Tiffany i don't spend time hating anyone and enjoy a civil debate but wonder about those opinions?  The ACA is not about slavery, immigration, the IRS or DMV.  I currently work as a volunteer and unpaid elected official so am comfortable about how law is made and how compromise and common ground can facilitate change.  We typically have a legislative processes or Robert's Rules that govern interaction in Congress and City Halls.  There is an old saying about people who like sausage and politics, they should never see either one being made. Congress has an 11% approval rating so maybe we are a bit tired of the gridlock?  Shut downs and polarized posturing do little to address the truly needed services for the public.

I spent my career in health care as a provider.  I did not invent the Colleges or curriculum but was the beneficiary of many generations of shared knowledge.  Physicians in this country are well paid and are hardly mere servants.  Many physicians already turn away medicare and medicaid patients.  And no, there are also no "death panels."

There are millions being spent in this country to promote or deny the ACA.  And yes, there are any number of corporate machinations that seek to avoid paying for health care benefits by changing people to part time or contract positions.  No doubt the profit incentives will remain strong but how does that improve health care?

This site has a nicely international perspective and people from european countries and most modern nations have a far different and less costly system of health care.  It is Ok to compare.

We all pay one way or another for the care or lack of it in our current system.  What kind of world do you want to live in?  One with provisions for universal access and equitable services or one where the wealthy don't worry and the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills?

Quote from: abbyt89 on September 21, 2013, 09:57:55 PM
I don't think you'll find that any of the well-trained and well-compensated doctors in countries with UHC consider themselves to be "servants" forced to do what they are doing. Rather they are doing what they chose to pursue and also are following the Hippocratic Oath they swore upon when becoming a physician.

Then they are doing a service. Which is not a right.

QuoteAnd yes, with UHC there would be greater demand on the healthcare system - and for this I will again point to the fact that those countries with UHC have better healthcare outcomes than we do, and they cost the government less! And if some waiting times for non-severe medical procedures or appointments are the cost of UHC, I would be more than willing to pay that to make sure the poor and everyone else who needs healthcare gets it, I'm okay with that. I am lucky enough to have never have had to worry about paying for healthcare since I grew up in a wealthy family so even the inadequacies of our insurance system never affected us. But I am in the minority and there are so many people out there who suffer needlessly due to our current system.

Of course. More demand = better outcomes and cost less. It's a miracle of economics.

I'm very happy to hear you are willing to wait for your non-sever issue to degenerate to the point of warranting an appointment, especially when contrasted with noble feelings of providing for those less fortunate than yourself. It's very heartwarming. It is however not accurate and last time I went to the emergency room it was filled with patients.

QuoteEdit: Not to say that systems like the NHS are perfect, far from it (especially in regards to trans healthcare and the issues with that, but at least they recognize it and cover it). But they are much better than what we have in the U.S. when you look at the overall healthcare provided to their citizens. Whereas we have people who don't have the ability to do standard things like check-ups and other preventive medicine that leads to costly ER visits (that, guess what, you and I ALREADY pay for in the form of higher premiums since the poor aren't able to pay the exorbitant bills) and unnecessary deaths.

Just saying something is better, doesn't make it true. That's not even a valid argument. Watch, I'll try it.

[condescending tone]"What we have now isn't perfect, but it is better than everywhere else."[/condescending tone]

Do you think that we aren't going to pay for Obamacare? Are you somehow suggesting that this will save you anything?

QuoteEdit2: As for the call center story, that is very unfortunate but that is not the fault of the ACA, that is the fault of ->-bleeped-<-ty business managers that would rather cut people's hours than provide them with healthcare. The good news is the call center employees likely make little enough to qualify for all of the subsidies provided by the state and federal government and will be able to get free or very cheap insurance coverage through the state-run healthcare exchanges that go into effect next year.

See, here is the problem. I give you an article about something that is a direct consequence and a proven failure, and you blame "business managers." It is a government run place. It is run by the very people you are so adamant about turning your health over to. I'm absolutely stunned. The govt. fails, badly, you blame "business managers" and then offer consolation by saying they should be happy to receive their new welfare program.

I honestly didn't want to butt in here because I didn't want to lecture or sound condescending, but the US really makes me sad sometimes.. how some people (a majority perhaps) can fight tooth and nail to prevent efforts that might some day lead to national health care and save lives is a complete mystery to me.

This is a prime example of why the US way of doing things is considered so completely foreign to most Europeans... I am not saying our system(s) (Scandinavian here) is perfect, but I will call the US a hundred years behind the times when it comes to this kind of stuff any day of the week.

Now, many Americans will at this point claim that socialism does not work, that the state should stay out of the individuals business, yada yada.. so I will just encourage you to read this article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel. The Nordic countries are not perfect.. but they are still an example of democratic socialism done right.

The amount of homeless, poor, dying, etc. people in the US is comparable to most third world nations. In my country, no citizen is forced to live on the streets (and if they do, it's because they choose to (I am serious)) and if you get ill, any hospital or medical institution will do their best to aid you, free of charge. It is the duty of the nation state to care for it's citizens. It might not usually be said that literally, but most Europeans will nod in recognition to this statement.

Now granted, the Nordic countries do have one of the highest tax burdens in the world, but its not that much higher than most US states.. and I will honestly say that I will take free education (including university) and free healthcare over 5% less income tax and call it a bargain. Especially with the absolute minimum wage here approaching $22/hour. I have spoken with Americans working for $5/hour, something I still think is as close to slavery as you get in the modern world.

I will not even get into the myriad of other things that are wrong with the US.. why does one of the richest nations in the world have to be among the most dangerous to visit? Have you ever compared murder rates between, say, Chicago and Toronto? You might get shocked. I blame guns, but who knows.. maybe Americans are just crazy (That does seem to be the common consensus around European dinner tables..)

Edit: If you are too lazy to read articles off-site, this is the conclusion they make:

Quote
The main lesson to learn from the Nordics is not ideological but practical. The state is popular not because it is big but because it works. A Swede pays tax more willingly than a Californian because he gets decent schools and free health care. The Nordics have pushed far-reaching reforms past unions and business lobbies. The proof is there. You can inject market mechanisms into the welfare state to sharpen its performance. You can put entitlement programmes on sound foundations to avoid beggaring future generations. But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests. And you must be ready to abandon tired orthodoxies of the left and right and forage for good ideas across the political spectrum. The world will be studying the Nordic model for years to come.

Quote from: Tessa James on September 21, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
Tiffany i don't spend time hating anyone and enjoy a civil debate but wonder about those opinions?  The ACA is not about slavery, immigration, the IRS or DMV.

It's called a correlation. You see, I'm using other events and known experiences to make my point. Perhaps the point was lost.

QuoteI currently work as a volunteer and unpaid elected official so am comfortable about how law is made and how compromise and common ground can facilitate change.  We typically have a legislative processes or Robert's Rules that govern interaction in Congress and City Halls.  There is an old saying about people who like sausage and politics, they should never see either one being made. Congress has an 11% approval rating so maybe we are a bit tired of the gridlock?  Shut downs and polarized posturing do little to address the truly needed services for the public.

Oh my, what a testament to your impartiality. Let's facilitate change by having other people compromise to do what I want. Last time I checked, people weren't happy with congress in 2010 either. What happened before that? Anything come to mind? Well, you are well versed in the political arena so I'm sure you will have no trouble coming to a conclusion.

QuoteI spent my career in health care as a provider.  I did not invent the Colleges or curriculum but was the beneficiary of many generations of shared knowledge.  Physicians in this country are well paid and are hardly mere servants.  Many physicians already turn away medicare and medicaid patients.  And no, there are also no "death panels."

If anyone out there reads anything at all I write, let it be this. Medicare and Medicaid are both visions of your future. You will see less coverage, less availability and more doctors leaving. They are both examples of government run health care plans which are both bankrupting the states and federal govt.. By Tessa's own admission physicians turn away those patients. And then blames the doctors, not the programs. Those 2 programs alone cost $802,000,000,000 and Obamacare piles millions more patients onto those programs. When many of the people who think they're going to get free healthcare find out they are being dumped onto those programs, they are going to be in the same situation Tess is admitting to: Denied healthcare.



IPAB is your death panel. Everyone knows it. It's your healthcare rationing department. Even Howard Dean wrote about it:

---

"There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting — the essential mechanism of the IPAB — has a 40-year track record of failure," Dean wrote.

Dean, who is a healthcare industry representative as a senior adviser at the law and lobbying firm McKenna Long & Aldridge, said his experience  as governor of Vermont turned him off to government control of healthcare prices.

"What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients," Dean wrote.

"By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them," Dean added. "Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic."

---

Look at me, I'm in agreement with Howard Dean. Look at my bipartisanship!

QuoteThere are millions being spent in this country to promote or deny the ACA.  And yes, there are any number of corporate machinations that seek to avoid paying for health care benefits by changing people to part time or contract positions.

See, implement a law, business react with real world demonstration of the laws in action. Blame the businesses. Repeat.

QuoteNo doubt the profit incentives will remain strong but how does that improve health care?

Profit motive improves healthcare. See Plastic Surgeons.

QuoteThis site has a nicely international perspective and people from european countries and most modern nations have a far different and less costly system of health care.  It is Ok to compare.

Yeah, I'm cool with not having European socialist healthcare. Call me crazy.

QuoteWe all pay one way or another for the care or lack of it in our current system.  What kind of world do you want to live in?  One with provisions for universal access and equitable services or one where the wealthy don't worry and the leading cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills?

This is an hilarious straw-man argument. I will propose my own. What kind of world do you want to live in? One where everyone has an opportunity to pursue their own best medical treatments that are private between them and their doctor or one where people die waiting to see a doctor from a third world medical school and be subjected to medical rationing?

The truth is that the perfect healthcare system does not exist — each country reflects its own social priorities. There is no right answer, especially as healthcare budgets continue to rise across the developed world. In the United States, universal coverage is sacrificed in favor of individual choice and control. Voters are worried that a government run system may deny them their choice of doctor or drug, or even see granny up before a "death panel." In the U.K., while universal access is a core principle, survival rates from serious diseases lag behind those of other developed countries and choice for patients is extraordinarily limited.

Health care can never be affordable, high quality and universal. Politicians consistently claim that it can tick all of the boxes, whereas the reality is that high quality systems are either unaffordable, or not available to everyone. Yet politicians from every country continue to pretend that the unobtainable goal of affordable, universal, high-quality care is just around the corner.

Debates about public or private models of funding are actually something of a sideshow, for two reasons. First there is a false dichotomy between privately and publicly funded systems. Almost all healthcare costs are shared, whether through redistributive taxation or pooled risk in an insurance fund.

From: The False Dichotomy of Health Care Funding

Quote from: Anastasia E on September 21, 2013, 11:46:30 PM
I honestly didn't want to butt in here because I didn't want to lecture or sound condescending, but the US really makes me sad sometimes.. how some people (a majority perhaps) can fight tooth and nail to prevent efforts that might some day lead to national health care and save lives is a complete mystery to me.

This is a prime example of why the US way of doing things is considered so completely foreign to most Europeans... I am not saying our system(s) (Scandinavian here) is perfect, but I will call the US a hundred years behind the times when it comes to this kind of stuff any day of the week.

Now, many Americans will at this point claim that socialism does not work, that the state should stay out of the individuals business, yada yada.. so I will just encourage you to read this article: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel. The Nordic countries are not perfect.. but they are still an example of democratic socialism done right.

The amount of homeless, poor, dying, etc. people in the US is comparable to most third world nations. In my country, no citizen is forced to live on the streets (and if they do, it's because they choose to (I am serious)) and if you get ill, any hospital or medical institution will do their best to aid you, free of charge. It is the duty of the nation state to care for it's citizens. It might not usually be said that literally, but most Europeans will nod in recognition to this statement.

Now granted, the Nordic countries do have one of the highest tax burdens in the world, but its not that much higher than most US states.. and I will honestly say that I will take free education (including university) and free healthcare over 5% less income tax and call it a bargain. Especially with the absolute minimum wage here approaching $22/hour. I have spoken with Americans working for $5/hour, something I still think is as close to slavery as you get in the modern world.

I will not even get into the myriad of other things that are wrong with the US.. why does one of the richest nations in the world have to be among the most dangerous to visit? Have you ever compared murder rates between, say, Chicago and Toronto? You might get shocked. I blame guns, but who knows.. maybe Americans are just crazy (That does seem to be the common consensus around European dinner tables..)

Edit: If you are too lazy to read articles off-site, this is the conclusion they make:

I read it and I am 100% behind many of the reforms they enacted. Reduced Govt in GDP, Taxes Cut, corporate taxes cut to 22%!!!! Reformed pension system, budget deficit of .3% of GDP, privatized hospitals, universal school vouchers, taxes paid with a text! Free trade without bailouts, they reformed unions. This is like a wet dream for Conservatives in America. I'm for all of this. The only caveat they named was a 30% public work force. I don't know what that is in relation to our population versus yours. I assume we are significantly more...

But the article goes on to call the public spending on GDP unsustainable, and levels of tax still to high driving people out. And the kicker of course, too many people, especially immigrants, live off welfare.

I'm totally down with a lot of this. Seriously, Milton Freedman would be proud.

This is just getting sad.  The op's thread was transformed into rants and some of the responses are filled with condescension and negative sentiments towards each other.  This doesn't benefit, educate or help anyone.  Debate the healthcare topic and share your insight, but have a modicum of respect for each other on a support site.   

One thing I'm surprised I did not see mentioned in the first page, though I'll admit I skimmed some of that, is that one of the primary excuses to deny trans people coverage, pre-existing conditions, will no longer be allowed.  Soooo that's one posative I can think of off the top of my head.

I have moved this topic over to the Politics board based on a suggestion in-thread.

I realize this is a hot-button issue for many.  However, I expect the discussion to remain civil and that it will avoid ad hominem attacks.

Please report posts you believe to be in violation of the rules of the site.

Quote from: TiffanyT on September 21, 2013, 09:19:42 PM
I'm glad you don't think I should apologize for my political views. I criticized the legislation and I had a very snarky and immature post directed at me with broad paintings and personal attacks.

Are you directing that towards me? I wasn't snarky, immature or the rest of it, and there was no ad hominem attack. If you think there was, please explain. You just seem a bit sensitive to being corrected is all. Since you don't know me, you also don't know what I know or don't know. Do you?

I was presenting the real life situation with healthcare in this country. Yes, I have had many jobs with excellent health insurance. But then that started getting more and more scarce, even at the same employer as the rates went through the ceiling. Fear of not being insured makes people put up with it.

Your reply, as is this one seems pretty snarky. If I was being snarky you would know it. I'm a Scorpio. Anyway, I did not mean to come off as picking a fight with you. I apologize for that. But this is a serious issue for many people. Some of us even have degrees and all... and no health insurance. It's a wealthy country, and people are treated like its a 3rd world country. We already pay taxes, let's get to use some of that.

And to the mods, whom I don't seem to know how to contact, can you please change my group from "Androgyne" to "MTF" ... pretty please. 

To be honest, I haven't read that many of the previous posts. But yeah... From what I've heard so far, it is going to bring about very positive changes for trans and other people who had issues with insurance before. Like someone else said, it is going to make it so that people cannot be denied insurance coverage for preexisting medical conditions. That was something I was really worried about because I am not just "trans," rather I have a lot of different health issues that was going to make getting my own insurance difficult. But fortunately, I don't have to worry about that anymore, which is good, because my father is probably going to pull my coverage soon. My therapist also mentioned that trans-care has been put deemed medically necessary. She mentioned how previously a lot of insurance companies would not pay for Gender Therapy (which is why she works around it by just billing it as standard therapy, lol), Hormone Replacement Therapy, and practically none covered "the surgery," forcing patients to pay for everything out of pocket. But because of the changes, she said that isn't going to be an issue anymore since they are now expected to not discriminate and take care of the needs of everyone. I mean, look at the changes with Social Security. You can now change your name and gender in the US without even having to have the surgery, just as long as you are going through some form of "gender treatment" and have a note from a medical professional. I was seriously happy about that change, because I was worried about having to explain myself anytime someone did a check on me. So it seems that the political waters are now quite favorable for trans now. In fact, she even went on further to say that there has been talk that some insurance companies will even cover the surgery completely or in part, depending on the company. But the primary thing she is worried about, though, is that they may limit like which surgeon you can use, and she is quite picky about which surgeons she refers to, because she wants to be sure a good job is done since she wants her patients to be happy. As she put, "Trust me... You want a good surgeon because hey, this is your labia that we're talking about, so it's appearance and your satisfaction with the area does matter, because you'll be living with it the rest of your life." So yeah... Not a bad "downside" at all, really. It is much better than not being covered at all. Because I have heard of the horror stories where "trans" (Gawd I hate that term, but whatever) were denied the medical procedures they needed but couldn't receive because of technicalities, and they end up developing cancer since they couldn't get screening done, or they get really sick from something else and they can't get treatment because they couldn't even get insurance because of a "preexisting medical condition." Now, thanks to the changes, I won't have to worry about that, because if that happened, the government would be pissed. So yeah... Sure there may be some downsides to it, but as far as I am concerned, the upsides outweigh them. My wallet is definitely going to be grateful, that is for sure. Lol.

So i guess no one watches the news any more....Republicans passed a bill defunding Obamacare and if by any chance democrats don't pass it when it goes to there house the government is going into shut down. Now considering a shutdown means they don't get paid i don't see it failing which is a good thing. Minus the part saying an insurance company can't drop you and has to accept you with a preexisting condition, the rest of it is a liberal minded train wreck that will flush our wonderful country right down the same toilet every other socalisist nation has gone down. Basically Obamacare isn't for this country and needs to be defunded. Now before someone starts defending the bill let me ask you this, if that bill is sooo wonderful and will do wonders for our nation 1 why wasn't it implemented during Obummers first term instead of being dumped on someone elses pending he wasn't reelected. 2 why is all of Congress, the president, vice president and so on exempt? 3 why are all major businesses now exempt when the parts of the bill creating fines to companies without insurance was supposed to kick in in 2014? Simple answer NO ONE HAS FAITH IN IT BUT OBUMMER.

Hmmmm, didn't the repubs pull this last year or so with the debt ceiling thing? It didn't work then either.

Quote from: RavenMoon on September 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
And to the mods, whom I don't seem to know how to contact, can you please change my group from "Androgyne" to "MTF" ... pretty please. 

Done!

Also, you will be able to modify your profile and use the personal messaging utility after you have 15 posts, unless you are a donor/subscriber, then you get immediate access.

And let's all stick to the facts, as we understand them.

Now, I am not going to comment on US politics because I honestly don't know anything about it. But...

Quote from: kariann330 on September 22, 2013, 04:04:13 PM
the rest of it is a liberal minded train wreck that will flush our wonderful country right down the same toilet every other socalisist nation has gone down.

Nations with universal healthcare.


GDP per capita as compared to the above map.

'Muricans...

Gosh, I'm still confused by this whole thing.
My immigrant friends (from Cambodia/Australia) seemed to be pretty excited about this healthcare thing, but I didn't pay much attention at the time because I haven't had a real health issue. Now that I'm looking into HRT, I'm concerned. But.. D'uh, so is anyone else reading this.

Quote from: kariann330 on September 22, 2013, 04:04:13 PM
So i guess no one watches the news any more....Republicans passed a bill defunding Obamacare and if by any chance democrats don't pass it when it goes to there house the government is going into shut down. Now considering a shutdown means they don't get paid i don't see it failing which is a good thing. Minus the part saying an insurance company can't drop you and has to accept you with a preexisting condition, the rest of it is a liberal minded train wreck that will flush our wonderful country right down the same toilet every other socalisist nation has gone down. Basically Obamacare isn't for this country and needs to be defunded. Now before someone starts defending the bill let me ask you this, if that bill is sooo wonderful and will do wonders for our nation 1 why wasn't it implemented during Obummers first term instead of being dumped on someone elses pending he wasn't reelected. 2 why is all of Congress, the president, vice president and so on exempt? 3 why are all major businesses now exempt when the parts of the bill creating fines to companies without insurance was supposed to kick in in 2014? Simple answer NO ONE HAS FAITH IN IT BUT OBUMMER.

Without getting into the pros and cons of the Affordable care act, why do you assume no one supports it or has any faith in it? Since the Affordable care act was a major issue in the 2012 campaigns, it's likely it played a big role in the overall election.  If it were universally opposed, wouldn't President Obama have lost in 2012?  Or wouldn't it at least be closer than it was?  Also, why did the democrats pick up more seats in the 113th congress compared to the 112th?  Why would they maintain control of the senate?  There could be various other reasons for this, but the affordable care act played a role in the elections and would have had  negative impact on democrats if it were hated by all or the overwhelming majority. While it is certainly controversial legislation, there is a large amount of support as well as opposition.  Nothing is so clear cut.  It's like the Bush Presidency.  It's clear that he was a controversial president, but he wasn't universally disliked.  If that were the case, he wouldn't have won his second and first term*.

As for the Senate passing the latest attempts to defund the ACA, it's very unlikely.  This is the 42nd attempt.  Why will this be different?  Sure, the debt ceiling is tied to this, but that won't change the fact that it won't pass.  If it does, I tip my hat to the Republicans for their political savvy.  In reality, this is more of a political ploy done to raise an issue without the expectation of getting the desired result. Personally I think the Republican strategists have done a brilliant job finding an issue for their 2014 campaign.  This will allow them to say the democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling. From a political standpoint, it's pretty smart, even though I disagree with them in many respects.  Having said that, I personally feel the debt ceiling shouldn't be used for political bargaining or ploys.  This goes for both sides.  It's almost like a husband and wife having a personal fight, so they decide to neglect paying the bank their mortgage payments.  It doesn't make sense to me, but I realize why it's done.   

* Technically Bush won the first term by all accounts.  Even if the Supreme Court didn't stop the recount, Bush would have won.  Gore was likely the winner in the sense that more people in Florida intended to vote for him, but over votes and most of the ambiguous ballots wouldn't count in the recount.  So, it's unfair to state that Bush stole the election. I wanted to pre-emptively write this in the event people claim otherwise.

Edit- I meant "tip my hat" and changed my initial typo. 

Now that I think about it, the Republicans may find themselves in trouble with their latest actions.  According to the latest CNN Poll, the House Leadership would face most of the negative consequences for a shutdown (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/321819-poll-gop-would-be-blamed-for-shutdown) (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/11/cnn-poll-who-would-get-blamed-for-government-shutdown/).  While there was a Rassmusen poll claiming otherwise (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/september_2013/51_favor_government_shutdown_until_congress_cuts_health_care_funding), I find they have a pretty poor track record and have found some of their past methodology questionable. Still, the leaders of both houses are universally disliked (http://www.gallup.com/poll/164561/congressional-leaders-low-marks-fiscal-fight-looms.aspx), so it all depends on the way the debate is phrased and interpreted by the public.  Yet, it could play very badly for the house leadership.  The Republicans may have overreached on this one and have given the DCCC the opportunity they are looking for.  Time will tell, but I think the latest CNN poll should concern the Republicans.

What is also interesting is that very same poll shows that support for the Affordable care act has been dropping.  So the poll only reflects disapproval with causing a house shut down, not a endorsement of Obamacare.  The declining support of the Affordable Care Act goes along with what the Pew Research Center recently found (http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/16/as-health-care-law-proceeds-opposition-and-uncertainty-persist/).  I'd check out that report because it really gives a comprehensive view on how Americans perceive the law.  As I said before, it is a controversial law with a lot of opposition, but it isn't universally hated. 

Quote from: RavenMoon on September 22, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
Are you directing that towards me? I wasn't snarky, immature or the rest of it, and there was no ad hominem attack. If you think there was, please explain. You just seem a bit sensitive to being corrected is all. Since you don't know me, you also don't know what I know or don't know. Do you?

I made a comment and you stormed in and laid out your life story at me, implying it was my fault or the fault of everyone else for your plight. I've never spoken to you before and yet you have the audacity to present your case to me as if it's my responsibility.

QuoteI was presenting the real life situation with healthcare in this country. Yes, I have had many jobs with excellent health insurance. But then that started getting more and more scarce, even at the same employer as the rates went through the ceiling. Fear of not being insured makes people put up with it.

It is not the real life situation in this country, it is only your situation. There are 300+million people in this country and every single one of them has their own situation. You only seem to think about your needs and not how it affects everyone else. You don't know that the first thing Obamacare did was destroy my insurance plan. The one that I really liked. The one that I was told if I liked it, I could keep it. The one that allowed me to save my money in a pre-tax HSA.

Rates continue to skyrocket and every day more employers are cutting spouses and dependents thanks to this law. Nobody seems to care about them. And if they do, it's to the extent of "Oh they can just go get a subsidy!!!" I have a little sister with a degenerative disease that will eventually kill her who is on experimental drugs and the likelyhood of that continuing to be covered is in jeopardy, so no, I don't really care that much about a $100 inhaler. Her insurance is covered by her husbands employer and her medicines cost thousands of dollars a month. You don't care that her quality of life is threatened by a bunch of people who only see her as a number on a diagram. Those are just 2 of my examples of how this changes things. Now multiply that by 300,000,000 and you can see why a ton of people are up in arms about this.

There were proposals to allow self-employed people to group together to get plans at a discounted rate and those proposals were shot down. The same with proposals for small businesses to group together for discounts. And now, even existing guilds who were previously able to offer discounted options to their members are losing coverage.

QuoteYour reply, as is this one seems pretty snarky. If I was being snarky you would know it. I'm a Scorpio. Anyway, I did not mean to come off as picking a fight with you. I apologize for that. But this is a serious issue for many people. Some of us even have degrees and all... and no health insurance. It's a wealthy country, and people are treated like its a 3rd world country. We already pay taxes, let's get to use some of that.

It is a serious issue. This is not some free health care plan. You are going to pay more in taxes for it and you are going to be forced to buy a plan from an evil insurance company. Romneycare in Massachusetts is a disaster and has led to painfully long wait times and a decrease in doctor availability. Many are just not accepting new patients. And that's in one state. Imagine it on a nationwide scale.



Medicaid is a disaster and was already a massive plan to give healthcare to the poor. We have a 15,000 GP shortage in this country. Obamacare is not some clever way to get a bunch of tax money out of the rich to pay for free healthcare. It is a plan to unleash a massive amount of pain and suffering and it is going to lead to rationed care. This idea that it is some sort of Panacea has got to be stopped. If you are self-employed then you should already know what self-employment taxes are like.

Look, I don't me to be a friggin bitch, and I'm sorry for being a pain in everyones ass and especially for lashing out at you. I know I've behaved poorly but we are in for a real world of hurt. In the end there is going to be a system for all of the privileged, super wealthy, insulated, ruling class who will have access to everything and anything they need while all the rest of us will be stuck in a remedial, mediocre failure which we will have no recourse from and it breaks my heart. Yes the previous system had problems, but nobody would fix it over political reasons. Instead it's been replaced with something that will exacerbate everything that was wrong with it.

I'm on medicaid and will stay on medicaid, so the legal changes won't affect me directly.

As far as I experience, the main change is that I'm now being accused by conservative family of ruining the country by interfering with what they consider to be a functional free market system.

I don't think it was ever that to begin with, but that's for another thread.