PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
The sad thing is that politifact had to even make that post. Most of these things are absurd (e.g. Muslims are exempt) and are related to marginalizable politicians (e.g. Bachman), radio hosts (e.g. Limbaugh), or email chains (seriously, politifact - email chains?). The only one of serious consequences is the President's lie.
I do live in a small, somewhat isolated town. Still, I am amazed by the number of people who think that Obamacare is, well part of the big conspiracy of government takeover that includes taking all our guns, making our kids deny their religions, etc.
Yes. One of those people is my mother, who is an otherwise intelligent, educated person. She doesn't like when I tell her this is just a big business boon. Which is really what it is. Which brings me to...
PLAYER57832 wrote:I guess I just see it differently. That is, I don't disagree with what you are saying, I just don't think it is/they are the primary point(s)
The main thing the act accomplished was to prohibit insurance companies from denying care to people with pre-existing conditions. That is also the provision that seems to throw a lot of anti-act folks into spasms. It may well result in higher health insurance bills, but I still feel it was a necessary move to put more "honesty" into the system. Right now, a lot of people only THINK they are getting cheap insurance because the bulk of the costs are hidden, particularly put onto taxpayer roles. This is done directly, when we pay medicaid and the like, but its also done indirectly when hospitals jack up costs to cover uninsured costs and when we wind up paying for people who go bankrupt or who simply don't get care they need and thus become disabled (or who go on the disabled lists simply to they can get the care they need). I think these kinds of traps benefit no one, except a few in the insurance industry.
What the bill did NOT do is remove the bulk of profits or require that employers pay more. I actually like that last bit. Having employers pay insurance is convenient, but not good for individuals in the long run. Some of my objections are sort of moot now with the whole electronic records bit... too many people can access our information (not just medical), but that is another point entirely. Still, I think giving lower cost to bigger employers winds up hurting the rest of us. Why should your health care cost less just because you work for company xyz instead of small business d?
This bill also is not going to truly lower health care costs because the rising costs in healthcare are pretty inherent. That is, we pay more mostly because we just plain get more. I know you and I disagree on some of the medical ethics issues, but ultimately, that is the front we will have to address, one way or another.
I think we did not get a single payer system because Republicans and conservative Democrats (for lack of better categories) were afraid to tackle the "socialized medicine" bit. A LOT of people are "against" this thing called "socialized medicine" who have no idea really what it means. (set aside that there is no set definition, I mean they know only sound bytes from a few countries and not how most systems actually work or why).
I think the stated points of the Affordable Care Act include coverage for pre-existing conditions and preventative care. And, if you're in to those things, you would think the law is a good thing. My response to that is that the average American has health insurance that covers preventative care and arguably covers pre-existing conditions (e.g. mine covers both of those things, and has since I started working). So the beneficiaries of the "good" part of this legislation are the poor. And, at least in my reckoning, the poor already received care related to pre-existing conditions and prevention through existing government programs (there was likely some leakage in that regard).
So those are the good things.
The bad things in this law (apart from that Muslims are apparently exempt... seriously, who believes this shit?), are the costs. The costs of this law are estimated to be tremendous even assuming businesses don't start shedding insurance policies. And now we hear (and have heard) that businesses are shedding insurance, resulting in more people going to the exchanges (or paying the $95 or so fine). This is undoutbedly an effort to cut costs and will also undoubtedly be lambasted by supporters of the Affordable Care Act. My response is that the supporters knew when the bill was being discussed and after it passed that this would happen. Those people that supported the law received funds from and were lobbied by the very same businesses. Further, this law is a boon to insurance companies, which certainly did not need a boon from anyone.
Were the bad things intended or unintended? I think they were intended as a boon to business. But let's assume they were unintended, as Player may argue, or secondary consequences (and therefore worth it for the stated reasons for the ACA), does that excuse Congress or the president in any way? I would argue no. So, if they were intended consequences then we've been lied to by Congress and a president (again). If they were unintended consequences, then Congress and the president were ignoring experts and/or are ignorant. We have either they lied (unacceptable) or they are stupid (unacceptable). Not a win-win.
