plan had troubles when first implemented, and they were small, easier-to-control countries. I was fearing for what would happen to small businesses under the law's "having to provide insurance for each full-time worker", but it looks like no small business owners will have to be under the strain. The other big benefit is the "pre-existing conditions" article. Now people with heart disease can be insured for.their.heart.disease!, it's mostly why they came for the insurance in the first place.

314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

Now people with heart disease can be insured for.their.heart.disease!, it's mostly why they came for the insurance in the first place.


Do you know why most people don't insure heart disease for people who already have heart disease? It costs money! Won't this just take money from everyone else?

If anything, we can at least see how this new plan will fare for our country so we can evolve it later.


Is it a good thing to experiment unwilling with the lives and money of your people?

Haters gonna hate... I have to ask myself, what do all the doomsayer say about all those countries who already have health care and didn't crumble under it?


Having one bad law does not make a nation crumble. I am sure you can name a law you would want to change?

There will always be certain downsides to any projects, like healthcare, but in general I'm sure that society will gain from it. Because not all might be able to easily afford it, but far more people will now be able to get the medical treatment they need.


Society will gain from it by losing money?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

My cousin will not be able to pay for his insurance now that the 'affordable' bill is in place. I would hardly call it a good move.

Plus, it would give more options for better healthcare with the people that could afford it. You strip away the good healthcare and give a medium that somehow is supposed to work for everyone...?


You call your current healthcare good? To get a basic idea of what a typical hospital admission cost for an uninsured person, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project published their study in Feb 2009 that showed: ''Hospital charges for uninsured stays grew by 76%, from an average of $11,000 to $19,400 per stay (after adjusting for inflation), compared to 69% growth in hospital charges overall.â'' And this doesnât typically include ambulance fees or things like ICU or emergency surgery.

The people who are going to pay for this are the ones who earn a quarter of a million dollars and above.

Is it a good thing to experiment unwilling with the lives and money of your people?


Which government policies have never been experiments?

Society will gain from it by losing money?


Millions are uninsured. Millions can't afford the jacked up prices of medical bills. Yes, it will help these millions. And those SMEs who pay for insurance for workers? They get tax credits. They win, the people win; and the real losers are corrupted insurance companies and the rich.
jeol
offline
jeol
3,845 posts
6,080

The people who are going to pay for this are the ones who earn a quarter of a million dollars and above.

So, let the rich go bankrupt so that the poor can pay their medical bills? Those things actually do cost money, but while I agree that medical bills can be insane, they shouldn't have to rely on the government to ask for money. They should ask people to help them. Sure, the money still goes from one pocket to another (maybe a little longer in the going, but it still ends up there), but you can help out people you want without the government accidentally making you bankrupt while helping people.

This is all a ruse to push socialism, and while I agree with the underlying notion, it does not really make daisies with the real world. If everybody worked and earned what they needed and actually cared for everyone else, this wouldn't be a problem. (Actually, you wouldn't need socialism if everyone automatically supported anyone else anyways, and you wouldn't need government.) So really, all a socialist government is doing is making the rich go bankrupt, encouraging people to go lazy because they get support, and putting money were people probably don't want it to go. It's more of a leech than social support.

Here's how my cousin explained his situation:
So glad that the health care bill passed. Now I went from not being able to afford health care, to being even further away from being able to afford health care. Now that people can't be refused for pre existing conditions (essentially not making it insurance any more) premiums will rise dramatically making it even less affordable for me to purchase. then to top it off I'll get fined by the government for not being able to afford health insurance, making it even less possible for me to afford it in the first place. Brilliant work government. Brilliant.

All sunshine and daisies, right?
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

Which government policies have never been experiments?


The ones we have during recessions? If you want to experiment with the welfare and money of the people, you should probably do it when people have money.

Millions are uninsured


Isn't that their own fault?

Millions can't afford the jacked up prices of medical bills


So logically, we should forcibly take money from everyone else to pay for them?

Yes, it will help these millions


And the law of equivalent exchange says that someone has to lose the money for them to make money. So isn't this just "helping" people at the expense of other people?

And those SMEs who pay for insurance for workers? They get tax credits.


Great! So more money has to come from somewhere else!

They win, the people win; and the real losers are corrupted insurance companies and the rich.


Ah yes! I forgot that insurance companies and rich people where not people. Silly me, thinking that they where people?

Your taking money unwillingly from people, regardless if they are "Rich" or not, and giving it to other people. Last I checked, that is called "stealing".

So logically next we should use other peoples money for other things we need. You know what we need more then health care? Food! Millions go without food in America. Probably. So logically we should go to some random rich persons house, take all their food, and give it to random poor people! Everyone knows that rich guys are not people! And of course people need transportation, so lets take their car and give it away! Yay!
314d1
offline
314d1
3,857 posts
0

So, let the rich go bankrupt so that the poor can pay their medical bills?


Lets say that that did happen. Somehow, the rich with plenty of money, ran completely out of money. Wouldn't this help them pay their medical bills then?

Those things actually do cost money, but while I agree that medical bills can be insane, they shouldn't have to rely on the government to ask for money. They should ask people to help them.


Ah yes, people! The logical thing would be to ask the rich people to give them money. Since rich people do that all the time, and you can go so far in a bed attacked to a blood tank.

Sure, the money still goes from one pocket to another (maybe a little longer in the going, but it still ends up there), but you can help out people you want without the government accidentally making you bankrupt while helping people.


Yeah! Then lets replace all of the government duties with donation boxes! Military? Lets just go ask people for money! I am sure they will give tones. Education? Lets just go ask people! We will become a Mecca of knowlage! Police forces? Lets just go ask people!

The thing is protecting their citizens is the duty of the government, and this law is made to help the citizens, the same as the police forces and the military. So logically they should all run on the same system, the most effective system.

This is all a ruse to push socialism, and while I agree with the underlying notion, it does not really make daisies with the real world


Yes. That is all this is. They don't actually believe they are helping anyone, they just want to push socialism on you. Because they are evil like that.

If everybody worked and earned what they needed and actually cared for everyone else, this wouldn't be a problem. (Actually, you wouldn't need socialism if everyone automatically supported anyone else anyways, and you wouldn't need government.)


Yeah! If we all worked together like they say we should, and give our money to help people, we wouldn't need this! Now lets go ask for money instead! Since that apparently is less idealistic!

So really, all a socialist government is doing is making the rich go bankrupt, encouraging people to go lazy because they get support, and putting money were people probably don't want it to go. It's more of a leech than social support.


Yep. The people who need healthcare badly enough to not be able afford it? They are not laying in their beds because they are horrible injured and need healthcare. They are just lazy. And who wants money to go to HELPING THE POOR! I would much rather have my money to go into something like...I don't know. Whatever taxes go to when they don't go to helping people. And of course the rich get bankrupt, after all, how are they going to be able to afford that slightly raised tax?

Here's how my cousin explained his situation:


I don't know about your cousin, but my cousins are emo drunks. One even gave themselves a piercing. Over the eye. In an airport bathroom. Both have children, one was married but divorced. Both are single mothers as far as I know. Not exactly people I would take advice from, so why should I listen to your cousin when I won't even listen to mine?

All sunshine and daisies, right?


Maybe he should go ask someone for money?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

So, let the rich go bankrupt so that the poor can pay their medical bills?


How much money do you think these rich people will have to give up for this?


This is all a ruse to push socialism


Just like government funded roads, fire fighting services, police protection, military for national defense...

Isn't that their own fault?


Not in all cases. Many it's the result of them having preexisting conditions resulting in being unable to be insured for what they need it for. Others are simply to broke to afford even basic insurance, again for a variety of reasons. Some might have had insurance and the insurance company may have pulled some bs resulting in the loss of that insurance. (usually when it comes to pony up.) That;s just to name a few reasons off the top of my head.

So logically, we should forcibly take money from everyone else to pay for them?


When people who are uninsured dye or aren't able to fully pay those exorbitant bills resulting in them going unpaid who do you think has to foot the bill in the end?

Ah yes! I forgot that insurance companies and rich people where not people. Silly me, thinking that they where people?


Rich yes, companies shouldn't be treated as people.

You know what we need more then health care? Food! Millions go without food in America. Probably. So logically we should go to some random rich persons house, take all their food, and give it to random poor people!


Actually I would be in favor of government run food pantries in cities that could provide food for everyone who couldn't afford it.
Showing 1-15 of 47