ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.obamacare

29 2389
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,532 posts
2,155

I don't know if another thread on this has been made, but I would like to ask the U.S. members (and outside opinions as well) what your position on this controversial act is? It has been voted into play, sustained by the supreme court, and even shown to be generally accepted among the people in the states. If you are republican, say why you oppose it. If you are democratt, tell me why you support it.

I myself am in full support of this new law. It will finally end people's inability to buy health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, and it will expand medicaid programs to those who need it. in texas, even though my idiot governor Rick Perry opposes it, this will benefit us the most because of a high percentage of our state's residents being in the low-income percentile, and the fact that 25% of people here have no health insurance at all, and even more have just a meager amount.

Now it is your turn...

-Blade

  • 29 Replies
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,674 posts
165

I support this because it is a necessary overhaul to the archaic health-care system that we used to (and still to an extent) have. We have people going to the ER for minor scratches or a cough because they don't have health insurance or enough money to pay for a doctor. Also, this is the 21st century. Health care should be a basic right for ALL people by now. This is the best way so far that we are able to accomplish this.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

I think there have been far to many concessions made in it but it's still a step in the right direction overall.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,461 posts
21,865

Step in the right direction. It's largely the bigger companies that lose out; smaller SMEs will be provided with much concessions in return. Only the people who somehow equate freedom as the most important thing in life and put it on a shiny pedestal to kiss daily, libertarians!, or people who are comfortable with the status quo, I.e the more well off middle class and yh rich think its a ghastly idea. Privatization has been shown to be grossly ineffective and will lead to inflated costs.

toemas
offline
toemas
348 posts
2,240

Iâm not for it because: 1# there making us it and thatâs unconstitutional

2# it will jack up taxes

3# ya see how a lot of Canadians cross the border to get medicine and doctors? Itâs because we have a great & free (I mean not government run) system that the whole world envies

4#
the government is running it.

5# there is a crap load of extra sneaky laws in the bill.


this is the 21st century. Health care should be a basic right for ALL people by now


it would be nice but IT IS NOT i right a want yes but a right no.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,332 posts
3,715

1# there making us it and thatâs unconstitutional

and change by definition is wrong?

2# it will jack up taxes

usa taxes are low. a bit more wont do you much damage.

ya see how a lot of Canadians cross the border to get medicine and doctors? Itâs because we have a great & free (I mean not government run) system that the whole world envies


no sorry, your system sucks prety much.
i know a girl from florida that broke her leg. but her parents didn't wanna pay for it so she couldn't get a helped. if it stayed like that it would have healed wrong and she would never be able to walk normal.
is that what i have to envie? no thx. i rather have my own countrys social security system.
anyway. some1 payed fot her. and she got a surgery. 3 weeks latter she had to go see a physiotherapist (way to soon). this guy applys some pressure. and dang he broke her leg again... he even kept on the pressure for 30 seconds befor letting lose. (while she was screeming it out, but i guess you'l understood that)
and the worst was. this physiotherapist does not have to pay for her second surgery. while it obviously was his fault.

that sir, is not a social system i want to be part of. and i absolutely do not envie it.

the government is running it.

and what the government does is by definition wrong.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,414 posts
14,255

Funny that, as usual, Mitt Romney changed his mind and now isn't against healthcare anymore. He would change a few aspects, sure, but keep healthcare, his version of it. Kinda shows that most people agree that the US needs one, the discrepancies are just about the details.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

system that the whole world envies


Last I checked most of the world thinks our system is a joke. I've heard things like "The US is just the richest third world nation" just because of the system we have.

Funny that, as usual, Mitt Romney changed his mind and now isn't against healthcare anymore. He would change a few aspects, sure, but keep healthcare, his version of it. Kinda shows that most people agree that the US needs one, the discrepancies are just about the details.


Last I heard his plan was to eliminate Obamacare and implement, pretty much the same exact thing. I would be willing to be if he did that new healthcare system he has in mind that is pretty much identical to Obamacare would be praised by republicans as being good.
pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
6,028 posts
1,350

and what the government does is by definition wrong.

We are people not robots. We dont need to be controlled. Freedom is what he is getting at.
and change by definition is wrong?

The Constitution? Its, you know, the old piece of paper that controls our government. Yeah, that. Things should be kept constitutional, thats how it works over here. Thats the entire purpose of the Supreme Court pretty much. (And someones gonna yell at me for saying that.... oh well) They judge whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. In this case, they judged that obamacare was constitutional and they allowed it. Does toemas agree? Sounds like he doesnt.
Obamacare would be praised by republicans as being good.

No, see, a republican would never come up with that. Most certainly not in this election. If Romney gets elected, then obviously the majority of the people agree with him. That means that the majority thinks he should scrap obamacare. He wouldnt go and make another one.
Tactical_Fish
offline
Tactical_Fish
785 posts
2,860

and change by definition is wrong?
Changing the constitution to force a person/people to use a product/service that said person/people do not want is wrong.
Thats the entire purpose of the Supreme Court pretty much.
You're entirely right, even though in this case they did their job wrong in my opinion.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

No, see, a republican would never come up with that.


Romney already has, just on a smaller scale. As governor of Michigan he had proposed healthcare acts for Michigan that had much of what Obamacare has.


If Romney gets elected, then obviously the majority of the people agree with him.


What that means is he won the popularity contest. It doesn't have to mean his stance on a single issue is in alignment with the majority.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,787 posts
300

Sorry I said Michigan, it was the Massachusetts health care reform that held similarities.

Massachusetts health care reform

OK with KILLING BABIES


Do we really need to start with this abortion bs again?
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,674 posts
165

Changing the constitution to force a person/people to use a product/service that said person/people do not want is wrong.


It's allowed, because the individual mandate (the part everyone yells about) is considered by the Court to be a tax, which is perfectly legal. It wasn't the way that Obama wanted it to be legal (he tried the interstate commerce clause), however it got the job done. It's the same as car insurance. The government forces you to have car insurance, right? Is THAT illegal?

You're entirely right, even though in this case they did their job wrong in my opinion.


And in my opinion, they got Citizens United v. FEC wrong. They basically allowed unlimited money in politics which will only benefit the Republicans (the ones trying to get low taxes for the mega-wealthy).

What that means is he won the popularity contest.


And maybe not even that. I'm not trying to derail this topic, but I HATE the electoral college. With a burning passion.

I dont like obama care or the fact that our president is OK with KILLING BABIES


So you don't like the fact that a fetus with a serious birth defect might be forced to live forever crippled? Also, Obamacare covers those with pre-existing conditions. Do you think that a kid with diabetes should be disqualified forever from having health insurance for having that disease? Because it's people like those that Obamacare helps.
nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,461 posts
21,865

No, see, a republican would never come up with that. Most certainly not in this election. If Romney gets elected, then obviously the majority of the people agree with him. That means that the majority thinks he should scrap obamacare. He wouldnt go and make another one.


Obama got his basic template from Romney's healthcare plan when he was governor. Yeah. So saying that no Republican will enact such a plan is nonsense.

And it's baloney that "rights" ought never to change. They are not static but dynamic.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,332 posts
3,715

The Constitution? Its, you know, the old piece of paper that controls our government. Yeah, that. Things should be kept constitutional, thats how it works over here. Thats the entire purpose of the Supreme Court pretty much. (And someones gonna yell at me for saying that.... oh well) They judge whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. In this case, they judged that obamacare was constitutional and they allowed it. Does toemas agree? Sounds like he doesnt.

Changing the constitution to force a person/people to use a product/service that said person/people do not want is wrong.


i don't see why it's wrong if it helps your social system.
and i don't see why the usa constitution is so holy compared whit other constitutions.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,868 posts
280

no sorry, your system sucks prety much.
i know a girl from florida that broke her leg. but her parents didn't wanna pay for it so she couldn't get a helped. if it stayed like that it would have healed wrong and she would never be able to walk normal.
is that what i have to envie? no thx. i rather have my own countrys social security system.
anyway. some1 payed fot her. and she got a surgery. 3 weeks latter she had to go see a physiotherapist (way to soon). this guy applys some pressure. and dang he broke her leg again... he even kept on the pressure for 30 seconds befor letting lose. (while she was screeming it out, but i guess you'l understood that)
and the worst was. this physiotherapist does not have to pay for her second surgery. while it obviously was his fault.

that sir, is not a social system i want to be part of. and i absolutely do not envie it.

Hell, gov. hospitals in pakistan are better than this,
I mean may be not as beautiful but they will fix you up for free in most of the cases(from a simple fever to open heart surgery).
But if you have some thing complicated like cancer or something like that,
then you've got a problem(beside the obvious)
as they might not have devices required for treatment.
Still you can go to shaukat khanam hospital, its a cancer special hospital and is free.
Showing 1-15 of 29