• House votes in favor of bill to repeal Obamacare
    119 replies, posted
I heard that if you can't afford healthcare, Obamacare makes it so you get hefty fines if you're uninsured. Is this true or is this some Republican-spouted horse shit? (I would read up on it myself, but I've seen so much conflicting statements and information about it.)
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;47076686]I heard that if you can't afford healthcare, Obamacare makes it so you get hefty fines if you're uninsured. Is this true or is this some Republican-spouted horse shit? (I would read up on it myself, but I've seen so much conflicting statements and information about it.)[/QUOTE] You get subsidies for coverage if it will cost you more than x percentage of your income, but even then, it's still stupidly expensive for what you get. For example, someone who falls below a certain income, gets their insurance covered by the government. Raise their income a little, and they may get only part of it paid by the government. Raise their income a little more and they have to pay for it all themselves. The kicker is that it would cost someone who makes less than $30,000 a year over $200 a month for crappy coverage. So if you're in that situation, you can either pay a lot out of pocket for insurance that will still leave you with medical bills, OR you can not get insurance, live a little more comfortably, and still end up with about the same medical bills, except now a "fine" will get taken out of any income tax return you may have.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47075248]I think Bootstrap Bill got banned though. (can't even remember his username, something about "I worked HVAC when I was 14 which normally requires a certification and minimum 2 years of trade school to even get started in BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER YOU'RE ALL JUST LAZY AND WANT TO STAY POOR WHILE YOU ALL ENVY MY BMW WHICH I BOUGHT TO SEPARATE MYSELF FROM YOU WORMS" or something along those lines)[/QUOTE] Wasn't that JohnFisher? My memory is awful and I am probably wrong.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;47076759]Wasn't that JohnFisher? My memory is awful and I am probably wrong.[/QUOTE] No that actually was john fisher's post. I pointedly remember the BMW part of it.
[QUOTE=Rika-chan;47076759]Wasn't that JohnFisher? My memory is awful and I am probably wrong.[/QUOTE] Yup, he's still around too. Still exemplifying everything wrong with right wing economic policy when it comes to the person level.
National Healthcare would be great. But Obama executed it so poorly with his version
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;47077014]But Obama executed it so poorly with his version[/QUOTE] That's what happens when you brute force a bill through Congress with no bipartisanship.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47077079]That's what happens when you brute force a bill through Congress with no bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] Except it was made by a bipartisan group?
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;47077126]Except it was made by a bipartisan group?[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/barack-obama/Obama-says-health-plan-incorporates-ideas-of-Democ/"]Hardly bipartisan [/URL]
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;47076686]I heard that if you can't afford healthcare, Obamacare makes it so you get hefty fines if you're uninsured. Is this true or is this some Republican-spouted horse shit? (I would read up on it myself, but I've seen so much conflicting statements and information about it.)[/QUOTE] Half-true. If you dont follow the steps when you're denied care then you get fined. If you follow the steps (which involves medicare/medicad) the fine/tax whatever gets voided. Honest to god you have to be in a terrible situation to not find any type of coverage.
[QUOTE=woolio1;47075195]What's even worse is when the voters are in a position where the other party is basically built around their ideologies, but they still find ways to agree with the party they support. My dad's an extremely progressive man who has an in-progress Ph.D in Wildlife and Natural Resources, and despite an extensive preservation background, he'll still claim that government regulation for national parks, environmental protection regulation, etc., is entirely worthless because the Reds oppose it. [/quote] And I'm sure he gets a tad bit annoyed when you point out that the reds oppose most of the progressive things he's in favor of, not to mention they'd cause a huge problem for the industry his Ph.D is in. [quote] I'm a Centrist, myself. I usually vote independent/third[/quote] I don't have a political affiliation of any sort. I'm in the 'Everyone on the ballot is a greedy corrupt fuckstick and none of them are fit for office' party, which only has one member since I made it up myself to put on forms that ask for 'what party are you?' and don't accept 'none' as an answer. I'll be honest: I'm mostly apathetic about the whole thing. I simply don't care about politics enough to give a shit about anyone on the ballot. I don't bother voting. My old, worn-out pickup would be a better candidate than who's on the ballot most years anyway. [quote]because the Republican party right now seems way too focused on corporate interests over the interests of its voters, and the Democrats are too spineless to act on any of their decent ideas.[/QUOTE] Mmm, and the independents don't stand enough of a chance to truly change the government. There just aren't enough of them, and while they usually have pretty good ideas their voice is just drowned out
That is a fantastic idea for a party.
[QUOTE=meharryp;47072677]Can anyone explain why there is so much opposition to obamacare?[/QUOTE] My problem with it is the fact that it makes it against the law to not have health care.
[QUOTE=Megadave;47078230]My problem with it is the fact that it makes it against the law to not have health care.[/QUOTE] You are uninformed/misinformed
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47078288]You are uninformed/misinformed[/QUOTE] He's effectively right. You can opt out if you are willing to pay a fee though.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47078288]You are uninformed/misinformed[/QUOTE] You are required by law to have health insurance. If you don't you pay a penalty.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47078317]You are required by law to have health insurance. If you don't you pay a penalty.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Saigon;47078302]He's effectively right. You can opt out if you are willing to pay a fee though.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Code3Response;47077571]Half-true. If you dont follow the steps when you're denied care then you get fined. If you follow the steps (which involves medicare/medicad) the fine/tax whatever gets voided. Honest to god you have to be in a terrible situation to not find any type of coverage.[/QUOTE] If you just straight up say that you dont want insurance then you pay the fine because you're an idiot. Even if you do get fined you can not pay it and the IRS does jack shit about it. If you follow the steps you can get exempt from it. [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/white-house-publishes-final-regulations-for-obamacares-individual-mandate-seven-things-you-need-to-know/"]Reading 1[/URL] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/2t7eg3/i_cant_afford_obamacare_i_cant_afford_the/cnwg685"]And the Medicaid exemption[/URL]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47077079]That's what happens when you brute force a bill through Congress with no bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] Well then, let's all skip and hop over to Lollipop Land, a magical place where Republicans and Democrats work together to build policies and programs that work best and put the American people first.
[QUOTE=E1025;47072816]1) it makes the companies who lobby republicans less money 2) it was made by a black person[/QUOTE] Well it's actually causing a lot of problems for families around here. I live in CA, one of the most liberal states, and I've already seen families getting hit with significantly higher costs, not to mention that those who don't want to participate get hit with a penalty for no good reason. Honestly, I actually would be semi-OK with Obamacare if they weren't dicks about forcing everyone to participate. Add the rightfully-deserved bad PR that a certain Mc-Goober brought on it and more and you have a bunch of legitimate reasons to oppose it.
Is it actually called Obama Care?
[QUOTE=Jame's;47079544]Is it actually called Obama Care?[/QUOTE] No, it's not. It's actually the affordable care act, you can also call it ACA if you find that a bit too stuffy.
[QUOTE=Jame's;47079544]Is it actually called Obama Care?[/QUOTE] The Affordable Care Act (ACA), officially called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and sometimes called ObamaCare.
Everyone has adopted ObamaCare as the name now, even Obama himself has grown fond of it.
[QUOTE=hydrated;47072316]that's not why conservatives are against obamacare. obamacare is a shitty compromise where nobody wins except insurance companies and the politicians they paid off. the old system was shit but not near as shit as obamacare. the right move would have either been to deregulate the existing system and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines (which would drive down costs in all states) or to go full on the other way with a european style healthcare system.[/quote] the main focus of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was regulation: no denials for pre-existing conditions, allowing students to stay on their parents' plans until age 26, that sort of thing. however, the danger of allowing people to receive insurance with pre-existing conditions is that people might avoid getting insurance until they're sick. insurance doesn't work that way; insurance works on the pretext that healthy people are all paying in so that those that occasionally get sick will be able to pull from the pooled resources. the result was the individual mandate, which would prevent this problem from happening. the authors and architects of the PPACA were already aware that mandating everyone have insurance was going to be a problem, so there were a few essential elements: first, medicare and medicaid expansions to allow more people to be insured under current programs. second, subsidy programs that provide financial assistance to pay for insurance plans. third, healthcare exchanges that allow for easier application and the ability to purchase cheaper and/or more comprehensive care. and fourth, a proposed public option, akin to single-payer health insurance. the public option was subsequently removed as a compromise to get the votes of moderate democratic senators and pass the legislation. if supporters of the public option continued to fight to keep it in place, then the ACA might have never passed, either by alienating moderate democrats or by forestalling its passage until the next elections. the compromise was necessary to at least attempt to fix [I]something[/I] while democrats polled majorities in the house and senate. what's important to understand about the PPACA is that it's not an end-all-be-all to the problem of health insurance regulation and provision. it is a first step, a touch-off point from which we can move closer to universal health insurance. i'll give you an illustrative example in US history. the sherman anti-trust act of 1890 was a piece of shit. because of its vague wording and arbitrary definitions, it failed to regulate big business in the robber baron era and actually ended up being used against labor unions and strikes. however, it was landmark legislation in that it established the (albeit nominal) power of and intent of government in regulating big business; in other words, it put the foot in the door. the sherman anti-trust act served as a precedent for the subsequent clayton anti-trust act 1914, which [I]actually[/I] worked to regulate trusts and established essential recognition and protections for labor unions and the workers they represented. [quote]obamacare doesn't do shit for poor people either.[/QUOTE] well actually, it has subsidies and exchanges which have slowed the rate of insurance cost increases. and at the very least, the regulations at least do [I]something[/I] to make the healthcare insurance industry less toxic to consumers. it's true that healthcare premiums have continued to rise, but they would have risen farther had it not been for the PPACA. [editline]5th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Saigon;47075550]I disagree with a lot of Republican policies, but the alternative is much worse. I simply cannot vote for someone who has an extremely naive and border-line extremist foreign policy, opposes civilian gun ownership, increases regulation of our lives and abandons our allies. I'm pretty moderate and don't want to see a purely conservative or liberal world. I want our country to have a better government, not necessarily bigger or smaller. I am open to healthcare reform and increasing protections on the rights of workers. I also support lgbt rights and abortion, but not at the expense of gun owners. I am also fundamentally opposed to both foreign policy mindsets, the liberal "America is bad, we should completely ignore the world and mind our own business" and the conservative "America is perfect and intervention is always justified." The fact is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that there are plenty of instances where intervention is justified, and there are plenty of instances where intervention isn't. Given that the economy, foreign policy and civil liberties are the most important issues to me, I usually vote Republican.[/QUOTE] if you look at the voting records of both democrats and republicans in the house and senate, you'll recognize two distinct trends: 1) republicans and democrats are either pro- or anti-intervention depending on who the president is and what public opinion seems to mandate. 2) civil liberties have been consistently dashed by both political parties with the unanimous passage of legislation like the USA PATRIOT act while libertarianism in the sphere of public opinion might be vibrant, it's dead and silent in legislatures, and is applied inconsistently in party platforms. your archetypal republican will want you to have the right to carry an AK-47 out in public, but not the right to marry someone of your own sex. your archetypal democrat will want the opposite, though instead of banning guns they might ban sodas that are too big or make seatbelt use mandatory.
[QUOTE=Source;47071921]Seriously why can't the Republicans all just fuck off already, just because they don't like what is most likely they're financial backers getting shafted. I'm not even American and i hate the Republicans from all i read and see, it pisses me off as much as our cunt load of politicians who go over to America and claim the NHS is a pile of shit, i wanna be waiting at the airport so i can fucking kick them in the nuts and send them straight back on the plane and tell them to not fucking come back. Rant over![/QUOTE] I don't remember any politicians doing this?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47076093]It is. Socialist in principle of it being funded by everyone for everyone.[/QUOTE] Sounds kind of like the public school system.. Down with that too!
[QUOTE=tunatsub;47085071]Sounds kind of like the public school system.. Down with that too![/QUOTE] you're right, the public school system in the US is shit (especially CA's) and it helps adults in the teacher's union more than students.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;47088252]the public school system in the US is shit (especially CA's)[/QUOTE] Not always. You can't lump all the schools in America together. Just because your state is shit doesn't mean the other 49 are.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;47088371]Not always. You can't lump all the schools in America together. Just because your state is shit doesn't mean the other 49 are.[/QUOTE] Well actually that's going to become the case. With the introduction of Common Core standards are being set to mediocre levels. "Race to the top" money is granted based on pass rate, so instead of states having an incentive to keep standards high they instead lower them to the middle line so that more of their students pass. Not to mention that the curriculum themselves are total BS now. They have math homework questions that are literally "What is 3 plus 9? [B][U]Explain.[/U][/B]"
[QUOTE=BFG9000;47088453]Well actually that's going to become the case. With the introduction of Common Core standards are being set to mediocre levels. "Race to the top" money is granted based on pass rate, so instead of states having an incentive to keep standards high they instead lower them to the middle line so that more of their students pass. Not to mention that the curriculum themselves are total BS now. They have math homework questions that are literally "What is 3 plus 9? [B][U]Explain.[/U][/B]"[/QUOTE] As someone who's actually had a chance to look over the Common Core stuff in detail, it's actually not too dissimilar from what I learned growing up. I can understand why you'd see it that way if you've only read the news reports about it, though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.