Republicans have repeatedly called ACA (or “Obamacare” if you want) the worst piece of legislation ever. They talk about “death panels” and other horrors. And yet the Affordable Care Act is modeled not only after Mitt Romney’s plan in Massachusetts (my home state, and it’s working fine here, by the way) but the 1994 GOP plan that was actually written by the Heritage Foundation (the individual mandate they claimed is unconstitutional actually originated there.)
So it’s a pretty conservative law. They keep calling it “socialism” except it actually increases profits for private insurance companies (what a windfall for them now that everyone has to get insured), and claiming it takes away our rights, except it gives us rights by guaranteeing we won’t be discriminated against by an insurance company. So I would like to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and assume they have legitimate concerns, but whatever legitimate concerns they have are buried under huge steaming piles of paranoid fear-mongering. Why would they lie? Politics. They need Obama to be a failure or else they won’t get the White House back anytime soon.
Look: the UK, Canada, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and a ridiculously long list of other modern industrialized democracies have national health care that is far more liberal and “socialistic” than Obamacare, and you would be hard pressed to find anything remotely resembling “death panels” or the government using “sexual history” or other personal information to discriminate against citizens. About the worst thing you can find is patients wait a couple months to get a hip replacement or knee surgery, and in some countries doctors get paid less than here (but then often the government also foots the bill for medical school, so it’s a trade off.) If you poll people in Canada or the UK or anywhere with national health care they LOVE it, they are overwhelmingly in favor of it by 3-to-1 margins, and you would have a hard time finding “freedoms” that were taken away by the government under the guise of national health care (there is also the argument that national health care provided by the government actually GIVES you MORE freedom-- you can quit your job or go on sabbatical without losing coverage, you won’t lose your house if you get cancer, etc.) Perhaps you would also be in favor of health care closer to those countries, but what is the likelihood that the GOP would ever allow an even more liberal health care law to be passed?
But what’s incredible is how the Republican overlords get the bulk of their supporters to vote against their own interests simply by throwing in ideological dog whistles.
That, and they conflate their issues (low corporate taxes, little regulation) with religious issues (abortion, same-sex marriage). Koch doesn’t care one way or another on abortion, but he certainly loves the fact that his party’s anti-abortion stance mesmerizes poor republican voters into letting him reap billions.
[quote=“GilbertWham, post:54, topic:11143, full:true”]
NO website works the first day. As for subsidised, If I had any say, the whole infrastructure would be nationalised at gunpoint and Health Insurance CEOs would be in jail.[/quote]
Every website I ever built worked the first day, and 2) jailin’s too good fer 'em. My health insurance costs more every year, delivers less value (lately they are actually denying pain meds) and the companies have been making record profits every year since 2006.
Hehe, next time I get a medical bill, I’ll just say that I was rushed into signing it and didn’t read the whole thing, then refuse to pay for my groceries!
This discussion we all are having about the merits of the ACA is interesting, but it’s beside the point. This cartoon isn’t about the ACA; it’s about the tactic being used to force its repeal. Even if you accept that the ACA is bad and should be repealed, holding up all government funding to force that to happen is wrong.
Loving the government isn’t the same thing as expecting them to do their job.
They’re there to provide us with essential services. You question their role in providing us with medical care, but, I assume not military protection.
This has nothing to do with freedom or over reaching governments. It’s the same old left/right argument. Do you favour a system that rewards the many over the few, or the few over the many? If the latter, then it’s hardly surprising that you’re not interested in a universal healthcare system. It also makes you a selfish bastard.
For those that don’t wish to live in a society, it’s quite easy to remove oneself from it.
I have honestly never heard of a new web product (of significant scale) being pushed out with no problems, and no need for further iteration to improve it. Depending on deployment it’s also near impossible to gauge the scalability requirements. Even if all the above is catered for, if you get 10x the number of expected visitors in a month in a single day, there will be issues.
"All of my health information will now be stored along with all of my financial data at the IRS?! "
Politifact has ruled that “Liar liar pants on fire”. The IRS does not gather health information. All you have to do is add proof you have health insurance to your tax filings. If you don’t have insurance they’ll look at your earnings to determine the size of your fine. That’s all, they aren’t reading your medical records. The misunderstanding probably comes from people being unable to see the difference between the IRS and HHS. The Department of Health & Human Services does need to know some things for purposes of calculating whatever subsidies people are eligible for, but most of the stuff is handled by your insurer. So in most states insurers are allowed to add an extra cost for smokers, but this cost is not eligible for individual subsidies, so the insurer must tell the HHS what part of the total price does not count towards subsidies.
Failure to provide your patients deepest and darkest secrets will
result in an immediate suspension of your salary and pension, as well
as your stationery.
I don’t think you understand. You are free to stay on your current insurance, sign up for your employer’s insurance if they offer it, buy from your local independent agent, buy from the new exchanges, or do without and pay a small fine (and maybe get sick and go bankrupt). Even in the exchanges, you have a choice of different plans. The government only cares that you have SOME health insurance, which is to your benefit and the benefit of the rest of the country.
This person has managed to spew an amazing amount of gibberish without getting much of anything right. In their defense, they’ve managed to deliver a lot of concentrated bullshit in surprisingly few words, so points for brevity.
But if they aren’t able to pay then they don’t pay. Most US states have laws requiring EDs to treat patients who show up regardless of whether they can demonstrate an ability to pay. It is a serious problem – EDs in the US hemorrhage money.
Say an elderly homeless guy has a heart attack and manages to stumble over to an emergency department. By law, the ED has to treat. The man has no insurance and certainly can’t pay out of pocket. It doesn’t matter what rates the ED charges – they’re not getting any of that money.
Doesn’t mean it’s right, either. Find the section of the ACA that requires the questions that you fear and share it with us, or we’ll continue to believe that you’ve fallen for FUD hook, line and sinker.
They’ll stabilize the indigent person and shove him back out the door. He’ll be dead soon anyway without any followup care or medication. But he will be billed.
I don’t dispute any of that. I’m merely noting that when people can’t pay bills they don’t. I’m pretty sure this is the phenomenon kcsaff was referring to. That’s all.
