The real goal of "Obamacare"

[IlDestriero]

Here's what I believe. Obama and the democrats in congress want universal coverage, and would gladly support a single government plan, or a 2 tier system (government and private insurance/hospitals for the wealthy). Unfortunately it is the wrong time, again. The economy is in shambles, and the short term costs are huge. Though longterm costs could be much better controlled. The public is not ready to go there either at this time.
I think that the true purpose of what is now known as Obamacare is to drive up the price of private insurance over the next 10-20 years. The system will than prove itself to be "unsustainable" and a "failure". That opens the door for the government to step in and make whatever brutal changes are needed to implement a government system and universal care, and at a big discount.
Fortunately I'll likely be retired by then.
What do the young optimists think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Knocked Up]

What do the young optimists think?

I don't think I am voting for Obama for re-election. Romney / Gingrich duo 2012

They will overturn everything once in office. Game over, no more worries.

 

[Suncrusher]

Here's what I believe. Obama and the democrats in congress want universal coverage, and would gladly support a single government plan, or a 2 tier system (government and private insurance/hospitals for the wealthy). Unfortunately it is the wrong time, again. The economy is in shambles, and the short term costs are huge. Though longterm costs could be much better controlled. The public is not ready to go there either at this time.

agree?

I think that the true purpose of what is now known as Obamacare is to drive up the price of private insurance over the next 10-20 years. The system will than prove itself to be "unsustainable" and a "failure". That opens the door for the government to step in and make whatever brutal changes are needed to implement a government system and universal care, and at a big discount.

disagree; I do not think there is some sort of conspiracy behind Obamacare. I do think that because of the pathetic deal with big pharma and relentless lobbying by insurance companies that Obamacare will indeed not do anything to control costs. After all the lobbying and death-panel attacks and whatnot, the Democrats became so desperate to pass any healthcare bill and chalk it up as a so-called "win" that they made deals with everyone and gave away all the things that would have controlled costs. So, even though the status quo was also unsustainable, Obamacare is even more unsustainable due to trading the aforementioned deals (which were required to stop all the lobbying attacks and give the bill any chance of passing) for effectiveness. But either way I think it is obvious that we are headed for more reforms eventually.

I don't think I am voting for Obama for re-election. Romney / Gingrich duo 2012

They will overturn everything once in office. Game over, no more worries.

not actually gonna happen, dude. Both the ticket and the overturning.

 

[Sesom]

I don't think I am voting for Obama for re-election. Romney / Gingrich duo 2012

They will overturn everything once in office. Game over, no more worries.

I would be voting Obama no question if those were the choices .

 

[Starlightembers]

Here's what I believe. Obama and the democrats in congress want universal coverage, and would gladly support a single government plan, or a 2 tier system (government and private insurance/hospitals for the wealthy). Unfortunately it is the wrong time, again. The economy is in shambles, and the short term costs are huge. Though longterm costs could be much better controlled. The public is not ready to go there either at this time.
I think that the true purpose of what is now known as Obamacare is to drive up the price of private insurance over the next 10-20 years. The system will than prove itself to be "unsustainable" and a "failure". That opens the door for the government to step in and make whatever brutal changes are needed to implement a government system and universal care, and at a big discount.
Fortunately I'll likely be retired by then.
What do the young optimists think?

This young optimist thinks that physicians will continue to do well, no matter the changes that currently loom on the horizon ("to do well", for my purposes, is >$100,000 in earnings).

This young optimist agrees that, unfortunately, this is likely the wrong time to attempt major healthcare reform.

This young optimist thinks that it is impossible to predict the future completely and it is impossible to know the motivates of a bunch of politicians (though, I doubt the existence of hidden motives); we will not know the implications of "Obamacare" until the law has been in effect for quite a few years and we have had time to measure its impact.

At the same time, this young optimists thinks that, overall, a society runs better when everyone has access to health care.

This young optimist thinks that having to cope with a small decrease in her potential earnings doesn't sound so bad if it means that no kid has to watch his or her mother (almost) die because they couldn't afford to purchase a simple inhaler or visit the doctor again.

Yet, this young optimist is still torn, as I understand both sides of the argument.

This young optimist thinks that there are no and will be no easy answers or solutions; but that some workable resolution will eventually be reached.

This young optimist, however, is also admittedly biased due to her own personal experiences and, if you feel it be necessary, feel free to take that fact/reality into account when evaluating my opinions on the subject.

I don't think I am voting for Obama for re-election. Romney / Gingrich duo 2012

They will overturn everything once in office. Game over, no more worries.

You do realize that Romney is the reason for the ACA's (aka, "Obamacare") existence, right? Though he has not shown support for the reform, there is a part of me that thinks he is only making claims of being opposed to it so he actually stands a fighting chance of being elected. He was certainly proud of himself when he got a similar reform passed in Mass.

 

[NH14]

I doubt there's a conspiracy. Also, we should be calling the health care reform law by its appropriate name, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Calling it 'Obamacare' is ridiculous - Obama wanted to go a lot further, and the act was watered down more so by Republicans than anyone else. Remember the government-run option? Where did that go? Well, Mitch McConnell took it out back and shot it.

Honestly, do we really think Republicans are going to make things better in 2012? There is really no other viable choice for president than Obama.

 

[Narmerguy]

This is sure to be a fruitful, productive discussion.

 

[Suncrusher]

I doubt there's a conspiracy. Also, we should be calling the health care reform law by its appropriate name, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

I personally benefited from the bill's passage, and even I refer to it as Obamacare. The full name is a mouthful and the acronym is so rarely used that I doubt I would recognize it out-of-context. I don't deny that Obamacare started out as a pejorative term, but it isn't necessarily used that way anymore.

This is sure to be a fruitful, productive discussion.

If Pre-allo ever had fruitful, productive discussions I would probably get bored and stop reading it

 

[Suncrusher]

 

[Celerity]

I don't think I am voting for Obama for re-election. Romney / Gingrich duo 2012

They will overturn everything once in office. Game over, no more worries.

No they won't. They have to have a majority in the house and 60 members in the senate to avoid filibuster to get a repeal passed. They can virtually do nothing except spend their political capital trying but failing. The best chance to get it overturned is by the supreme court. This will be tricky though as the court historically seems to come down to one swing vote by Kennedy. Kennedy has proven to be the most unpredictable member of the court and is often as liberal as he is conservative. The odds of republicans obtaining a super majority is very low. Therefore the odds of repealing it without the Supreme Court is low, and the chance that the Supreme Court repeals it is 50% at best. "Obamacare" does seem like a perfect gateway to universal healthcare, but even members of his cabinet have said this month that numerous portions of it are unsustainable especially with the economy. The country will most likely find out that the plan is unsustainable after he is re-elected in 2012. It will most likely be stripped down sometime after that, when most of the Law comes into full effect. By the way, this law is part of the problem with the economy because many of the employers don't know how this is going to affect their business and are not willing to hire employees because they fear that their costs may go up. That's just one small factor in the larger picture, but it's still part of the problem. In 10-20 years if the law is still around, it will most likely be the path to universal health care.
Oh, and before I get flamed by the right or left, I personally feel that Obama and Bush tie for the worst Pres ever. All the GOP nominees thus far don't look like they can beat Obama. Obama took much of their ammunition away: He got Bin Laden, Bush didn't. He got out of Iraq, Bush got us in. He also can say that even though he has tripled the debt, it was needed to avoid a bigger economic calamity that Bush was responsible for. As much as his base is de-energized they really don't want to go back to the way things were before Obama, so they will show up next November.

 

[reynoldsnumber]

I would be voting Obama no question if those were the choices .

What makes you think the government is good at doing anything? What makes you think Obama can do anything productive?

Obama gave Solyndra $500 million dollars (might I add at my expense and all those others paying taxes) only to go belly up, I am no economist, but that doesn't seem to be a great investment.

Obama has added more debt to the country than all other presidents combined -- and he has done it in 3 years. Oh wait, I can already hear it, but he inherited it from Bush. Get a grip, when is he going to man up and do something productive. He probably would be better off if he stayed at the white house and actually worked on things instead of taking vacations every other month (I am exaggerating how many vacations he takes, but it does seem a little ironic that with the current state of the country, he shouldn't be taking so many). I don't know if he blames Bush for his situation, but democrats sure believe the reason he isn't curing cancer is because of Bush.

Social Security is in shambles and is a lost cause.

Right now, at this point in time (dx/dt -- for those that are mathematically inclined) anything dealing with universal healthcare should be put on the back burner, getting the economy turned around and heading in the right direction should be priority numero uno.

If Obama is re-elected, I am stocking up on ammo and buying more guns. If Obama is re-elected, America could be in big trouble. I think it would be wise to take a look at all candidates whomever they may be.

Remember, America is still the best country in the World. However, if we don't get our act together, we will no longer be considered the best country.

God Bless

 

[Geekchick921]

I would love to see the face of anyone that went to that site after seeing that flyer.

 

[Celerity]

Obamacare being the path to Universal Healthcare is not a conspiracy. It is the inevitable outcome when you have the government offering a product for cheaper than what the free market can. More people will choose to use the government option because it's cheaper. Private companies will increase their rates and more people will again choose the government option. This cycle will continue until there only is the government option.

 

[Suncrusher]

I would love to see the face of anyone that went to that site after seeing that flyer.

Luckily, I learned about it from 30 Rock before anyone had the chance to troll me with it. I feel like I owe Tina Fey some sort of innocence-debt.

 

[reynoldsnumber]

: He got Bin Laden, Bush didn't. He got out of Iraq, Bush got us in.

True, Obama got Bin Laden, only after Bush had implemented everything. It was essentially "turn key" for Obama.

True, Bush was the one who made the final decision to go into Iraq, but remember, on October 11, 2002, both the Congress (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) voted on a resolution for Iraq. Cough Cough, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle all voted for a go -- so it all wasn't on Bush.

God Bless

 

[Narmerguy]

If Pre-allo ever had fruitful, productive discussions I would probably get bored and stop reading it

I suppose I understand. But doesn't it get tiring after a while? After 4 years of watching people shout back and forth, clearly without the intent of actually learning anything, and myself having participated in the first couple years, I'm utterly exhausted. It's tiring, and nothing changes. It becomes a test of endurance, who's willing to keep writing long 4 paragraph responses that no one is even reading except the two people with something to prove. Eventually we all walk away, accepting what we always knew--everyone else is an idiot/naive/illogical/misguided/******ed.

I just wish there could be some discussions that are respectful, reasonable, measured, and with two parties that are willing to accept that their way might not be the better way. But we're on the internet, on SDN, on PreAllo, and discussing issues that are so sensitive, everyone decided long ago where they stand on these issues.

 

[kautionwirez]

I liked Bill Clinton as president. I remember happy thoughts during that period of time. Can we re-elect him? (No political reasoning)

 

[Slack3r]

True, Obama got Bin Laden, only after Bush had implemented everything. It was essentially "turn key" for Obama.

True, Bush was the one who made the final decision to go into Iraq, but remember, on October 11, 2002, both the Congress (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) voted on a resolution for Iraq. Cough Cough, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle all voted for a go -- so it all wasn't on Bush.

God Bless

Don't come in here with your "facts" and "logic". This is a political discussion on the internet, and frankly, there's no place for it here.

 

[Celerity]

True, Obama got Bin Laden, only after Bush had implemented everything. It was essentially "turn key" for Obama.

True, Bush was the one who made the final decision to go into Iraq, but remember, on October 11, 2002, both the Congress (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) voted on a resolution for Iraq. Cough Cough, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle all voted for a go -- so it all wasn't on Bush.

God Bless

True, but Obama voted not to go into Iraq and voted to go into afganistan. He has been outspoken about not going to Iraq when it was first brought up. His campaign will have no problem reminding the American public about that.

 

[reynoldsnumber]

Don't come in here with your "facts" and "logic". This is a political discussion on the internet, and frankly, there's no place for it here.

Haha, oh, I am so sorry, doc

If this is a political discussion, why can't we use facts?

 

[Suncrusher]

why don't you two go duke it out over Obama being worse than Bush in SPF instead...

 

[reynoldsnumber]

True, but Obama voted not to go into Iraq and voted to go into afganistan. He has been outspoken about not going to Iraq when it was first brought up. His campaign will have no problem reminding the American public about that.

Dude I am not a political expert, but Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, so how did he vote to not go into Iraq in 2002?

 

[reynoldsnumber]

why don't you two go duke it out over Obama being worse than Bush in SPF instead...

I don't know what SPF is, but

 

[Suncrusher]

it's the socio-political subforum in the lounge, sorry.

 

[aSagacious]

why don't you two go duke it out over Obama being worse than Bush in SPF instead...

Can't we all just agree that they are/were both terrible?

 

[Suncrusher]

Can't we all just agree that they are/were both terrible?

"Bush was more terrible!"
"Nu-uh, Obama is more terrible!"

 

[Celerity]

Dude I am not a political expert, but Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004, so how did he vote to not go into Iraq in 2002?

Sorry, I was wrong on that account. But he gave numerous speeches that October in 2002 in Illinios about how the war in Iraq was a bad idea. I believe he was campaigning for the Senate then and said he would vote against it.
Anyway, he has documented proof of being against it from day one. And he'll still look like a saint on the issue because he is getting us out.

As an aside, does anyone want to place bets on how long it takes Iran and Iraq to unify?
I'm betting 18 months.

 

[Celerity]

Can't we all just agree that they are/were both terrible?

As I stated earlier, I whole heartedly and emphatically, without a doubt... Agree.

 

[gettheleadout]

 

[RogueUnicorn]

True, Obama got Bin Laden, only after Bush had implemented everything. It was essentially "turn key" for Obama.

True, Bush was the one who made the final decision to go into Iraq, but remember, on October 11, 2002, both the Congress (296-133) and the Senate (77-23) voted on a resolution for Iraq. Cough Cough, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Harry Reid, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle all voted for a go -- so it all wasn't on Bush.

God Bless

the bush administration also said there was conclusive evidence of wmd's in iraq.

re: bin laden, neither obama nor bush 'got' him; the intelligence and military communities did. that being said, chasing red herrings in iraq certainly didn't accelerate the event.

 

[mishaS]

I don't think there was a particular agenda to it once it was watered down except to get it passed, so it wouldn't be considered a massive political defeat.

 

[Wolfman89]

I won't be voting for Obama, so much as voting against his opponent, unless the Republican nominee is Huntsman. Other than Huntsman I don't really care for any of the other Republicans currently seeking the nomination.

 

[mipp0]

the bush administration also said there was conclusive evidence of wmd's in iraq.

re: bin laden, neither obama nor bush 'got' him; the intelligence and military communities did. that being said, chasing red herrings in iraq certainly didn't accelerate the event.

+100
I hate it when posters skew the data or provide incomplete information.
The "evidence" of WMDs provided by intelligence agencies was bogus, but it did a great job getting everyone riled up for war.

It seems most Americans forgot why we went to war in the first place.

@reynoldsnumber - I disagree again. How much do we spend paying off interest for social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc...Better yet, how much are we in debt for those programs? Our economic growth is intimately tied with social security and healthcare reform, now and later. How we go about that is arguable. No, you are not a political expert, nor do I expect you to be, but your former arguments are based on incomplete data, which is misleading.

How could any party be against the war if there was supposedly conclusive evidence of WMDs in Iraq post Gulf War?

 

[mipp0]

Sorry, I was wrong on that account. But he gave numerous speeches that October in 2002 in Illinios about how the war in Iraq was a bad idea. I believe he was campaigning for the Senate then and said he would vote against it.
Anyway, he has documented proof of being against it from day one. And he'll still look like a saint on the issue because he is getting us out.

As an aside, does anyone want to place bets on how long it takes Iran and Iraq to unify?
I'm betting 18 months.

This is why going to war without a solid, comprehensive post-war plan is BOUND TO FAIL. Now we have reports of Iranian agents and influence in Iraq, but of course we all saw that coming...

Anyway, this is related to the thread superficially, because the Iraq war = no more post-Clinton surplus (we were still in debt during the Clinton years too, however), and economic hardships, etc. = hard choices for healthcare...

 

[Gigantron]

...

hSDN.


This young optimist believes that is the reason nobody has replied to you yet.

 

[Starlightembers]

hSDN.


This young optimist believes that is the reason nobody has replied to you yet.

I should really get it changed to "hSDN alumni".

Whatever. If people are seriously ignoring my post solely for that reason, that's not my problem.

Also, IIRC, aren't you only a (college) freshman yourself? I don't think you have that much ground for superiority here.

 

[Gigantron]

I should really get it changed to "hSDN alumni".

Whatever. If people are seriously ignoring my post solely for that reason, that's not my problem.

Also, IIRC, aren't you only a (college) freshman yourself? I don't think you have that much ground for superiority here.

Was I being antagonistic?

I guess the rolleyes emote may give that impression.

 

[Starlightembers]

Was I being antagonistic?

I guess the rolleyes emote may give that impression.

The emote had a lot to do with it. The choice of wording could have been better, too.

Apologies for misunderstanding your intentions, though, if they did lack antagonism.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

What makes you think the government is good at doing anything? What makes you think Obama can do anything productive?

Obama gave Solyndra $500 million dollars (might I add at my expense and all those others paying taxes) only to go belly up, I am no economist, but that doesn't seem to be a great investment.

Obama has added more debt to the country than all other presidents combined -- and he has done it in 3 years. Oh wait, I can already hear it, but he inherited it from Bush. Get a grip, when is he going to man up and do something productive. He probably would be better off if he stayed at the white house and actually worked on things instead of taking vacations every other month (I am exaggerating how many vacations he takes, but it does seem a little ironic that with the current state of the country, he shouldn't be taking so many). I don't know if he blames Bush for his situation, but democrats sure believe the reason he isn't curing cancer is because of Bush.

Social Security is in shambles and is a lost cause.

Right now, at this point in time (dx/dt -- for those that are mathematically inclined) anything dealing with universal healthcare should be put on the back burner, getting the economy turned around and heading in the right direction should be priority numero uno.

If Obama is re-elected, I am stocking up on ammo and buying more guns. If Obama is re-elected, America could be in big trouble. I think it would be wise to take a look at all candidates whomever they may be.

Remember, America is still the best country in the World. However, if we don't get our act together, we will no longer be considered the best country.

God Bless

This post must've fallen off the back of the Newsmax delivery van. $500 million and you find that worth mentioning? Do you have any idea how many weapons programs we routinely sink billions into just to choose an alternate prototype? But never mind that. I'm really here to call you out on the "more debt than all the other presidents combined" line. Do you even know how to count? I'll just break it down for you real simple like: at the end of fiscal year 2008, the last year before Obama could make his own budget, the gross public debt was about $10 trillion. Today, the gross public debt is about $15 trillion. I didn't realize $5 trillion dollars was greater than $10 trillion (plus all the debt we've paid back, since you're counting ALL other presidents). I also like this part:

Oh wait, I can already hear it, but he inherited it from Bush. Get a grip, when is he going to man up and do something productive.

It's like a litany against reality; if you say you KNOW people are going to argue something, it means they're wrong! How much more money do you think Obama spent on top of what was already required because of previous commitments? It's actually somewhat less than 10% of all the spending over his entire presidency. So you want him to "man up" and do what, now? Cut more taxes and fix the debt with sheer testosterone?

 

[Wolfman89]

What makes you think the government is good at doing anything?
]

I'm not sure why I am replying to this other than procrastination, but here we go.

Well the government built the Interstate Highway System. The government put a man on the Moon. The government created the United States Marine Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force. The government created the regulatory system, that made sure that the food you ate was safe to eat. I could go on, but I won't.

 

[odysseus88]

Government is a reflection of the people that elect the politicians into office. We get a chance every 2 years to wipe the slate clean of obstructionist, partisan politicians who are not looking for solutions. If you don't like your politicians, look in the mirror.

 

[autotroph]

I would be voting Obama no question if those were the choices .

I resent this train of thought. People get so caught up in Red vs Blue that they forget you can cast your ballot elsewhere. Before you say that your vote is wasted elsewhere, that's the problem. Lots of people vote for their second or third choice because they presume they are a more viable option when in fact it's that train of thought that leads to that situation to begin with.

 

[NickNaylor]

It's like a litany against reality; if you say you KNOW people are going to argue something, it means they're wrong! How much more money do you think Obama spent on top of what was already required because of previous commitments? It's actually somewhat less than 10% of all the spending over his entire presidency. So you want him to "man up" and do what, now? Cut more taxes and fix the debt with sheer testosterone?

No doubt Bush's policies have had an impact on the debt outside of Barack's control, but at this point the "inherited" argument is the snake oil that the administration uses to explain everything.

 

[autotroph]

No doubt Bush's policies have had an impact on the debt outside of Barack's control, but at this point the "inherited" argument is the snake oil that the administration uses to explain everything.

Is there a itemized list of expenditures since Obama took office highlighting who spent how much on what? I really feel a disconnected between two groups using opposite talking points without any hard data.

 

[NickNaylor]

Is there a itemized list of expenditures since Obama took office highlighting who spent how much on what? I really feel a disconnected between two groups using opposite talking points without any hard data.

No, I doubt there is. That's exactly why I don't believe the Obama administration when it says this or that was "inherited" from the Bush administration. And even if something was, how about they try and change it rather than piss and moan about how this or that expense was inherited?

At some point you have to accept responsibility for what's happened under your watch. Apparently three years isn't enough for the administration.

 

[Wolfman89]

No, I doubt there is. That's exactly why I don't believe the Obama administration when it says this or that was "inherited" from the Bush administration. And even if something was, how about they try and change it rather than piss and moan about how this or that expense was inherited?

At some point you have to accept responsibility for what's happened under your watch. Apparently three years isn't enough for the administration.

Not disagreeing with you Nick, because I agree with you, but this type of excuse isn't unique to the Obama Administration. Even as late as 2009 I had some of my Republican friends blaming the current situation on Bill Clinton. Put another way, most politicians suck and care more about getting reelected than actually governing.

 

[NickNaylor]

Not disagreeing with you Nick, because I agree with you, but this type of excuse isn't unique to the Obama Administration. Even as late as 2009 I had some of my Republican friends blaming the current situation on Bill Clinton. Put another way, most politicians suck and care more about getting reelected than actually governing.

I would agree that that's equally stupid.

 

[Tin Man]

If I ever meet you, you'll be getting a well-deserved kick in the nads.

 

[Suncrusher]

but what was the look on your face?

 

[Valadi]

No doubt Bush's policies have had an impact on the debt outside of Barack's control, but at this point the "inherited" argument is the snake oil that the administration uses to explain everything.

FTW. Ron Paul in 2012.