Originally Posted by mjp2
It was an honest question, and I'm admittedly surprised by the honesty of your answer -- you're upset about the current news because there has been coverage telling you that you should be upset about the current news.
The exact same items are already in place and have been for your entire life, but they're of no concern because nobody is saying that they're a horrible thing. When those programs were first implemented, the rhetoric was exactly the same as what many outlets are pushing today, but in the end it did nothing to ruin society or the country as a whole.
There's no social engineering going on. There are simply a lot of sick people without coverage who, by law, get treated regardless of their insurance situation. They are are a burden on the healthcare system that needs to be addressed. At present, those additional costs are factored into the premiums paid by those that do have health insurance. If you have insurance, you are already paying for the uninsured.
The goal is to remove those outliers from the equation by pulling them into the fold and having them contribute to the pool. As a business model, insurance only works if people that do not need it still buy in.
The system being implemented was originally proposed in 1989 and was openly supported by industry and by many of today's most vocal detractors:
In reference to your first post from the previous page, this is how a topic can be discussed without becoming political. State facts, discuss objectively, and leave the anger at the door. There should be nothing adversarial about a simple conversation.
This topic in particular is primarily concerning business anyway.
Okay, I'm not that influenced by the news. In fact, I'm extremely distrustful of nearly anything presented by the media, press, or others. As a result, I've studied Obamacare carefully as it relates to me (costs, benefits, etc) and came to a conclusion based on that.
Anyway, lets start off by getting Medicare and Medicaid out of the way. I guess the most obvious would be to point out that those exact programs already provide comprehensive medical services
(inpatient/outpatient care, doctor visits, lab tests, x-rays, nursing home & home health care, prescription drugs, family planning, preventative medicine, etc) for most of the people Obamacare purports to protect
- the elderly, those with low or no income, those on public assistance, the disabled, those whose income is reduced by large medical expenses, and similar. In 2014, Obamacare will expand that to cover even more (all at or near the poverty line), obviously at an additional cost to taxpayers. In other words, your "sick people without coverage" are already quite well covered and have been for a very long time.
Few object to much of that. Instead, the primary objections (including mine) focus on the additional costs to taxpayers and the so-call individual mandate. I believe the former should be paid for by reduced federal spending, while the latter is far too costly for most, especially in a tight economy. The individual mandate requires individuals not covered by employer or government insurance to maintain their own coverage or pay a penalty (1% of income). Of course, the major downside to Obamacare is that it sets few limits on health care costs or no limits on insurance premiums. As a result, my insurance premiums, as an elderly person, will be quite substantial. Those increased Medicare and Medicaid costs (taxes) and insurance premiums was money we were planning to use for retirement (now delayed indefinitely). In the meantime, the insurance companies will get even richer from all the new policies & related monthly premiums.
Of course, that's not to say all are thrilled with paying to expand Medicare and Medicaid. Some people (myself included) feel those programs already cover all those it should protect (the truly needy) and should not be expanded to cover others. At the very least, the programs (like other assistance programs) should do far more to encourage people to work and provide for themselves (their own coverage, etc) instead of relying on public assistance (my taxes) forever.
Anyway, all of this is now perhaps moot following Thursday's Supreme Court ruling. The "four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce." I guess they didn't notice I'm a person, not interstate commerce. The costs of Obamacare (taxes, insurance premiums, possible fines, etc) are directed at me.