Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Ha - Polidicks

[QUOTE=UberMensch;46462709]Would you be saying that if you broke your arm and needed a cast? I'm pretty sure if you were uninsured you would have to pay a load of money to get it sorted out. Here in the UK I can break my arm and I won't be slapped with a surprise bill for £1,000 of doctor fees. Yes I pay taxes but the proportion of that going towards healthcare and national insurance is something like £20. 64 million people paying £20 a month for a year gives you a budget of £15,360,000,000. That seems like a pretty good pot of money even without offsets like prescription contributions and Government grants.[/QUOTE] Gets better when you take collective bargaining and the like into account too.

I like how people use dumb instead of disagree.

He wasn't the "architect" of the bill, he was a technical consultant. Not the same thing. There were tons of consultants. The charge that the bill somehow wasn't transparent is also completely without evidence. There was a yearlong debate in Congress that was extensively covered by the media. The bill was available in full for reading by anyone who pleased as a matter of public record. The idea that this law was somehow rushed through in secrecy is simply garbage. This law was more heavily reported on and scrutinized than any piece of legislation in recent memory...if there was any lack of transparency, it's due to Fox News and talk radio spewing misinformation and outright lies. The source is not credible. What some consultant said on some random panel doesn't prove anything, and no evidence at all is offered. Besides, he still says we're better off with the law than not having the law. If his general point is that Americans are too fucking stupid to recognize a good thing when it happens to them, I totally agree. But there was no lack of transparency. No part of the ACA was secret.

[QUOTE=Stren;46462747]Gets better when you take collective bargaining and the like into account too.[/QUOTE] And gets even better when insurance companies and doctors aren't working together to push up prices.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46461945]If you can't pass a bill transparently because it would get killed if people truly knew what was in it, then you shouldn't be putting up the bill. I don't care how "uninformed" a person is, they are still a citizen of this country and [b]their opinion is just as valid.[/b] Your job is to inform the uninformed, not pull tricks to pass it around them.[/QUOTE] I'm not super sure about this. [url]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html[/url] [editline]11th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46462934]You know before the ACA's "minimum coverage" ruling came into effect, you could quite literally have insurance that just covered major issues and ER visits. I had it, it cost 50$ a month, and quite literally was "what if" insurance. Now with the "basic" insurance plan under the ACA, I'd also have things I don't want/need (but still have to pay for) Like OB/GYN care, or birth control care. Which is funny because if you're a single 23 year old male, why the fuck would you want/need/want to pay for ANY of those things. All the added "care" will cost you anywhere from 150-300$ a month depending on your tax bracket (which is a fuck ton of money regardless of what tax bracket you're in) [b]Essentially the ACA made "what if" insurance illegal because it offered a "substandard level of care", which is funny because not once was my care substandard at all, it literally acted exactly as advertised.[/b][/QUOTE] hi welcome to society. its where we all make small sacrifices for the common good. can i take your coat? In a less patronizing way, many people who do NEED those things couldn't afford them previously and would have to settle for such "what if" insurance as their "everything" insurance. So yes, you can't get that anymore, because for many people who needed those plans, those plans were all they could afford. If the public option hadn't been axed this would have been much better though. The problems with Obamacare are because it was butchered in the Senate/House (I don't know enough about politics to say this definitively).

The ACA does do some things right, allowing adult-children to stay on their parents plans until 26, eliminating pre-exsisting conditions as a point of denial for insurance, greater medical care for mothers and women, etc. However it is still nothing more than the government subsidizing private health insurance companies and forcing everyone to pay into them or face legal liability. It also has failed to keep costs down, which was primarily the biggest problem with US healthcare. Also, yes the average American voter is an idiot who knows probably nothing, but votes based off election cycle memes. But most of the blame falls squarely on Democrats and Obama for how disastrous healthcare reform went. Obama capitulated to a party 100% opposed to everything he did. Democrats, who controlled every branch of government were terrified of fighting for it and were constantly on the defense. They fucked it up, so while yes Americans are terminally stupid cowards, Democrats deserve most of the blame for being spineless and weak, or in some cases straight up beholden to private health insurers. That said, as fucked as the ACA is I'll take it, it helped to insure millions of people and unless you're a fucking monster who votes Republican and hates America, more people staying healthy and not dying for lack of insurance is good for the country in the long run.

[QUOTE=Srillo;46463131]The ACA does do some things right, allowing adult-children to stay on their parents plans until 26, eliminating pre-exsisting conditions as a point of denial for insurance, greater medical care for mothers and women, etc. However it is still nothing more than the government subsidizing private health insurance companies and forcing everyone to pay into them or face legal liability. It also has failed to keep costs down, which was primarily the biggest problem with US healthcare. Also, yes the average American voter is an idiot who knows probably nothing, but votes based off election cycle memes. But most of the blame falls squarely on Democrats and Obama for how disastrous healthcare reform went. Obama capitulated to a party 100% opposed to everything he did. Democrats, who controlled every branch of government were terrified of fighting for it and were constantly on the defense. They fucked it up, so while yes Americans are terminally stupid cowards, Democrats deserve most of the blame for being spineless and weak, or in some cases straight up beholden to private health insurers. That said, as fucked as the ACA is I'll take it, it helped to insure millions of people and unless you're a fucking monster who votes Republican and hates America, more people staying healthy and not dying for lack of insurance is good for the country in the long run.[/QUOTE] This is exactly my opinion of it. Thanks for capturing it perfectly.

[QUOTE=UberMensch;46462709]Would you be saying that if you broke your arm and needed a cast? I'm pretty sure if you were uninsured you would have to pay a load of money to get it sorted out. Here in the UK I can break my arm and I won't be slapped with a surprise bill for £1,000 of doctor fees. Yes I pay taxes but the proportion of that going towards healthcare and national insurance is something like £20. 64 million people paying £20 a month for a year gives you a budget of £15,360,000,000. That seems like a pretty good pot of money even without offsets like prescription contributions and Government grants.[/QUOTE] for $5500 maximum out of pocket costs and $120/mo. premium ill put it in a cast or better yet blow my brains out [editline]11th November 2014[/editline] err not a cast i mean id rather put it in a splint myself

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46463121]Yes small sacrifices, like 40% of my paycheck for a "basic" package. I totally enjoy getting fleeced out of my check for healthcare, and by law I have to have said healthcare. When the public option got axed obama and the dems should have just let it die. Instead they kept pushing because "WE HAVE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE REFORM". So now we have the exact same system, only now you HAVE to pay for insurance, and you HAVE to pay for insurance for things you otherwise wouldn't need.[/QUOTE] use the exchanges website, as it's now running better than it did on launch; open enrollment begins sometime this month. apply for a subsidy when they become available. the subsidies are there expressly because of these situations. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;46463258]ONTOPIC: They really need to do something about reducing overall cost of healthcare, from the bottom up. Consumers should be paying less, supplies should be cheaper, malpractice insurance should be cheaper. As such everyone is raking in the dough. And that's wrong. Healthcare shouldn't be a business, it should be about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. A single payer option is literally the only way we're going to fix what's broken with the US system.[/QUOTE] well, that's the way it is. as awful as the problem of for-profit healthcare might be, the legislature can't just clap its hands and make the problem go away with a single piece of paper; especially not now, with both houses of the legislature controlled by the grand ol' party. if fixing the issue were simple, then the president wouldn't have pushed forward a 1000-page reform document.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46463121]Yes small sacrifices, like 40% of my paycheck for a "basic" package. I totally enjoy getting fleeced out of my check for healthcare, and by law I have to have said healthcare. When the public option got axed obama and the dems should have just let it die. Instead they kept pushing because "WE HAVE TO HAVE HEALTHCARE REFORM". So now we have the exact same system, only now you HAVE to pay for insurance, and you HAVE to pay for insurance for things you otherwise wouldn't need.[/QUOTE] It's like you've never heard of taxes before. How much of the rest of your money goes to other trivial shit that you have no use for? Just because you might be able to find out specifically how much of your money goes to Obamacare doesn't mean it's more than any of the other unwanted shit. I could use your exact argument but switch in social security for Obamacare. "I totally enjoy getting fleeced out of my check for retirement insurance, and by law I have to have said retirement insurance." And now you're a libertarian! "Oh but social security's different because not everyone can afford it when they're old so we all have to pay into it while we can!" Yeah the exact same same goes for healthcare. The mandate is completely essential for any type of national healthcare system. If only those who need the care are the ones who are paying for the insurance, then what the hell is the point of having insurance? They'd mathematically end up paying just as much in the end as if they had gone insurance-free. This is the basic logic of taxation. Everybody pays for shit even though not everyone uses it, because those who need it can't afford it themselves. A single-payer system would be just the same. The money has to come from somewhere. Imagine we're back in 2009 and a single-payer system won through. What would happen? Revenue would have to be increased in order to cover the difference. That would mean taxes would have to go up, or the government would have to cut something somewhere else. Personally, I would love to have the government make cuts in certain areas (e.g. the military, maybe we should stop paying for Europe's defense and remove our garrisons there as well as elsewhere). But the point still stands: not everyone can afford healthcare on their own. People saying "I only want to pay what I need! I had a great $50 plan before this, and now I have to buy all this unnecessary shit!" is exactly the problem.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46463418]Except it's not a tax. You're not paying the government. You're paying a private entity who isn't responsible to anyone. It'd be like paying social security to chase bank instead of the feds, would you be cool with that? Because I'm certainly not.[/QUOTE] It's the same thing in the end. And this has nothing to do with the ACA itself, but rather with how our health insurance is run. Germany has an almost identical healthcare system, with people paying private entities to cover their healthcare rather than paying the government through taxes. The difference is that in Germany, most of these entities are non-profit collectives, rather than for-profit insurance companies. Again, this isn't a problem with the ACA's infrastructure, but rather with the structure of the American healthcare system in general.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;46463062]I'm not super sure about this. [url]http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/you_are_never_e.html[/url][/QUOTE] That article is geared more towards arguments and debates, not towards laws and politics. In an argument, facts and figures that support your argument shouldn't be easily dismissed by an unsupported blanket statement such as "They are entitled to their opinion." The political process plays by completely different rules. Just because you can win an argument for a certain policy doesn't mean that people want it. Regardless of if you like it or not, someone can throw your arguments completely aside and say "I don't want that" for no reason. It's not a politician's job to just "prove" that his way is best, but he also has to get others to see his way is best too. So yes, in our constitutional republic, "my opinion" is valid a valid argument against a policy. That won't change unless we implement something that doesn't use the democratic process....

With people disagreeing with national healthcare; I'd rather something like that implemented without people knowing so after it is people can understand that it actually will help

[QUOTE=Map in a box;46463543]With people disagreeing with national healthcare; I'd rather something like that implemented without people knowing so after it is people can understand that it actually will help[/QUOTE] Then you shouldn't be surprised when people vote in the politicians who will undo what they didn't want done. You can't go against the will of the people without suffering some consequences.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46462790]He wasn't the "architect" of the bill, he was a technical consultant. Not the same thing. There were tons of consultants. The charge that the bill somehow wasn't transparent is also completely without evidence. There was a yearlong debate in Congress that was extensively covered by the media. The bill was available in full for reading by anyone who pleased as a matter of public record. The idea that this law was somehow rushed through in secrecy is simply garbage. This law was more heavily reported on and scrutinized than any piece of legislation in recent memory...if there was any lack of transparency, it's due to Fox News and talk radio spewing misinformation and outright lies. The source is not credible. What some consultant said on some random panel doesn't prove anything, and no evidence at all is offered. Besides, he still says we're better off with the law than not having the law. If his general point is that Americans are too fucking stupid to recognize a good thing when it happens to them, I totally agree. But there was no lack of transparency. No part of the ACA was secret.[/QUOTE] Nancy Polici: We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. [video=youtube;KoE1R-xH5To]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To[/video] So if this clip is a lie, what is it?

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;46460695]We don't trust our government at all, and they justify their actions and our mistrust as us just being stupid.[/QUOTE] "we" as in "you" because I trust our government. They do a lot for everyone.

[QUOTE=Glaber;46463756]Nancy Polici: We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. [/QUOTE] Arguing with out-of-context quotes that get passed around like right-wing Pokemon cards is for the stupid and lazy.

Out of context huh? wasn't the context trying to get the ACA passed? in fact, why not have some context? [video=youtube;gRC96-Zi6-0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRC96-Zi6-0[/video]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46463913]Considering Congress only has a 12% approval rating. You're in the minority. The vast majority of Americans appear to disapprove of what congress is doing, and therefore don't trust them to do the "right" thing.[/QUOTE] I dont approve of congress either, but I approve of the government. Theres a large difference between a blanket term of government and a specific part of it such as congress.

why do people continue to fail to realize that democracy is for the public majority? it seems like everytime there's a thread about shit like this people whine and complain but if it's what the majority of the american public wants, why shouldn't it be the case?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46464021]Congress is a significant portion of the government. If you can't trust congress to pass laws in your best interest, then you can't trust the alphabet soup agencies to act in your best interest, and you can't trust the Executive branch/Judicial branch to enforce the laws.[/QUOTE] I like my roads being maintained, highways being built, safety regulations on buildings, finance, food, and products; our military, the loans the government gives out to the students, social security, medicad & medicare, among many others. Theres a lot to government that you dont realize. Its not all political. I like the social programs we have in this country.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46464151]You can distrust the government and still believe in the government. I distrust our current government, that doesn't mean that next election we'll have a government that I can trust again. All I want is a government that'll let gay people get married while smoking pot and defending their homes with guns, and in the off chance they get injured while doing so they'll go to the hospital for free. And if for some reason someone loses their job, I want proper safety nets instead of the joke of wealthfare that is currently in effect. And while we're at it, i'd like for our education system to stop being the underfunded piece of shit that it is today. Is that so much to ask for? (in todays government, yes, yes it is)[/QUOTE] "Could we have some money for education, we can just take some from the giant military money fountain-" "WOOP WOOP TERRORIST ALERT CODE RED"

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46461437]I just think it's something that Americans are kind of unique in, in the west. Most western countries have citizens that are angry with their governments, but aren't actively afraid of their governments. A lot of governments have stupid powers, but some Americans seems to think that the government is always coming after them, and it seems to be a much larger portion of the population.[/QUOTE] The American government has more power than most republics. European nations are smaller and their governments are usually more down to earth and transparent.

We'll send over our socialist NHS, watch the tears of republicans as it works out cheaper than current American system.

Then laugh when it hits the fan

I wish there were politicians pushing for socialized healthcare, I don't want the Republican's retarded corporatism or the Democrat's half-assed band-aid.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46459678]Maybe if we'd actually taken the time to write a bill that wasn't a steaming pile of shit less people would hold issue with it. The dems held both houses, they could have EASILY passed what they wanted to pass, they pissed it away and it's no wonder they lost out in the congressional races.[/QUOTE] Maybe if we'd drop the god damn Socialist scare tacti-Who are we kidding? Nothing like the NHS in England would've passed because of [I]socialism.[/I] You seriously underestimate the amount of propaganda that was stuffed into Americans from the late 40's to 80's.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46460879]So I've always wondered- what do anti-nationalised healthcare Americans think of other countries' healthcare systems? I mean, it's pretty much the entire developed world that has it nowadays, so... What, do they just think we're all wrong?[/QUOTE] they think all hospitals over there are like ER's over here, crowded, understaffed, over-worked, and underfunded, plus theres always horror stories about how there's year-long wait lists to get vital surgeries, graft, and massive taxes, yet oddly enough we still manage to outspend on healthcare thats sub-par

[QUOTE=KnightSolaire;46467509]We'll send over our socialist NHS, watch the tears of republicans as it works out cheaper than current American system.[/QUOTE] how do you figure it's cheaper anyway?

[QUOTE=Glaber;46468313]how do you figure it's cheaper anyway?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg[/IMG] It is utterly, ludicrously cheaper quite literally everywhere else in the entire world.