obamacare

josevolution

know1 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

I think you and I are in agreement with all of these points. And people in their early 20's (especially low earning ones), can get pretty affordable coverage either through private companies, or from most states.

Just a few years ago when we were both single, my wife was buying her own personal health insurance policy - and it wasn't even a high-deductible one - for $125 per month.

I've never lookedt at buying my own specially since the jobs me & my wife have have allways provided coverage for us , but 125$ per month is alot and for a family of 4 i bet it would be way more , on top of all my other expenses would take it's toll on my budget ....

Zoso

know1 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

Health care is a right not just for the 'worthy' or wealthy but to every human being. People who have health care insurance are scared that obamacare will screw things up for them.. this is another misconception and fear that the GOP have shoved down your throats.

I get what you're saying, but at what point in human history did affordable care become a right? Until not too long ago, a significant portion of humans were isolated from having access to much, if any health care at all.

I'm not saying that's a good thing at all and I think people should get treatment if it's needed, but I think you go to far by calling it a right.

(also the word affordable is highly subjective).

it's just not right that some people can afford health care and some can't.. how can you have some people paying a certain amount for a surgery or a simple appointment and others paying another amount because they earn more or less... how does that make America a great country?

_

hostis wrote:

can anyone explain to me why people are against "Obamacare"? I'm not trying to start a war here, I just don't understand why some people are against it.

In the UK we have the NHS - much maligned and moaned about but generally bloody marvellous. Its a comparison but it seems that obamacare is trying to give healthcare to those that cant afford it and surely that's a good thing?

In my opinion, the primary reasons people are against it are:

1. They don't believe everyone deserves to have health care, particularly if they think it will cost them anything. They think it's a violation of their freedom.

2. They have been told to hate/fear it by "their side" because it came from the "other side" & they're too lazy or closed-minded to actually learn whether the things they are told about it are true. It could have been written by a Republican & people would still hate & oppose it just because it was introduced by a Democrat. (Wait a minute... :!: )

Of course this doesn't represent all the opposition or criticism. In general, the people who oppose it think it's too far left on the political spectrum, but many people think it's too far to the right. People want to equate it with systems like the NHS (as if that's a bad thing) but, although it's a VERY small step in that direction, it's really not the same thing at all & many people would like us to really have a NHS.

Bennyorr4

know1 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

know1 wrote:

When you use it for everything, it is no longer risk management and it's a payment plan.

Right. It'd be like if you used car insurance to pay for oil changes. Guess what would happen to the cost of an oil change????

Yep. It would be exactly like paying someone else to go pay for your oil change. There's no doubt that the cost would go up by leaps and bounds.

Actually it would go down because you are already paying for it through your insurance and most insurance covers around 80% of the out of pocket expenses (or at least that's how it works in Canada) For example: I have asthma and my medication would cost me $100.00 but because I have health care I only pay around $20.00 for each inhaler. Make sense? I know I'm Canadian but that is the type of health care that Obama is trying to get for everyone. Am I wrong? I'm interested to know. FYI my employer pays for some of my insurance and I pay for the extra coverage but I don't really have to, I just want both to cover me for 100% if I ever get hurt or a disease. Disregard if I'm way of base, just my 2 cents. Carry on.

Bennyorr4

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't like it because it did not go far enough. i'm for universal single payer health insurance for all.

but i agree with some things that on moral grounds should be implied and not have to be put into law such as:

1. you can not get dropped if you get sick and you can not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
2. parents can keep kids on their insurance until age 26.
and a few others.

access to health care and a way to be able to afford said care should be a basic human right.

I agree with your #1.

As for your #2, why? Why 26 exactly?

i think it is age 26 because that is that age where if you went to college and grad school and graduated at 25 it gives you some time to find a career and get your own insurance. some people enter work right out of high school and go to college in their early or mid 20s, and if they go to school full time they can not work full time to get the insurance coverage, this gives them some protection so they would not have to pay through the nose for insurance that they can not afford.

someone posted a thread the other day about how today's college grads are living at home and are having trouble finding a job with benefits such as health care. before those kids could be dropped and then they would have been screwed if something catastrophic happened to them. i think age 26 is a fair age to draw the proverbial line.

Just to put it in perspective, Canadians are only covered until the age of 18 unless you are still in school. At least thats when I had to get my own health care card.

hostis

that you all for the comments. I certainly understand why some people are against it. it has good and bad points but then again doesn't everything in life (except Pearl Jam).

again, thanks for shedding some light on this.

Bennyorr4

Also, the Canadian health care system might not work in the states. And I know its not a perfect system but it is one of the worlds best HCS's. So I think the American government could adopt some of the good aspects and leave out the stuff that doesn't work so well, they could possibly have THE worlds best health care system. Just saying we (both countries) can learn from one another. I mean the US is a great country but there is A LOT of room for improvement. Same can be said for Canada.

know1

josevolution wrote:

know1 wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

I think you and I are in agreement with all of these points. And people in their early 20's (especially low earning ones), can get pretty affordable coverage either through private companies, or from most states.

Just a few years ago when we were both single, my wife was buying her own personal health insurance policy - and it wasn't even a high-deductible one - for $125 per month.

I've never lookedt at buying my own specially since the jobs me & my wife have have allways provided coverage for us , but 125$ per month is alot and for a family of 4 i bet it would be way more , on top of all my other expenses would take it's toll on my budget ....

Is your company providing health insurance at no cost to you? Because most of them don't anymore and at my last employer it would have cost me more to add her to their insurance than to just keep the individual policy she had.

mickeyrat

The Gates Foundation will spend $2.5 billion by 2030 on women's health, it said, with founder Bill Gates saying the area, including conditions from preeclampsia to menopause, had been neglected for too long. https://cnn.it/4fr5IX2

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

The Gates Foundation will spend $2.5 billion by 2030 on women's health, it said, with founder Bill Gates saying the area, including conditions from preeclampsia to menopause, had been neglected for too long. https://cnn.it/4fr5IX2

I don’t know about you but I’m still waiting for that better, more beautiful, greater and cheaper healthcare plan COOTWH promised. Should be here in two weeks or so.

And better cancel Microsoft too.

josevolution

😂😂 Not one word on a healthcare plan from Orange prick! Republicans have been 😭 for decades about Obamacare yet with majority in both houses and Republican president that haven’t mentioned it at all! They are all full of 💩💩💩💩💩 even with depends he walks around full of 💩💩

benjs

mickeyrat said:

The Gates Foundation will spend $2.5 billion by 2030 on women's health, it said, with founder Bill Gates saying the area, including conditions from preeclampsia to menopause, had been neglected for too long. https://cnn.it/4fr5IX2

It’s frustrating to me that most responses to this news shared about Bill Gates, will amount to criticism of Trump, when as Gates said, these had been neglected for too long (and who knows, maybe we could actually converse and learn about this topic).

Looking up medically significant advances in the area over the past 50 years, this appears to be true. I do wonder whether health care systems will eventually consider menopause management as a critical medication akin to management of ADHD or depression. Medically, everything moves so slowly, so if this research is closing at 2030, I wonder when that would even be public-ready. I also wonder if this will ever coincide with the ability to prolong how late in life a woman can safely have a pregnancy.

tempo_n_groove

So that Big Beautiful Bill.  People getting off Medicaid will enroll in obamacare.  In doing so people that make more money, me, than most will have their premiums go up in order to pay for the incoming lower incomes.

This was discussed on the Brian Laher show on NPR this morning.  Yay.

tempo_n_groove

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

Yeah the right is really running with that response as an example of the left wanting everything to be "free" when actually it relates more to making sure people are covered if they are between jobs or recently laid off, etc.

The situations are ALWAYS more complicated than the moronic GOP paints it to be.

It makes complete sense to separate employment from health care coverage. 

benjs

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

The question I have on that is - how do you prevent the Republican party from associating it with socialism and making it a toxic pursuit for a politician? 

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

Yeah the right is really running with that response as an example of the left wanting everything to be "free" when actually it relates more to making sure people are covered if they are between jobs or recently laid off, etc.

The situations are ALWAYS more complicated than the moronic GOP paints it to be.

It makes complete sense to separate employment from health care coverage. 

The right does have a leg to stand on though with that statement.  More people are looking for free things, who wouldn't?  

One thing I am steadfast on is a universal healthcare system.  It boggles my mind that we can't figure out how to make it work.

benjs

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

Yeah the right is really running with that response as an example of the left wanting everything to be "free" when actually it relates more to making sure people are covered if they are between jobs or recently laid off, etc.

The situations are ALWAYS more complicated than the moronic GOP paints it to be.

It makes complete sense to separate employment from health care coverage. 

The right does have a leg to stand on though with that statement.  More people are looking for free things, who wouldn't?  

One thing I am steadfast on is a universal healthcare system.  It boggles my mind that we can't figure out how to make it work.

Universal health care is a long-term benefit, and in the short-term, it will cost a lot of money, which will be weaponized by the opposing party, which all but guarantees a loss of political power. As far as I can see, with the exception of a true altruistic goal of betterment of the nation (or caring about the legacy they leave), there's no incentive for a politician to think about anything beyond their political term. Add in the fact that politicians have split allegiances - their wallets (via lobbyists, bills which prefer their form of wealth generation, etc.), and the nation - and I think it just becomes immensely harder. 

Halifax2TheMax

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

The question I have on that is - how do you prevent the Republican party from associating it with socialism and making it a toxic pursuit for a politician? 

You can’t. Dems can’t compete with the billionaires who are pushing the far right agenda.

Halifax2TheMax

benjs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

More on the Obamacare/Medicaid thing.  There was a town hall in Nebraska and Rep Mike Flood, one of only 3 republicans to do so, asked the question to the people "Should a 28 year old have free medical care even if they are able to work?!?" 

The crowd erupts "YES".

This speaks volumes to how America is thinking.  Our Healthcare system needs an overhaul.  It really does need to be Nationalized.  Don't call it socialized or it will have a negative connotation attached to it.

Yeah the right is really running with that response as an example of the left wanting everything to be "free" when actually it relates more to making sure people are covered if they are between jobs or recently laid off, etc.

The situations are ALWAYS more complicated than the moronic GOP paints it to be.

It makes complete sense to separate employment from health care coverage. 

The right does have a leg to stand on though with that statement.  More people are looking for free things, who wouldn't?  

One thing I am steadfast on is a universal healthcare system.  It boggles my mind that we can't figure out how to make it work.

Universal health care is a long-term benefit, and in the short-term, it will cost a lot of money, which will be weaponized by the opposing party, which all but guarantees a loss of political power. As far as I can see, with the exception of a true altruistic goal of betterment of the nation (or caring about the legacy they leave), there's no incentive for a politician to think about anything beyond their political term. Add in the fact that politicians have split allegiances - their wallets (via lobbyists, bills which prefer their form of wealth generation, etc.), and the nation - and I think it just becomes immensely harder. 

Frame the issue as an investment in you, general you, the American people because a healthy America is a strong America. Focus on the preventative care and benefits of same and explain that you won’t see immediate results but over decades and life times. If you can be heard over the din of “it’s socialism and takes away your freedom to be in poor health!”

Pointing out profits of healthcare corporations and the salaries of their CEOs but then you’re punishing “wealth.” At the expense of health but you know.