Obama Care Lives!!

**KoilyLocGirl** · 06-29-2012, 05:47 PM

My interest in this POTUS' healthcare bill was that every citizen of the US would have access to medical coverage, especially those folks that are walking around in pain, but can't afford a doctor's visit.

I agree somewhat with swing, the system is expensive because it is profit-driven and inefficient. BUT I also believe uninsured people, at least those who end up getting care, help drive the costs up (think reactive instead of preventative treatment).

If folks see their physicians regularly (like they should), the chances of them catching or developing a life threatening disease or condition before it's too late is exponentially reduced. Some folks are afraid to go to the doctor not just because they're scared about what they're going to be told, but because they're scared they wont be able to afford the treatment and are afraid that treatment at that point will not help, and afraid to leave their families in debt. Vicious circle that.

**Intellexual** · 06-29-2012, 06:05 PM

Obamacare requires health care insurance rather than medical coverage. The change is against people who couldn't and still won't be able to afford health care. Record profits continue to be made and that's the trajectory the Industry is shooting for. It's not about making profits rather than always making record profits. The provisions attempting to make things more affordable were struck down, even as the current health care insurance racket was explicitly exposed as sheer profiteering. Medical coverage is difficult to afford and profit from because health care insurance companies are squeezing care providers and patients alike.

The "Health Care" Insurance Industry succeeded in creating a special tax that now includes people who practice Herbalism and/or would rather have a right to refuse corporate (and/or conventional) medical treatment. The fake battle between Republicans and Democrats which allowed this new "you're alive" surcharge was brilliantly played out to guarantee that the Industry would remain the same or tighten the grip. Calling it Obamacare will only serve to further tarnish his name in the annals of history.

This is like when Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. Over time, even the Blacks and poor who thought Clinton was a handsome, charming, and "Minority"-friendly president couldn't get around the policies enacted, the protections removed, and the genocides ignored. Obamacare, being forced through even after it got shredded into more corporate welfare, was the nail in the coffin for Obama (much like flying over NO was for Bush).

**italdumpling** · 06-29-2012, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by swingbolder

^^Our current system is expensive because it's profit-driven and inefficient, not because of uninsured people.

I agree that everyone should contribute but *not* to a system that is inherently inefficient and corrupt, as ours is.

I disagree with the bold.

I worked for many years for a major Trauma hospital. You can not turn anyone away, especially someone coming in via a Medevac who's unconscious. Believe you me, you already pay for the uninsured.

I also know people who use the emergency room as a doctors office, because they don't have insurance and don't have a primary care physician. This also drives costs up.

There's a clause in the law that 'caps' spending so if an insurance company spends too much on things like bonuses and too little on actual 'care' then subscribers get a refund.

Oh and I HATE the term: Obamacare.

**Beryl** · 06-29-2012, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by swingbolder

^^Our current system is expensive because it's profit-driven and inefficient, not because of uninsured people.

I agree that everyone should contribute but *not* to a system that is inherently inefficient and corrupt, as ours is.

Exactly. If we had gotten a Public Option (nonprofit), it would have forced them into cleaning up their acts to compete.

Originally Posted by italdumpling

Oh and I HATE the term: Obamacare.

We need a term for the opposition's "Die Quickly" Healthcare Plan.

'RomneyDontGiveaF*ck'?

**Serbbral** · 06-30-2012, 12:03 AM

I just think there are a lot of things to be ironed out and that no healthcare is perfect, but this is a start of something better. I am happy about the supreme court's decision. I was told that people were scared to death when FDR signed the bill for social security and the same was said about LBJ when he signed the bill for medicare and medicaid. Now, they are some of the best programs for the majority of people. People really depend on these programs to this day. This might not be the best comparison, but statistics have shown that before the healthcare plan that was implemented in Mass., which by now everyone knows is the platform inwhich Obama is somewhat following, and was implemented by Romney himself, 90% of the people were insured, after this program was implemented 98% were insured. The fact of the matter is is that people are going to have to pay one way or the other if they want the majority of the people in their country to be insured. There's no way around it. No pain, no gain.

**MommieDearest** · 07-02-2012, 03:04 AM

Cosigning Swingbolder and Intel.

IMO the healthcare bill lost it's allure when the public option was removed. (I was very, VERY disappointed in Obama when he caved on that...) So, it is basically a giveaway to insurance companies because they are being handed brand new customers on a silver platter. And I am positive that they will find some way to justify raising their rates when this plan goes into effect. I am interested to see which private insurers benefit the most from this.

However, as mentioned upthread, maybe this bill will be a step toward a single payor system in the U.S. At this point all we can do is hope for the best.

On another note, I find it amusing that Romney is being forced by his base to speak out against the new healthcare law when in fact, the healthcare plan that he implemented in Massachussets is virtually the same thing. The very provisions that he is so vocally against with Obama's plan (i.e., mandates) are what he advocated for when pushing his plan in 2006. It's going to be fun watching Mittens try to backpeddle and backtrack his way out of this.