"Obamacare"

[doubtingmerle]

I'll tell you it is down South. Indeed, it makes Obamacare look like a waste of time and effort. Empower the states!

OK, there is a state down south somewhere that gives free healthcare to all citizens. Why don't you tell me which state this is? There are so many suffering down there without health insurance. If there was a place they could have gone and gotten free healthcare down south, where is it?

You aren't just pulling on our leg, are you?

Besides, who in their right mind would want a board of 15 men and women deciding what care you can or cannot get? I can tell you this - I would be dead if such a board existed 20 years ago.

Such a board does not exist, and is not part of Obamacare.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Less efficient, more administrative barriers, does not factor in local differences in health care needs, just for starters.

On the other hand, one could argue that having a national program means less overhead, more care standardisation, and greater purchasing/bargaining power from suppliers. Do you have anything to show that one national health program costs less and provides better care than fifty state health programs?

You have to ask - why did 60% of Americans oppose the passing of Obamacare? Why are more doctors against it? Why are so many insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies for it? The answer, is $$$$$$$$$$$.

I don't really understand Obamacare, since I won't have to work under it. All I know about it is off Wikipedia. But reading through the list of mandates, it doesn't sound too bad:

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Increased focus on preventive medicine
Increased focus on evidence-based and best-practise medicine rather than CAM and defensive medicine
Increased focus on mandating better coverage from insurers for consumers

It doesn't really sound that horrible. To be fair, I think some of the provisions could do with a bit of tweaking, but all in all it's not a bad start.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But reading through the list of mandates, it doesn't sound too bad:

Actually it sounds quite good: Page through this list: Timeline of the Affordable Care Act | HealthCare.gov

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Speak of cost.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Speak of cost.

Is this for me? Because this doesn't really answer my question. So the ACA costs more for taxpayers than the previous healthcare system. You haven't really shown that 1) the previous system was superior or even equal to the new healthcare system, and 2) that fifty separate local implementations would be better in terms of cost and care.

Also, I notice that before you said that pharmaceutical companies, insurers, and hospitals like it because of greater profit. Is that in the face of the graph you just posted, which shows a fee for pharmaceutical companies, and a fee for medical device manufacturers? You also said that doctors hate the Act because of money also. Is this in spite of the credits that doctors will get for providing cost-effective care, or do you mean the penalties that would be imposed on doctors, insurance companies, and hospitals for providing sub-standard or cost-ineffective care?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Speak of cost.

Endless circles. You posted this before, and I posted links showing the cost was minimal. You just ignore the response, and keep on posting this same stuff.

You may not need Obamacare, because you claim people in your undisclosed southern state get free healthcare from their state, but for many others, this is a serious issue.

 

[TheBear]

Why do you think Obamacare caused them to do this?

When it was said that the plan would save companies a lot of money, I knew that companies would start deciding to pay the fine and put it on the backs of the employees.


This is the reality of what Obamacare did to me. This is real life.....not theory or speculation.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Endless circles. You posted this before, and I posted links showing the cost was minimal. You just ignore the response, and keep on posting this same stuff.

You may not need Obamacare, because you claim people in your undisclosed southern state get free healthcare from their state, but for many others, this is a serious issue.

cost is minimum. you can't be serious, or you are in total denial.

What was it again that Chief Justice Roberts said would allow Obamacare to be constitutional? Oh yeah, the individual mandate is a tax, not a penalty.

 

[Assyrian]

How do you know they are receiving no care? I had relatives growing up who were diabetic, had no insurance, and they never had any problems getting access to medicines. One of the family died because he decided to ignore the doctor's order to sanitize the needles he used for injections, so he poisoned himself.

You mean people with diabetes have to reuse needles How many thousands of diabetics die every year in America from that practice?

Sorry to hear about your relative who died that way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

cost is minimum. you can't be serious, or you are in total denial.

What was it again that Chief Justice Roberts said would allow Obamacare to be constitutional? Oh yeah, the individual mandate is a tax, not a penalty.

And the tax that people pay if they refuse to get insurance is indeed minimal. You forget that. For a small fee people get guaranteed coverage in emergency rooms and are entitled to opt into insurance any time they want if they get sick. That is actually a great deal. You forgot to mention that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

cost is minimum. you can't be serious, or you are in total denial.

The CBO says it reduces the deficit. As much as you hate deficits, you should be doing a happy dance and singing joyful songs about Obama. Updated CBO Estimate Of Affordable Care Act Still Says It Will Help Many Millions And Reduce The Deficit. But Fewer Will Get Coverage If States Opt Out Of Medicaid Expansion. | The New Republic

 

[doubtingmerle]

does not factor in local differences in health care needs, just for starters.

Oh please, Obamacare allows private companies to taylor their health plans to the local communities. It is not forcing them into a one-size-fits-all mold.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Betsy McCaughey: ObamaCare's Phony Deficit Reduction - WSJ.com

 

[doubtingmerle]

Betsy McCaughey: ObamaCare's Phony Deficit Reduction - WSJ.com

Ok, there is dispute about the actual cost.

The point is that 45 million Americans had no health insurance, and 40,000 die each year because they don't have it. Yes, there is dispute about the costs, but it must surely be better than letting them die. If it turns out we can't afford it, and we have to turn them away and let them die, we will face that then, but in the meantime, if at all possible, let us show mercy on our brothers.

Romney has no plan that would make any significant difference to the uninsured. He would put them right back in the pre-Obamacare state.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

We already addressed that the study you are quoting is also disputed and from 2009.

 

[doubtingmerle]

We already addressed that the study you are quoting is also disputed and from 2009.

Is there a good reason to dispute the Harvard findings? Disputing it for no good reason does not count.

What does the date of the study matter? Are you saying that 45,000 died each year with no health insurance in 2009, but that this has stopped? If this death problem has stopped (during Obama's term) what caused it to stop? Obamacare?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Is there a good reason to dispute the Harvard findings? Disputing it for no good reason does not count.

What does the date of the study matter? Are you saying that 45,000 died each year with no health insurance in 2009, but that this has stopped? If this death problem has stopped (during Obama's term) what caused it to stop? Obamacare?

No I am saying 45,000 are not dying a year because of lack of health care. All you have is one university's study that is 3 years old. And, it has been rebutted. We already covered this before. Do we have to continue to respond to the same dis-proven things?

 

[doubtingmerle]

No I am saying 45,000 are not dying a year because of lack of health care. All you have is one university's study that is 3 years old.

What does the date have to do with it? Was it valid in 2009 or wasn't it? If you think it was valid then, why isn't it valid now?

And, it has been rebutted. We already covered this before. Do we have to continue to respond to the same dis-proven things?

Where was it rebutted? What evidence did they have that the Harvard study was wrong?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You are in fact going in circles. This thread, last night.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675968-8/#post61694463

I rest my case. I'm fully convinced you will argue to the end of time on this topic, no matter what evidence or agruments are presented to you, because it doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions on Obamacare. There is no point in further discussions, especially when you aren't reading the posts we write in this very thread.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are in fact going in circles. This thread, last night.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675968-8/#post61694463

OK, I see where you write that a conservative think tank thinks the 45,000 figure is exaggerated.

The actual study is here: http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf . They reference numerous other studies that show the effect of being uninsured on death rates.

I don't know the actual number for sure, but the answer seems obvious. If you are not insured, and don't have access to good medical care, your risk of dying for health reasons is greatly increased.