Do You Want "Obamacare" to Fail?

X Factor said:

So, uh, any blame at all for those who actually brought all this on?

Click to expand...

I think the ACA came from a good place; the President was simply trying to improve the lives of the American people. Not the best solution but I think his heart was in the right place. I cannot say the same for the GOP response. To the GOP its been all about scoring political points, damaging his legacy and being a robust political opposition. I do not think the GOP is interested in improving the lives of the American people when it comes to healthcare reform. The way I see it, they did everything in their power to stop him from being elected including support for other democrats once the GOP primary had been settled in 2008. Nothing they tried in terms of demonization would stick; not a US citizen, deep seeded hatred for white people, middle name association with terror, White House Czars over cabinet members subverts the constitution, BFFs with Bill Ayers, BFFs with Ludacris, mentored by Jeremiah Wright, communist, Maxist, socialist, Muslim, only "half black," guilt by association with both people and simply being from Chicago, nothing. Even the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama was described as "all he did was kill a few black teenagers" and that didn't work.

Then along comes healthcare reform and despite its lofty motives, something actually started negatively impacting the Obama politicallyly. A couple of dozen states take the administration to the Supreme Court over the individual mandate provision, despite the fact that idea ORIGINATED with republicans, was mostly opposed by people who had health insurance while decrying its unfairness that they should be forced to buy something they don't want.

I personally don't like Obamacare in its present form. I don't like employer-based and as a consequence employer-controlled healthcare. Although I support "healthcare," I don't like "health insurance" as all this does is create several middle men who all get their cut of our medical costs while destroying many of the market forces that would lower costs and improve quality. I'm simply being honest about how I see the GOP response to the present ACA law.

X Factor said:

If that doesn't make someone pause, nothing will.

Click to expand...

Free hugs, maybe? And a magic wand? Those are probably better options.

Unicorns, sunshine and rainbows might be worth considering too.

if it could be made to work as well as single payer in Europe, then no, i don't want it to fail. however, i think it probably will fail, and hopefully we'll be sick enough of our stupid system by then to just cover everyone through medicare.

Smeagol said:

In fairness I think there are others as well. Police, fire fighters, the military, most state colleges and universities.

Click to expand...

We don't need the government to build roads, deal with fires, or to manage colleges and universities.

As for the military, it's interesting to note that since the UN was put in place nothing has been done towards the elimination of the miltarys all around the world. In fact, all the major military powers of the world have only become more powerful since that point in time. It is still true today, much like it was in the past, that the military is used for the interest of the state, and throughout history the citizens of countries have been enslaved to fight and die for the cause of their rulers. Today people are told this war or that war is meant to defend the country, but then again, that isn't really new and has been going on since the beginning the military ideal itself. Today all eighteen year old men have to sign up for such a draft or face imprisonment for five years, and all the while the state pretends the draft doesn't exist in the country, and that it was morally wrong to force men into war. Of course, lies are and will forever be lies, and transparent lies are and will forever be the most insulting of the sort. There is a certain amount of involuntary servitude that goes into forcing all young men to sign for the draft, and it is a lie to suggest that the draft doesn't exist and yet the signing up for such a draft still exists and is enforced. Of course, what can you expect of the state when they have the power to form and maintain a military. They will of course, desire to enslave their young men to fight for it, they will of course, use the military to push their influence, and they will of course, use their people has pawns to push the desires of whatever the ruling body finds desirable. It is in the interest of all the people of the world to be done with the military ideal, and if you ask me, a proper use of the UN is to reach for those ends. Of course, a lofty goal, but to suggest that the state has the power to kill, and the rulers have the right to call for the death of others is nonsense.

Lastly, the criminal justice system I almost entirely disagree with. For one, it is amazing me to that we permit the state to imprison it's own population and when they do so, we sit around and cheer that those under their protection are harming each other. The prison systems shows a fundamental failure of people to handle themselves orderly, and instead of forming a system crafted around restitution, we have formed a system on imprisonment and giving the government the extreme power to rob the people of their complete liberty and in some states, the very lives of the people. The idea that we should imprison anyone confounds me, and leaves me at a lost for words. Why should we imprison someone that is guilty of theft? He steals someones TV, so we steal from him his life? I don't get the exchange even if we are dealing in just an eye for an eye idiocy. There doesn't appear to me to be a way that imprisonment is ever the answer, but alas, I'm pretty much alone on that one.

Then of course, you have other aspects of that system that seem odd to me. Why is it that the state files charges against someone, and not the victim themselves? What business is of theirs if you or someone commits a crime against me and I don't care? If I don't desire to prosecute that individual should that not be my call to make? If I'm killed, by the criminal in question should that not again be the call of my family if they desire to prosecute? Why is it that the state gets to make the call on something that is obviously the business of the victim or their family? Which of course, I guess would disarm all their arguments towards crimes where there is no victim, or no one really knows exactly who the victim is, but again, isn't that a good thing that the state is disabled to prosecute crimes without a victim to agree to file charges? Again though, I guess I'm alone on thinking there is a problem with the current system.

The police are an issue I won't touch all that much here, but it should be noted that the police didn't always exist and to a large degree they act more like bullies..ahem..I mean protectors, than people that handle crimes. It would probably make a ton more sense to leave people to their own devices and just leave the police to investigate and arrest criminals.

Smeagol said:

Government funded services in America have a horrible reputation as being inefficient, sub-standard, bureaucratic and are often absent any attempt at treating the customer like they're valued. I'm sure you've had horror stories of of your own.

Click to expand...

You do know that's nonsense, right?

grip said:

Are you presenting dense comments on purpose?

• No annual or lifetime limits on healthcare.
• Insurance companies can't drop you when you are sick or for making a mistake on your application.
• You can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• You have the right to quickly appeal any health insurance company decision.
• You have the right to get an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.
• Young Adults can stay on their parent's plan until 26.
• A large improvement to women's health services.
• Reforms to the healthcare industry to cut wasteful spending.
• Better care and protections for seniors.
• New preventative Services at no-out-of pocket costs.

Click to expand...

Am I the only one that noticed all of those violate property rights?

Henrin said:

Am I the only one that noticed all of those violate property rights?

Click to expand...

Yes...you are.

Henrin said:

Am I the only one that noticed all of those violate property rights?

Click to expand...

What?

Buck Ewer said:

Well said AJ ...
Only an asshole would want it to fail.

Click to expand...

You can count me as one of the assholes! This thing has been a train wreck at best since the very beginning. Since this started my wife's hours were cut at work costing us our family insurance plan as well as income. Costs to get our own plan would be astronomical in comparison to what we had. We liked our old policy but it's gone now.

I refuse to sign up for the exchange and will just pay the penalty this April. I will never support this forced policy regardless of what political party ends up backing it.

grip said:

What?

Click to expand...

Who has to be acted on for all those things to come to pass?

Henrin said:

Who has to be acted on for all those things to come to pass?

Click to expand...

I consider a property rights violation to be an offense involving intent to defraud and false representation and obtaining property as a result of that misrepresentation.

Beaudreaux said:

Good question.

Bureaucracy as an entity is not my concern. The impersonal application of something as personal as health care by a bureaucratic system is a concern.

My health care should be my choice, with the guidance of my physicians. Not the choice of an insurance company or a government agency.

My insurance policy gives me and my doctor the choices of treatment. Source and amount of payment are the only choices where my insurance gets involved (although they do try to exceed that limitation regularly).

I just got home from having an ultrasound. The cost of the procedure alone (not including doctor's fees), was $843.00. I had to pay the entire amount because of my deductible and it being early in the year. Under single payer, I may have not been allowed to have the procedure, since there may not be a mechanism for me to pay the costs directly, or even get approval to have the procedure from the government.

For instance, I always try to go through the VA first. The VA disapproved the procedure. My private doctor ordered the procedure and I was scheduled to receive it. The VA refused to perform it. I had to go to a private medical imaging and radiologist group to have the procedure.

My late father-in-law, and my mother-in-law had/have the same problems with Medicare. We have to have a separate private insurance policy as well as use our own funds to cover treatments that Medicare will not allow (look at the video X posted for prima facie evidence of this fact).

The same happens to many in Canada that have to come to the US to have procedures that are not allowed by the Canadian single payer system.

I don't want that here, not for me.

You have the right to do as you wish. As for me? I prefer to have a voice of what happens to my own body.

Click to expand...

Well the single payer system does not allow something for the same reason it may not be be in the U.S., it is not approved yet or it is not covered as it is seen as unnecessary like cosmetic surgery. They would have allowed it, ultrasounds are fine, people in my family have had them at times. Also our single-payer system pays for people who have to go the U.S. for treatment not available here.

Obamacare was a well designed law that will serve the purpose of the administration and those who want to "fundamentally transform America". While it's not going as well as many who supported it had hoped, when it does fail it will in all likelihood lead to single payer - if it lasts long enough. The "evil insurance companies" have been the target all along. Obama and his cohorts aiding him in destroying this country don't care about insuring the uninsured, they want to destroy the insurance companies and grab power.

Let's say Obamacare is somehow able to hold on despite all it's failings (low sign-ups, especially from the younger generations who supported this President and his destructive ways and an essential component to the law actually working as everyone supporting the law saw it). This will only happen if the federal government is somehow able to keep propping up the insurance companies with subsidies (only because they have designed the law to make it difficult for insurance companies to succeed). How long before the line is trotted out that "we can't afford to keep subsidizing the insurance companies with taxpayer money"? I give it three years. This will lead to an even bigger power grab (the true intent of the law) and the federal government will completely take over with single-payer.

You see, if the true intent was to provide insurance tho those that didn't have it this law never would have been passed. There were ways to go about doing that without destroying the healthcare industry and a major component of the economy.

So in regards to the question in the OP, my answer would be that I want it to fail if it does so quickly. The longer it is allowed to destroy the economy, jobs and personal freedoms, the more likely we will land at the doorstep of single-payer which is something we really don't want to see - see Canada for example.

Paschendale said:

You do know that's nonsense, right?

Click to expand...

Insanely long waits in line at the post office and DMV, a public school system more committed to the unions than the kids. I'm sure there are other examples.

I have my own story with government healthcare. A while back a family member had a problem in its very early stages. The doctor could not make a definitive diagnosis at our hospital but there was a new advanced machine at the government run hospital and sent us over there just to have them take pictures. Since this was a government run hospital, it was where most people in town go who didn't have insurance. I can only guess the job security of having a government job coupled a clientele made up most of people who do not have the power to vote with their pocketbooks and take their business elsewhere. The arrogance, uncaring and condescending way we were treated by the hospital staff made a strong impression on my perception of government healthcare. It wasn't just a single person maybe having a bad day either but every encounter I had except one, who was an intern who had only been there a week or two. Yes they had a really nice facility and the best equipment, at least for what wee needed but in every other respect it was like I was at the post office or DMV.

grip said:

I consider a property rights violation to be an offense involving intent to defraud and false representation and obtaining property as a result of that misrepresentation.

Click to expand...

You really can't have property rights without the right to control and manage that property.

X Factor said:

Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

Click to expand...

Voted "Yes."

Why in the world would I want a grossly substandard, ineptly, incompetently implemented (by a bunch of bungling, mind-numbed looney toons), monumental piece of dung-infused garbage legislation ("Oh, oh, but it's for the people, and their health! , and our sense of fairness, and for community, and to save money, and for choice, and we can keep our doctor, and our intentions were good, and because we love..., because we love..., and oh - what about the poor, cuz..., and those who don't have health insurance, and... did we say "love" enough?..." [seriously, gag me with all 2,500+ leftist doodoo good-ism impregnated pages of it now]), unconstitutional, progressive "we could care less what the people think" political power grab to succeed?

And yeah, I want the chief incompetent for whom it's ingloriously but aptly named, and all his equally unqualified amateurs to fail right along with it.

A more massive offense to all reason and common sense never existed.

"...but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Not.

cpwill said:

Well, generally, yes. That is why we require government to break past the incentive structures of Tragedies of the Commons and provide them.

Click to expand...

The government providing them is a public good.....

So all businesses are simply owned by their workers?

Click to expand...

Essentially, yes.

Smeagol said:

Insanely long waits in line at the post office and DMV, a public school system more committed to the unions than the kids. I'm sure there are other examples.

I have my own story with government healthcare. A while back a family member had a problem in its very early stages. The doctor could not make a definitive diagnosis at our hospital but there was a new advanced machine at the government run hospital and sent us over there just to have them take pictures. Since this was a government run hospital, it was where most people in town go who didn't have insurance. I can only guess the job security of having a government job coupled a clientele made up most of people who do not have the power to vote with their pocketbooks and take their business elsewhere. The arrogance, uncaring and condescending way we were treated by the hospital staff made a strong impression on my perception of government healthcare. It wasn't just a single person maybe having a bad day either but every encounter I had except one, who was an intern who had only been there a week or two. Yes they had a really nice facility and the best equipment, at least for what wee needed but in every other respect it was like I was at the post office or DMV.

Click to expand...

I see your anecdotes (and seriously, what's the private equivalent to the DMV that you're comparing it against?), and raise you actual studies and facts.

Mythbusters:
'The private sector is superior'. Time to move on from this old dogma | Andrew Simms and Stephen Reid | Comment is free | theguardian.com
And The Winner Is....The Public Sector | On the Commons

And who cares which staff was nicer to you? How on earth do you think that's a factor in public or private enterprise?

Henrin said:

Public goods result from theft, and those that provide the public good do so with the prospect of profiting from the work.

Click to expand...

In your opinion of course its "theft".
But what you stated does not mean it goes against basic human interaction....

I can't imagine what vital thing you wouldn't want managed by the government.

Click to expand...

Electricity, water, waste, natural resources, some components of housing, education, and basic things they manage right now come up to mind.

There is nothing to debate. It was nonsense back in the 19th century to be talking of public education, and it's nonsense now to be talking of healthcare.

Click to expand...

Just cuz you claim there is not debate does not mean there literally is no debate cuz infact we have been debating it...

TheDemSocialist said:

In your opinion of course its "theft".
But what you stated does not mean it goes against basic human interaction....

Click to expand...

It's my opinion it is theft? What do you call taking someones property without the owners permission? Theft.

Electricity, water, waste, natural resources, some components of housing, education, and basic things they manage right now come up to mind.

Click to expand...

So more or less everything deemed vital they will either supply or be involved in. You should be pretty happy with the current system then.

Just cuz you claim there is not debate does not mean there literally is no debate cuz infact we have been debating it...

Click to expand...

We can talk about whatever you please to talk about, but that doesn't mean it is open to debate.

Henrin said:

It's my opinion it is theft? What do you call taking someones property without the owners permission? Theft.

Click to expand...

Yes you are correct it is your opinion.
You are missing the democratic consent part of the argument. Taxes are not arbitrary impositions decreed by a faceless government, taxes are dues we pay in exchange for membership in a society and access to all the services it offers.
Saying taxation is theft is like saying if someone is found guilty of a crime and hauled off to jail is being kidnapped. Its ludicrous.
Taxes are paying back to society what you owe for the wealth you have generated on the resources it has used on you and for the insurance of that wealth you have gained.

So more or less everything deemed vital they will either supply or be involved in. You should be pretty happy with the current system then.

Click to expand...

No im not. I think the government should nationalize more.

We can talk about whatever you please to talk about, but that doesn't mean it is open to debate.

Click to expand...

Oh i forgot this wasnt a debate politics site :roll::lamo

X Factor said:

Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

Click to expand...

I think with actual factual information, there's little to be scared of.

Henrin said:

Anything that forces people into commerce and has a long list of human right violations attached to it I want to fail.

Click to expand...

I don't put much credence in that thinking. It ignores the actual nature of healthcare. Few people buy cancer or being struck by lightening or being shot by a friend, relative, or enemy. But the care you need then has to be paid for. Much like when your house catches on fire. Firefighters put it out. I wonder how negotiation would go for that on the market? We all know that young people never live in homes that burn down, and they never have car accidents, or need the police. But they will need healthcare, sooner or later. And most won't be able to afford it.

Of course, we could have a plan. Say a universal plan? :coffpap

Kobie said:

"Human rights violations"???

Click to expand...

It was an idiot exaggeration. Not much else.

I can't believe Chuck Norris isn't getting more votes. I demand a recount.

I don't want Obamacare to fail, but I think it will.