Forums → WEPR → Affordable Care Act Decreed
| 47 | 15719 |
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
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.
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 'oor'. 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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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 "re-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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
Here's how my cousin explained his situation:
How much does your cousin make in a year? If he makes under $14,404 he is eligible for Madicaid under PPACA. If he makes under $43,320 he is eligible for government subsidies to help pay for the insurance. I would think if he is making more than that a year he should be able to afford even basic health care. If he is really totally broke he is exempt from the tax penalty (not sure how poor you have to be for that.)
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.
Witch of course they don't offer for because they are near guaranteed to need the money. If health insurance worked like that, you would have to raise the cost of everyone else's do to the fact that they are losing money on that.
Others are simply to broke to afford even basic insurance, again for a variety of reasons.
Not only paying for the people who are definitely going to need service- but paying for the people who literally contribute nothing to the pot that pays for all this? Won't this mean that someone else has lower, poorer coverage while they end up paying more?
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.)
I would like to see some examples of this.
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?
The next of kin?
Rich yes, companies shouldn't be treated as people.
Why not? Got to go.
I understand the critiques against Obamacare even less now since I read that almost 90% of American already have some sort of health insurance, through work, purchased individually or other means. If only 10% have to get one now, and I assume a big part of them have the means to do so, I don't think this piece of solidarity is as expensive as many think.
You must be logged in to post a reply!