The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, just move to another country, then.

The individual mandate is obviously unconstitutional. The implications of it being found constitutional would be simply scary. We'd officially be a fascist country.

The mandate was basically the glue of Obamacare. It essentially was a bribe to the insurance companies to get rid of preexisting conditions, to let kids stay on their parents health insurance until age 27, etc. Without it, prices would sky rocket. That said, prices would go up regardless since Obamacare did nothing to curb the exponentially rising costs.

Good riddance.

But you might have to give up the roof over your head, or even your life, if you run into a situation where there's no way you can afford necessary medical treatment. In no other major industrialized nation are the wealthy considered more worthy to obtain necessary life-saving treatments than the poor. In the US the motto is "if you have money we'll help you, if not well f**k you". We are the land of "rugged individualism" and survival of the fittest.

Can you actually explain why costs are higher in the US than anywhere else and rising exponentially (and don't mention malpractice lawsuits as that is total BS).

the sky is falling! run!

Oh, and your argument would look a less like lunacy and more like rational opposition if you didn't exaggerate and misrepresent things like that...

You might end up with a bill for $50,000 and have to lose the roof over your head to pay it. You better make sure you're wealthy before having an emergency situation. If you are poor you are s**t out of luck and nobody cares. Maybe you have family and friends who are willing to help you out. However, what if you were an outcast with no family and a complete loner? Tough s**t. You're just a loser. Society doesn't care unless you got money. That seems like the direction we're going in this country. Families are disintegrating, people no longer feel obliged to help their neighbors.

Good video by Dr. Ron Paul
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY[/youtube]

Insurance companies being exempt from anti-trust laws, being restricted to only insurance companies within your own state which means there isn't much competition, and the fact that taxes have to pay for people who are uninsured and/or can't cover the bills. And malpractice lawsuits aren't BS. They're forced to do a whole bunch of unnecessary tests just to avoid getting sued, so please enlighten me on what's BS about it. Ridiculous government regulations forcing doctors to perform unnecessary tests were implemented as a result of ridiculous lawsuits. It has nothing to do with screwing the poor over since reforms can make it more affordable for everyone.

@ Jacoby: Nice vid. If there was a third party and I lived in the states I'd definitely vote for the dude.

Do you know why this is the case?

Good video. Always was a fan of Ron Paul

Big Brother. That's the root of a lot of the problems with the health care system in the states. Now if the government is the effect rather than the cause, then I dunno where else to start. I'm not just saying "SMALL GOVERNMENT HURR HURR" either, I've already stated the reasons for the costs, most of which involve the government.

I've watched the Ron Paul video. I see him making a lot of claims but not providing good evidence to back himself up. He does not explain why people in the US are, on average, forced to pay more for health insurance than people in countries with government run medical insurance programs for the same amount of care. If he can't even address this fact his whole argument that all government solutions are more problematic falls flat on its face.

He also needs to show some better proof that an unfettered free-market industry will provide and better and fairer system than those countries with government run single-payer systems. As of now his claims are completely untried and unproven. I am a scientific minded person. I require evidence, not simplistic free-market propaganda.

You are incorrect. Your assumed answer is actually the exact opposite of true. It is an interesting illustration of the blind assumption on the Right that any problem in existence stems from too much government interference.

The reason why you can't buy insurance plans across state lines is because of our decentralized federal system. The national government does not directly regulate health insurance companies (at least not up until the recent bill). It has been left largely as a "states' rights" issue, which means we have 50 different sets of laws and regulations for health insurance. A health plan which conforms to Wyoming's laws may not conform to California's laws, and vice versa. Thus, health insurance companies cannot sell the same plan across state lines. Now, the obvious solution to this would be to have the federal government responsible for regulating the insurance industry, and we would have one consistent set of laws, and sitting down here in Florida I could quite easily purchase a health plan from some company in Massachussetts or Texas.

The Republicans rejected this proposal. They wannted a system where every state would still have its own laws, but a company based in one state could sell plans conforming to that state's laws all across the country. This means that insurance companies would huddle in whatever state had the least patient-friendly laws (and would buy that state government to ensure it stayed that way) and sell the same crap to everyone else all across the country. If you were unhappy with the laws and regulations concerning health insurance, you would not be able to petition your representatives (or elect new ones) to fix it, because in all probability you do not live in the state that gets to decide what the health care laws are. The result would be massive disenfranchisement accompanied by a signficant reduction in the quality of medical care, as insurance companies would simply not pay for anything.

The PPACA did include a provision allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, pursuant to agreements established between state governments to set up health insurance exchanges where plans would conform to the laws of both states. Unwieldy compared to the simple federal solution, but it's still an improvement.

To the true Libertarian, "fair" is a four-letter word.

The emergency health care won't help you much if your spouse or child has cancer. I was one of the fortunate ones to have a good insurance plan with my employer. I had a child that lived 51 days in a hospital. Without the insurance my bill would have been $300,000. You really, really, can't understand the need for whatever healthcare is available until you find yourself in this position.

My neighbors across the street had fairly good jobs with no healthcare benefits available. They had a child with health issues that survived, but lost their home in the process. They were not eligible for any assistance.

I was fortunate not to have to see a Doctor for a streak of 23 years, but my wife had a chronic health issue, which meant that my job prospects were limited to ones that offered insurance benefits. I'm one of the lucky ones that kept a job like this.

As far as liberty goes, much of your freedom can be taken away when you are tied down to jobs that offer health benefits. Good luck on starting a business and possibly offering jobs to others, if you can't afford or qualify for private insurance.

Most of the people that visit this website understand how hard it is to get a job and keep anyjob with an ASD. It is clear from reading the posts. I might be wrong, but I would put their chances of landing a job with health care benefits in the current job market as being low and many may never have a job with health care benefits.

I would have liked to have seen a better plan than what we have, but the "obamacare" that we see now may be the last chance we will see in the US for many to actually get healthcare coverage in their lifetime.

Yes, the opportunity to get a job with health insurance is out there, and if you have an ASD and are high functioning you might be one of the strong that gets and keeps the job, but on the other hand you might find yourself in a situation that means life or death to a family member.

The current judge that declared the law unconstitutional is not blocking the current law during the appeal process. It is not likely than any judge is going to block the law regardless of their ruling.

It would mean thousands of people would lose their current coverage under the law; much easier to give the ultimate decision for that to the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court make a decision that takes that coverage away? Will a new Congress or new President take anyone's coverage away from them? "Obamacare" may take a new form, but if nothing else, I feel confident that at least it will be easier for some to qualify for coverage as a result of "Obamacare". This is already a reality; let's see if anyone will take the coverage away.

And as far as who is going to pay for all of this. In my opinion a truly patriotic person, with the means, would stand up and say yes, if my hardworking neighbor's child can get the care he or she needs, despite the inability of my neighbor to get a job with health benefits, I WILL PAY MORE TAXES. Chances of this happening; little to none. The deficit will continue to grow, until everyone who is able, is willing to pay the nations way.

Last edited by aghogday on 01 Feb 2011, 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.