New Obamacare Thread

[God the Father]

Obamacare was intended by its designers to A) temporarily enrich the insurance industry, and B) fail miserably, to increase interest in a centrally-planned single-payer healthcare system.

 

It's hard to dispute that Obamacare has so far been the enormous failure it was forecasted to be, even without the website debacle that originated with a nineteenth-century spoils system hire of a friend of Mrs. Obama's.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-19/serfs-%E2%80%93-average-healthcare-premiums-have-soared-39-56-post-obamacare

 

Certain small-government Republicans made an effort to defund the ACA and shutdown the government in the autumn/new year. Their efforts were ostensibly extralegal and the men were portrayed by most media outlets as uncooperative crybabies. The individuals that tried to stop Obamacare/expansion of government were vilified in the media, in congress, and in the public consciousness.

 

Now that we've passed Obamacare and are able to see what is in it (apologies to Ms. Feinstein); however, it's been revealed to serve no one, not even Democrats.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/17/abc-democrats-privately-admit-obamacare-is-political-poison/

 

With this in mind, did John Boehner do the right thing to appease the public and media as they gnashed at the bit over conservative resistance? He certainly seems to be the overall winner, allowing the Democrats to sign their own midterm death warrant while cutting off the negative publicity generated by zealous and unpopular Tea Party types being on TV as quickly as possible. However, all Americans are paying the price of his political victory, wearing the millstone of Obamacare about their necks when he could have prevented it by pressing the issue to the brink.

 

More importantly, have Americans learned a valuable lesson about raking insane dissenters over the coals?

[Selah]

NO YOU FOOL

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

 

YOU'VE OPENED PANDORA'S BOX

QUICK, RUN WHILE YOU STILL CAN

[Fidei Defensor]

I'm just happy because a) I will be able to keep my insurance until i'm 26 and b) i cant be denied because of my medical conditions (i would certainly be denied coverage)

[4588686]

Unfortunately, that is pure paranoia.  I say unfortunately because, obviously, this would be much better if we were going to get single payer healthcare our of this.  

[NotreDame]

Unfortunately, that is pure paranoia.  I say unfortunately because, obviously, this would be much better if we were going to get single payer healthcare our of this.  

 

The people can't run a website, but we should give them total control over 1/6th of the economy.  Hmmm.... I hardly find that persuasive. 
 

[4588686]

The people can't run a website, but we should give them total control over 1/6th of the economy.  Hmmm.... I hardly find that persuasive. 
 

Medicare works very well, which would be a much more apt data point than a poorly launched website.  Additionally, your logic would suggest that the troubles launching a website should discredit the government from managing basic things like a judiciary or police force.  

"These people can't run a website but we're going to give them control over a police force?!??!?!"

 

It's simply a rhetorical flourish but not a very good one.  

[NotreDame]

Medicare works very well, which would be a much more apt data point than a poorly launched website.

 

Lol.  No it doesnt work well and no it's not an apt comparison.  Medicare is a government insurance paid out to private providers, single-payer is the government actually providing the medical service directly or via contract.

 

 Additionally, your logic would suggest that the troubles launching a website should discredit the government from managing basic things like a judiciary or police force.  
 

They do a pretty poor job at both, but we don't have a choice.  We have a choice on healthcare.

[havok579257]

 

Certain small-government Republicans made an effort to defund the ACA and shutdown the government in the autumn/new year. Their efforts were ostensibly extralegal and the men were portrayed by most media outlets as uncooperative crybabies. The individuals that tried to stop Obamacare/expansion of government were vilified in the media, in congress, and in the public consciousness.

 

 

 

 

These republicans did way more harm than good.  They acted like a bunch of children.  They shut down the government for absolutely nothing.  There was absolutely no chance of a repeal of obamacare or any major part of it.  The so called small-government republicans who want to cut spending sure did waste a ton of money on this scheme which did absolutely nothing except make them look like fools.  In the end tea party people like Ted Cruz got more airtime and national attention for their future elections at the cost of the tax payer and the republican party as a whole.  

 

Also these people deserved to be vilified because they cost tax payers so much money for something that had absolutely no chance of success.  If your going to hold people's income and tax payer money hostage with absolutely no chance of success, you deserve to be vilified.

[NotreDame]

Medicare works very well, which would be a much more apt data point than a poorly launched website.  Additionally, your logic would suggest that the troubles launching a website should discredit the government from managing basic things like a judiciary or police force.  

"These people can't run a website but we're going to give them control over a police force?!??!?!"

 

It's simply a rhetorical flourish but not a very good one.  

 

And regarding the judiciary and law enforcement, most of this is done (in the spirit of subsidiarity) at the city and county level rather than at the national level as would be required for health care and it's done at the local level for a number of very good reasons.

[4588686]

 

Medicare works very well, which would be a much more apt data point than a poorly launched website.

 

Lol.  No it doesnt work well and no it's not an apt comparison.  Medicare is a government insurance paid out to private providers, single-payer is the government actually providing the medical service directly or via contract.

 

 Additionally, your logic would suggest that the troubles launching a website should discredit the government from managing basic things like a judiciary or police force.  
 

They do a pretty poor job at both, but we don't have a choice.  We have a choice on healthcare.

 

 

 

In what sense does medicare not work well?

 

Single payer is just that.  Medicare is absolutely a single payer system since there is a single payer (the government).  

 

Reference :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Edited March 20, 2014 by Hasan

[NotreDame]

In what sense does medicare not work well?

 

Single payer is just that.  Medicare is absolutely a single payer system since there is a single payer (the government).  

 

Reference :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

 

Medicare just cuts checks.  it isn't responsible for providing services.  In a single-payer system, however, the government has to provide them, either directly or through contract - which is what I noted in my post and which is also in the first paragraph of the wikipedia article. 

[4588686]

Medicare just cuts checks.  it isn't responsible for providing services.  In a single-payer system, however, the government has to provide them, either directly or through contract - which is what I noted in my post and which is also in the first paragraph of the wikipedia article. 

 

 

From the article:

"Medicare in the United States is a single-payer healthcare system, but is restricted to only senior citizens over the age of 65, people under 65 who have specific disabilities, and anyone with End-Stage Renal Disease.^[25]"

 

^{I don't understand what there is to debate about this.  Medicare is classified as a single payer system and fits exactly with the literal meaning of the words 'single payer.'} 

[NotreDame]

From the article:

"Medicare in the United States is a single-payer healthcare system, but is restricted to only senior citizens over the age of 65, people under 65 who have specific disabilities, and anyone with End-Stage Renal Disease.^[25]"

 

^{I don't understand what there is to debate about this.  Medicare is classified as a single payer system and fits exactly with the literal meaning of the words 'single payer.'} 

 

Medicare isn't a single payer healthcare system.  It's an insurance program existing within a private healthcare industry.  The government isn't responsible for providing the services and there are still multiple "payers" in the market. 

 

Why the wikipedia article is wrong I cannot tell you.  The actual page for medicare is, however, correct:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29

 

"In the United States, Medicare is a national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government"

[NotreDame]

^{I don't understand what there is to debate about this.  Medicare is classified as a single payer system and fits exactly with the literal meaning of the words 'single payer.'} 

 

Also, Medicare is not the single-payer even for those over 65.  There are high deductibles paid by the patients as well as private supplemental insurance, meaning there are at least two and as many as three (or possibly more) payers in every medicare covered transaction.  These are not characteristics of a "single-payer" healthcare system. 
 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Medicare works very well, which would be a much more apt data point than a poorly launched website.  Additionally, your logic would suggest that the troubles launching a website should discredit the government from managing basic things like a judiciary or police force.  

"These people can't run a website but we're going to give them control over a police force?!??!?!"

 

It's simply a rhetorical flourish but not a very good one.  

 

Yeah then how do you explain Muslims being exempted?