How Obamacare affects you in 2014 and Beyond

[FayeforCure]

How Obamacare affects you in 2014 and Beyond

July 14, 2012

By: Faye Armitage


The Supreme court recently gave the green light to full implementation of Obamacare starting in 2014, ruling that the mandate to buy health care insurance was constitutional. Now that this is settled, many Americans are trying to figure out the specifics for their situation. So what exactly does the mandate mean?

http://www.examiner.com/article/how-obamacare-affects-you-2014-and-beyond

[fsquid]

Certainly portrays Obamacare in the most favorable way possible. Actually, of all the favorable stuff listed in the article, there is very little that I oppose. It's the bad stuff that the article fails to mention that is why I oppose the bill.

You can make most anything look good if all you talk about is the good stuff. An article giving equal time to the bad stuff would be useful.

[finehoe]

An article giving equal time to the bad stuff would be useful.

How about linking to one for us.

[fsquid]

I don't need to link articles at all.  Three downsides off the top of my hear would be the falicy that this will reduce the deficit (please don't link the CBO analysis as it is flawed beyond belief), the rationing of care (this is why Canadians come to the US and the Brits go to France when they need something done that is beyond basic), and the elimination of Health Spending Accounts (which no one is talking about).

I am totally supportive of providing at least a basic level of health care for everyone. I have no problem with the 80% that are currently happy with their health care paying more so that the other 20% can have health insurance. What I am not willing to do is to reduce access and quality for 80% of the population in order to improve those things for 20%.

There is a reason why this bill was phased in over several years, with many parts not taking effect until after the 2012 elections. Give out the good parts first, get the people hooked on them, and then when the bad parts kick in they will be conditioned to accept them.

[finehoe]

I don't need to link articles at all. 

So in other words, this is just your opinion on what the "bad" things will be.

[JeffreyS]

USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.

Obviously we will have some hurdles to deal with. Most notably the amount of Doctors we have has been populated to meet the current need.  Whereas new demand (the real job creator) will bring more to the market it will take time. 

It seems like most objections now are the idea of letting better delay good.

[fsquid]

I don't need to link articles at all. 

So in other words, this is just your opinion on what the "bad" things will be.

The article linked is just an opinion piece too.  we could go through the CBO analysis if you want to but it would probably make for some boring reading.  add to the fact that all it did was crunch numbers given to them by congressional leaders, it is probably a waste of time too.

The rationing of care part come from what democrats have said in their support of Obamacare, that we are trying to copy the UK and Canada.  So we are copying bad systems, not a good one. More particularly, we are combining the worst feature of our current system (health care remains tied to employment) with the worst feature of failed single-payer/single-provider systems (decisions by government bureaucrats interfering with the doctor-patient relationship).

[buckethead]

Most of us struggle with our partisan tendencies. I don't begrudge partisans for being partisan.

HOWEVER... I do ask for intellectual honesty. I get that Democrats are circling the wagons. I get that Democrats prefer Obama to Romney. ( I do too as far as that goes. Reason? So far, despite continual drum beating, no attack on Iran. With a republican in office, I think we would already have attacked. A hunch... no real evidence.)

How anyone can honestly see PIGPACT as anything more than forced servitude to an already corrupt health insurance/health care industry is remarkable.

...."But there's good stuff in the bill too!"

[finehoe]

we are trying to copy the UK and Canada. 

The UK has a National Health Service, which is government-funded.
Canada has a single-payer system.

Obamacare is neither, so how is what they do even relevant?

[JeffreyS]

I think you are right Bucket if you see Obamacare as the permanent endgame. I think we will see the public option follow.

fsquid this is not a copy of the UK/ Canadian system more of a poor man's copy of the German system.

[finehoe]

USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-16/health-care-tax/56256676/1

[fsquid]

USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-16/health-care-tax/56256676/1

yes, I'm sure those corporations will just eat the increased taxes. Surely, they will not increase the price of their services/products to keep their bottom line the same.

[fsquid]

we are trying to copy the UK and Canada. 

The UK has a National Health Service, which is government-funded.
Canada has a single-payer system.

Obamacare is neither, so how is what they do even relevant?

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier.  Obama and other leading democrats have made it pretty clear that their objective is to morph into a "single-payer" system (their term but I think they really mean either single-payer like Canada or single-provider like UK). The doctor appointed by Obama to head a major medical program (Medicare or Medicaid, IIRC, don't remember which one and googling on a Blackberry isn't the easiest) has stated openly his admiration for UK and Canada and his desire to take us there. Dennis Kucinich made it pretty clear that Obama promised him we would go there in order to get his vote for Obamacare and I may not agree with him on much but I do think he is honest. Those are objective, verifiable facts.

[finehoe]

Those are objective, verifiable facts.

Yet nowhere in the law that was passed by both house of Congress, signed into law by the President, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court does it say that at some future date the law will "morph" into either system, so your speculation on what *might* happen is worthless.

[buckethead]

Those are objective, verifiable facts.

Yet nowhere in the law that was passed by both house of Congress, signed into law by the President, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court does it say that at some future date the law will "morph" into either system, so your speculation on what *might* happen is worthless.

You see, Finehoe... I actually believe what you typed.

Most progressives believe this is a piecemeal step towards single payer, or it's cousin-in-law.

Pragmatically, I believe ObamaCare (PIGPACT) is what it is. There is nothing within the bill to remedy potential problems, likewise there is no provision which would ensure a single payer system when insurance premiums inevitably go all exponential on that ass.

Who knows what congress will look like in a few years, or what the next few presidents will conjure up?

If history is any guide...