IF Obamacare worked, would you support it?

If extra terrestrial aleins were friendly and good looking would you date one?
That is about as pertinent a question as yours. "works" is an insufficient descriptor as it could mean a wide variety of things depending on who you ask.

 

The entire system is horribly broken and needs to be taken out behind the barn and shot. Yet the ACA seeks instead to make this horrid mess twice as large and just to make things a little worse, add infinite layers of bureaucracy and politics to the mix. The deeper objections that I have come from working IN this very system. I am a healthcare provider and work at a federally funded clinic. I will tell you unequivocally this is NOT working. This is not a difficult concept to me, but somehow it seems to elude people-WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES. We are grossly understaffed and seeing far beyond the numbers of patients than is beneficial for the patients. Quality of care goes down proportionally with the decrease of time spent with patients. Providing care for everyone is a lovely fluffy clouds and rainbows idealistic thought, but the reality is that instead of providing a service to all, you are creating a system that does a great DISSERVICE to everyone, especially those already in this disaster of a healthcare system. The motto of ACA should be "Worse care for everyone, but at least everyone gets screwed". This system eliminates any semblance of personal responsibility, and makes everyone pay for people's poor choices. I have no problem with making a blanket statement, as I feel I am qualified to do so, the people who pay nothing for healthcare are the first to abuse, and overuse it. They are also far more likely to be non compliant with treatment plans, frequently "lose" costly medications and demand new prescriptions, and refuse to make diet and lifestyle changes to cure/prevent/improve their diseases. We also see low income patients who do not qualify for medicaid on a sliding fee scale. Many pay only $10-20 for an office visit including all required blood work. The rate of compliance in these people is SHOCKINGLY higher. Just a very small amount of personal responsibility makes a HUGE difference. Every person should contribute back to the system, and be held accountable for their own personal choices. Money should NOT be spent on thousands of new IRS workers to interpret this disaster, it should be spent on patient education, scholarships and loan repayment for medical students, building of more medical schools, and staff for struggling clinics. There should be incentive for taking care of yourself and making healthy choices and penalties for making poor choices.
Bottom line..Government is the worst hurdle to good health care since unfiltered cigarettes. Wildly inefficient like all government run agencies, and now being forced down our throats, it will make this nightmare of a healthcare system even worse and I assure you that it will eventually affect you (unless you are a government official and exempt from its poisonous reach). Things are already getting much worse. But let me know how you like it when you have to wait 3 hours to see a provider for 6.25 minutes and then wait 4 months for a needed test. Or when you are misdiagnosed 3 times and end up dying because your provider did not have adequate time to talk to you. DMV/IRS style medicine. That's what you want? Really?? Fantastic..Having some chest pain? please fill out these 546 pages and take a number and have a seat. o.0

 

Absolutely, yes I support it. Despite the large number of vocal right wing trolls spouting their immature vitriol on the internet, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the specific components of the ACA. They've just been deafened by the screaming of the right wing nuts about the evils of 'Obamacare'. Well guess what? Obama does care! Unlike the fascist republican libertarinuts who would rather the weak, sick, poor, and elderly just crawl into an alley and die to satisfy their twisted selfish social darwinism.

Funny story. My wife and I had dinner with a friend who makes a precarious living pumping concrete and lives in his mom's trailer. We paid for dinner of course. The conversation turned to the ACA and he declared, "They can put fine me or put me in jail if they want 'cause I'm not giving the government a dime for insurance! I'll get my health care from a local clinic!" So I asked him how much he made approximately per year. He hemmed and hawwed but finally admitted, "About $8,000." We both smiled and told him, "That means you qualify for Medicaid under The ACA! Your healthcare will be FREE!"
"Of course if you want you can choose not to go the clinic when you're sick." I added.

 

Well, shed have to be a very good looking alien.

I have defined the term 'works' in this thread to be in terms of coverage and cost. The purpose of the thread is get down to fundamental objections.

 

"Government" cannot accomplish something so simple as enacting and equally applying a fair tax code without allowing it to balloon into a convoluted, 70,000 page monstrosity.... enforcing immigration law.... managing and directing a trillion dollar "stimulus" towards "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs, or...despite trillions worth of military assets...effectively prosecute a war.. or even intimidate an enemy.

but we're expected to believe government assuming oversight over 16% of the economy will be smooth sailing.

Bridge, meet buyer.

 

WHy do you righties get PWNED so bad by the people who are using you?

"Actual Experience"?
Please name the countries that have gone from national health plans to private medicine?
You are basing your argument on wishful thinking, and being willfully deluded by factoids.
Has it escaped you that every modern democracy has some form of national health, and there has never been the political will to scale it back.
That is the "Actual Experience", people like it, they want it, and they don't want to change to most expensive form of medicine on the planet that delivers less than they currently get.

 

Hmmm Tax codes, immigration, stimulus bill, war.....

Is that your fundamental objection? Just thats its got something to do with your own government?

I must say the system youve got is the most and will remain one of the most private systems in the world. And your government has done many many great and complicated tasks.

 

The purpose is obviously to try to claim that Obama aversion in general is to blame for the objection to Obamacare, but when we know the facts, that just sounds ridiculous.

This was a bill passed by Obama bots who did not even read it first. His own Health and Human Services Secretary doubts it can be successfully implemented.

There are MANY MANY reasons not to like this junk peice of legislation.

And why the waivers given to people who financed his campaign?
Why the exception for Congress and the Pres himself?

 

Not that I would ever be in support of federally run universal healthcare..But one BIG issue you overlook, every other modern democracy has something we do not. Secure borders and well regulated immigration. ALL of the people on their universal health care are contributors. Instead we have a very large percentage of usage of "free" healthcare, by people who contribute nothing. Would ANY other modern democracy allow that?

 

Its only "a bit much" if a person doesn't understand and appreciate a free society.

The IRS targets conservative groups for harrassment, denies them tax exempt status which affects donations to conservative causes. They ask conservative groups for donor lists complete with names and addresses--making donors a potential target of the IRS. They ask things a group might pray about, what people they are associated with. They illegally send information to liberal think tank groups that use the information to target conservatives for propaganda stories. High profile donors to Romney were harrassed with several "over the top" audits and intimidation. Its all documented and easy for you to see if you care.

The IRS will be the enforcement arm of ObamaCare and the people in charge of harrassing groups and people because of what speech they made, who they endorsed for office and what ideology they have----will still be in power when Obamacare is implemented. Only the IRS will have even more power.

And you don't see a problem with that. This is because I assume---you don't mind a government that has the power to intimidate people and businesses into supporting only approved candidates and causes. With that in mind....Obamacare would work for you fine.

Covering all Americans with what?? Why are so many groups that understand what the coverage is---trying to be exempt from its "benefits"?

 

Your question is sort of like asking if I would ride a dog if it were a pony.

 

France and the UK have large numbers of illegal immigrants and national health systems.


What you have to realize is that the US health care system is nearly twice as expensive as the next most expensive system.
And it's not twice as expensive because 2% of the population (the undocumented workers) are receiving free care, because that 2% has lower health care costs than almost any other demographic. Because they are very healthy, the sick ones stay in Mexico.
'

 

Bridge buyer.... right on time. http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html

Those are biggies.....

shall I add the soon to be insolvent Social Security, the billions in entitlement / transfer payment fraud.... the fecklessness, lies and cover-ups surrounding Benghazi and Fast & Furious.... the incredibly lackadaisical handling of taxpayers' money in regards to "green" industries.... the systemic corruption and fraud within the IRS.... the systemic intimidation of the Fourth Estate?

it's only your health care dollars....and your health.... these elitist boobs want to oversee.

what on earth could possibly go wrong?

 

Um no this thread isnt about trying to point out partisanship.

Indeed you can ask many questions that have no answer or have answers you cant be bothered to look up.

But could you stick to the thread premise? Am I asking too much?

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmmm, works in healthcare but cannot put paragraph in a posting. Try just getting to the heart of the matter of this thread.

 

Nah its not, its a simple question you cant be bothered to answer because either youre too tired or you simply dont respect your fellow forum members enough to give them your considered thoughts when they politely ask for them.

 

Interesting that you think its relevant to bring up these apparent criticisms of government.

So, despite all this stuff.......IF Obamacare worked would you support it?

 

Tell me how it could 'work'.

 

Ok I'll give you an answer. What was the primary objective of Obamacare? To extend health insurance coverage to most of the uninsured. In order to accomplish this worthy objective Obamacare turns the world upside down for most Americans. I have already been adversely affected. Millions upon millions will now suffer.

It wasn't necessary to tear the country apart in order to provide health care coverage to the uninsured. There has been a corrupt bargain between the left and the right in which the left allowed the right to maintain a gargantuan military if the left could create a welfare state at home. The corrupt bargain can no longer be paid for.

What Obama should have done was to proceed incrementally so as not to tear the country apart. He could have funded an expansion of health care coverage by cutting the size of the military to the extent necessary to fund the *******n program.

So the answer is that even if it worked I would oppose Obamacare because it wasn't necessary to rip the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing country apart in order to achieve the objectives of Obamacare.

 

Though that deserves a thread of its own I will if you answer and discuss the premise of the thread first.

 

Nations with govt run HC will let you die if it is cheaper. You will me given meds for certain conditions instead of surgery depending on your age an relative value to society.

Obamacare will solve nothing. It does not address costs. There are no caps as to what doctors can earn. And unless you cap what they charge, and what insurance companies can charge, it will be a miserable and extremely expensive failure.

 

The premise is that it could 'work' yet 'work' is not defined. So defining terms is required before responding to the terms. Same thread can and should cover both questions. Now can you define how it would 'work'? What is the objective? Obama has shifted that target many times.

 

Thats a fascinating answer.

Do you stand by the assertion that the country is torn apart? Do you mean politically as it is a controversial issue?

If so,

It seems you would put civilised, political discourse without rancour than a working Obamacare because at the moment the military budget is too high, is that a fair summation?

 

Well ok then Ill repeat, work is defined as coverage for everyone for a reasonable cost..

Ready to support it yet?

 

Well, rationing happens everywhere, even in the US.

Anyway, IF coverage is provided for everyone would that make it worth having the problems of costs? Or are costs more important than everyone getting cover?

 

Yes.

Among others, inter alia.

If I could decipher your question I would answer it.