AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → obamacare

29 8133
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,488 posts
Blacksmith

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
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,825 posts
Nomad

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.

For most of the people who use this argument, its not the constitution that is holy but Washingtons and Benjamins in their pockets that are.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,132 posts
Jester

For most of the people who use this argument, its not the constitution that is holy but Washingtons and Benjamins in their pockets that are.


they act like it's holy.
thats what i mend.
toemas
offline
toemas
339 posts
Farmer

It's the same as car insurance. The government forces you to have car insurance, right? Is THAT illegal?


But you can pick Witch Company you want what kind of plan you want or you donât have to drive! (just get your mom to drive you lol ) but with obamacare you HAVE to have it no if and or buts and itâs not like you can say oh i want this kind of obamacare or oh i want it this way or oh i donât want obamacare nope you have to have it no if ands or buts.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,987 posts
Grand Duke

But you can pick Witch Company you want what kind of plan you want or you donât have to drive! (just get your mom to drive you lol ) but with obamacare you HAVE to have it no if and or buts and itâs not like you can say oh i want this kind of obamacare or oh i want it this way or oh i donât want obamacare nope you have to have it no if ands or buts.


And that is a problem? It might circumvent your ''freedom'', as if it were the sole sacred good in life, but it provides much better healthcare plans than the crap that people have now. You may not like it, but the vast masses of poor who cannot afford such luxuries will appreciate it.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

And that is a problem? It might circumvent your ''freedom'', as if it were the sole sacred good in life, but it provides much better healthcare plans than the crap that people have now.


The problem with national healthcare is that it takes the approach that healthcare is so costly that we must find alternative means to pay for said costs. The problem here is that healthcare is costly, and the plan doesn't look for a way to lower costs, but instead to cover the costs.

Even if I thought universal healthcare was a necessary means, I believe should have found ways to decrease healthcare costs before implementing such a system.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,987 posts
Grand Duke

The problem with national healthcare is that it takes the approach that healthcare is so costly that we must find alternative means to pay for said costs. The problem here is that healthcare is costly, and the plan doesn't look for a way to lower costs, but instead to cover the costs.


One of the frequent criticisms of Obamacare is that it only addressed the access to healthcare issue, not the massive cost issue crushing personal, business and government budgets. But Obamacare does tackle the problem not just by making up the costs, but aiming to reduce it.

Obamacare has a far better approach: reduce health-care costs by providing better care and promoting better health.

The law does this by targeting the underlying drivers of high health-care costs: It supports and rewards caregivers for preventing complications of care, like health-care-associated infections, which saves both lives and money. The CMS, for example, has set ambitious goals to reduce complications that, if met, would save 60,000 lives and $35 billion in just three years. The law also emphasizes preventive care and cracks down hard on waste and fraud. Last year the government recaptured a record $4 billion. It fosters transparency, so everyone can tell the best performers from the rest.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Obamacare has a far better approach: reduce health-care costs by providing better care and promoting better health.


If that's the case, if healthcare is going to be cheaper, then why is it a crime not to be a part of the system? It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand why it would be illegal to financially distance yourself from something.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Just to clarify, shouldn't we find ways to reduce healthcare costs so we don't have to resort to making criminals out of good people?

Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,488 posts
Blacksmith

If that's the case, if healthcare is going to be cheaper, then why is it a crime not to be a part of the system? It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand why it would be illegal to financially distance yourself from something.


it's not a crime, just a tax. it isn't illegal, but the goal of the tax is to encourage the purchase of health insurance. you can stay away from the system, but you should only do that if you have deep pockets.

the aim of having both insurance and cheaper healthcare is to make the payments for the common man as close to 0 as possible. I don't know about you, but my wallet will be thanking me for taking part in the system.

-Blade
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

it's not a crime, just a tax. it isn't illegal, but the goal of the tax is to encourage the purchase of health insurance. you can stay away from the system, but you should only do that if you have deep pockets.

the aim of having both insurance and cheaper healthcare is to make the payments for the common man as close to 0 as possible. I don't know about you, but my wallet will be thanking me for taking part in the system.

-Blade


Okay, I'm glad you feel that way. You can't speak for everyone.

If you, and others who feel the same way as you do, want to be a part of a system, you should become a part of said system. However, those who want nothing to do with it should be allowed to opt out.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

Just to clarify, shouldn't we find ways to reduce healthcare costs so we don't have to resort to making criminals out of good people?

Criminals... what? Anyway, yes, that certainly should be a goal, but in the meantime obligatory healthcare is a good alternative.

If you, and others who feel the same way as you do, want to be a part of a system, you should become a part of said system. However, those who want nothing to do with it should be allowed to opt out.

Don't you see any long-term benefits for the whole of society, including you, with healthcare? I think there are, and that it is only reasonable to make all of the country contribute.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Don't you see any long-term benefits for the whole of society, including you, with healthcare? I think there are, and that it is only reasonable to make all of the country contribute.


If I hold a gun to you face and buy medicine for your illness, you should be allowed to sue me and I should be imprisoned. It may be beneficial to humanity to force them into good health, but coercion is not the answer.

To coerce others into buying healthcare is a statement that you know better than everyone else, therefore you should have the power to tell everyone else what to do. Let people make their own decisions and use education and other means to help others.

There are starving children in Africa, am I justified in stealing money to provide food to those children? No, I am not. Why should it be any different for healthcare?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,987 posts
Grand Duke

If that's the case, if healthcare is going to be cheaper, then why is it a crime not to be a part of the system? It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't understand why it would be illegal to financially distance yourself from something.


The wording of the law as a ''crime'' is to increase coverage. You're missing the point. The government doesn't care about minuscule control, it doesn't care if individuals choose not to get healthcare, and hence because of such poor foresight, by chance die in the future due to bad choices. It can't give two hoots about interfering in your little life.

It cares about the consequences of these actions on society as a whole. Healthcare is a good with positive externalities that we are not always aware of, or at the very least do not care about. When humans make economic choices, we most likely only take into account private costs/benefits. I.e private marginal costs and private marginal benefits. We do not take into account what society stands to lose or gain. Healthcare does provide benefits for the individual, but it helps society. People are less afflicted with illness, worker productivity goes up, less subsidies are needed to cover their treatment in society, etc etc.

We underconsume healthcare, just like we underconsume almost all goods with positive externalities. This leads to a deadweight loss, a loss in welfare to society as a whole as seen in the diagram below.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_c-n0myYucLQ/Sr-4fW_wKKI/AAAAAAAAAXs/yCIysH_7NKQ/s400/pos.+externalities.jpg

There is a divergence between MPC and MSB (Social Marginal Benefit) if we follow market forces solely, which ends up at the equilibrium quantity of Qmkt. The red triangle represents the deadweight loss; ideally to maximise efficiency and benefit, quantity consumed should be at Qaff, at point M. Making healthcare compulsory pushes this up, and society as a whole benefits.

If I hold a gun to you face and buy medicine for your illness, you should be allowed to sue me and I should be imprisoned. It may be beneficial to humanity to force them into good health, but coercion is not the answer.


You're exaggerating it. It's just a penalty to companies.

To coerce others into buying healthcare is a statement that you know better than everyone else, therefore you should have the power to tell everyone else what to do. Let people make their own decisions and use education and other means to help others.


Education has a long gestation period, or doesn't work. Environmental education has been here for years, yet people still leave such huge carbon footprints, refuse to recycle, and the lot.

There are starving children in Africa, am I justified in stealing money to provide food to those children? No, I am not. Why should it be any different for healthcare?


This isn't even a valid comparison/analogy. There's hardly a link here. Obamacare is not ''stealing'' money to fund itself; it is raising taxes through a variety of ways, such as taxing those corrupt insurance companies.
ellock
offline
ellock
385 posts
Blacksmith

I think the thought is good and it may turn out alright. I am just highly skeptical on the actual doing side of it. I am not a big Obama fan so I am naturally not to excited to see how it will play out. I think the thought is a good idea though and with a little tweaking I think it would end up fine.

Showing 16-29 of 29