Obamacare Explained in One Sentence

[rd1978]

Lack of compassion, huh? You don't even know me.

As long as conservative leaders claim that poor people have good health care because they can go to the ER, we can say they lack compassion.

Its true I don't know you, but as long as you identify as a conservative, we can ask you to defend their agenda. (And going over your posts, I don't really have that much to complain about, but I do fail to see how RomneyCare is "socialist." I live in MA, and all RomneyCare did was to allow me to buy insurance from a provider at the same rate they charge companies. How is that "socialist?")

What's a 'right winger?" Apparently, someone who doesn't agree with you. Yes, I am a Conservative, and proud of it. I believe, just like you, that everyone in this country deserves equal access to quality healthcare at an affordable price. What puzzles me is that so many people think Obamacare is answer. It is not.

Its certainly better than what the Conservatives came up with. Oh, wait ... It IS what the conservatives came up with!

ObamaCare is very simple: Everyone should buy in (or pay a modest fine); the insurance companies must offer to all the same plans that they offer to large companies, at the same rate with no denials; and low income folks will get a subsidy roughly similar to the subsidy rich people with "cadillac plans" receive. A few other niceties include no lifetime caps, no massive increases or profits, and certain minimal requirements. Since the primary components of the plan are simply extensions of the existing system, I have trouble seeing what all the fuss is about!

I will admit that some people might have an issue: The 20 somethings that have been "free-loading" will have to pay (but will receive a large subsidy if they're low income). Some rates will go up, mainly because "minimal coverage" has been raised. And what good is catastrophic coverage that is capped or can be denied if you get sick? The small business owner may be forced to offer insurance, but the absolute minimum insurance will be pretty cheap, under $500 a year. Frankly, I don't get this reluctance; when I had a small business I paid 100% of good coverage because it was the best way to show people I wanted them to be happy and productive.

Unfortunately, folks like yourself don't seem to be particularly interested in honest debate; rather, you simply attack those who disagree with you

Sorry. Big Fail here! The Conservative side of this debate has lied consistently about almost every point. Can you say "DEATH PANELS!"? How about Health Care Rationing? That's what the insurance companies have been doing, ObamaCare will greatly reduce it. Congress exempted themselves from ObamaCare? FactCheck says "FALSE." 19,500 new IRS employees to enforce? Politifact says "Pants on Fire." ObamaCare just like Canadian system? Hardly, ObamaCare is mainly an extension of our existing system. The list goes on; its hard to find anything the conservatives have been truthful about.

... and suggest that they would rather people die. Frankly, that's really disgusting and extremely frightening.

As long as most of the Red State governors deny the Medicaid extension, which costs them nothing and would be a literal lifesaver to their citizens, you can save your "indignation" for them.

Time will tell. We'll all know the truth soon enough.

[idamtnboy]

All your example shows is the ill-advisability of linking medical insurance to the employer.

And the better answer would have been ........ ??? Single payer???? Exactly what the conservatives oppose. History of American spending and wage payment habits shows that relying on individual purchases of medical insurance would have been a failure. That's what led to Social Security being established.

And how did we get medical insurance linked to the employer?

Well the government interfered with market labor wages in the 1940s and later used the tax code to interfere with insurance markets (deductibility of employer-provided insurance versus non-deductibility of individual policies).

The reason for the wage freezes was the war economy. The Gov't was afraid of huge distortions in skilled labor distribution that would hamper war efforts. Employers conjured up health insurance as a way to get around the wage freezes. As to deductibility, a manufacturer has the right under the tax law to deduct the cost of production. Labor costs in the form of insurance is just one part of that. To start debating the wisdom of that will lead to a debate of the wisdom of 90+% of the tax code. We don't want to go there. Private purchases of insurance have been deductible since I don't know when.

[CapnLoki]

Time will tell. We'll all know the truth soon enough.

Indeed! Time is always the great equalizer!

When the bill first passed, I was very optimistic that people would suddenly see the benefits and realize that their fears were unfounded. Now, however, I'm expecting that only the blue states that have embraced Obamacare will see all of the benefits, while the red states that have fought hard to derail it will get the trainwreck they expect. In other words, everyone will get to say, "I told you so!"

[PST]

In the interest of comparing ideas, imagine a 55-year-old man who had good insurance once but was laid off in 2009 and now is self-employed and making $35,000.

You made an argument for government interference in markets and now you try to justify it with an example.

All your example shows is the ill-advisability of linking medical insurance to the employer.

And how did we get medical insurance linked to the employer?

Well the government interfered with market labor wages in the 1940s and later used the tax code to interfere with insurance markets (deductibility of employer-provided insurance versus non-deductibility of individual policies).

I see we look at these things differently, but in my view your argument argues against the 2700-page behemoth of Obamacare which is a travesty of interference in markets. My solution is to get the regulators out of medical insurance markets since the regulators are what got us into this mess to start with.

Good, we have an alternative proposed to Obamacare: deregulate the health insurance market and make employer-provided health insurance taxable so as to put employer plans and individual policies on the same footing, breaking the link between employment and insurance. How likely is that to give "everyone in this country ... equal access to quality healthcare at an affordable price?"

I can hardly imagine anything less likely to achieve those objectives. ButtermilkBuoy criticizes my use of an example, but I think examples can make an abstract issue more concrete. Breaking the link between employment and health insurance, without replacing it by some other way of organizing people into pools, makes every person a pool of one, subject to the availability and price of insurance based on individual underwriting decisions an insurer will make about the state of that individual's health and estimated cost of his or her care for the upcoming year. Again, I can imagine someone saying, "Why not? That's fair. I'm not my brother's keeper." But it guarantees that access won't be equal or affordable. There will always be people who face a likelihood of medical expense in excess of their entire income because of pre-existing conditions. Even the most prudent and responsible person could face ruin in a pure unregulated system like the one proposed. How could any insurer by expected to offer insurance to the man in the example? That doesn't make the insurance companies evil; it makes them businesses. Even as staunch a free market supporter as Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, thought that "a comprehensive system of social insurance" for such hazards as sickness and accident was a legitimate field for governmental intervention. All of us can contemplate our own pre-existing conditions and imagine what coverage would be available to us in a completely unregulated market. The picture gets grimmer if we take Medicare out of the picture, consistent with complete deregulation, and try to imagine how our lives would likely end.

This is kind of small potatoes, but the PPACA isn't 2700 pages long. I suppose you could print it on as many pages as you felt like, but the copy prepared by the Office of Legislative Counsel, which looks very official to me, has huge margins and still comes in under 1000. It just goes to show how easily misinformation about Obamacare takes on a life of its own and gets passed around till people accept it as fact.

[DreamStalker]

snip ...
In the interest of comparing ideas, imagine a 55-year-old man who had good insurance once but was laid off in 2009 and ... snip
... what will work better than Obamacare?

So how does a 55 year-old who used to have good insurance and income until being laid off get insured again if they remain unemployed or can only find part-time employment?

Does Obamacare insure the unemployed too?
Or does Obamacare levy fines on the unemployed and/or under-employed?
Or are they simply out of luck and insurance until they get fully re-employed?
And what level of insurance coverage does one get and does it matter if the unemployed and/or under-employed cannot afford the premiums and/or copays/deductibles?

I agree that true universal healthcare should have been the "hope and change" ... after all, no one seems to mind that we have universal military defense or universal EPA, FDA, FAA, TSA, DEA, DHS, NSA, CIA, FBI, and all the other universal public services. Obamacare however was written of corporate interests, by corporate interests, and for corporate interests ... not to mention that Obama is a pathological liar.

[PST]

A good summary of the PPACA can be found at http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... 61-021.pdf for the benefit of those, like DreamStalker, who still appear to be unfamiliar with its provisions.

[DreamStalker]

A good summary of the PPACA can be found at http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor ... 61-021.pdf for the benefit of those, like DreamStalker, who still appear to be unfamiliar with its provisions.

Thanks.

I just did a search for the following (unemployed, under employed, and part-time) and got the same answer ... "No matches found."

So I guess the answers to my questions are ... no coverage found.



Hmmm ... I found this interesting ...

Authorize the Food and Drug Administration to approve generic versions of biologic drugs and grant
biologics manufacturers 12 years of exclusive use before generics can be developed. (Effective upon
enactment)

Prior to Obamacare ...

It depends on what type of exclusivity is granted.
Orphan Drug (ODE) - 7 years
New Chemical (NCE)- 5 years
"Other" Exclusivity - 3 years for a "change" if criteria are met
Pediatric Exclusivity (PED) - 6 months added to existing Patents/Exclusivity
Patent Challenge – (PC) – 180 days (this exclusivity is for ANDAs only)

See 21 C.F.R. 314.108 New Drug Product Exclusivity.

That does not appear to be "Patient Protection" but rather instead "Drug Industry Protection" ... whooda thunk it?

[Cutnstuf]

Now, this may not matter to some, most , or any of you, but I really am tired of the, "Affordable Care Act" being referred to as, "Obamacare". I know it's a small thing, but it just sounds degrading.

[Wulfman...]

Now, this may not matter to some, most , or any of you, but I really am tired of the, "Affordable Care Act" being referred to as, "Obamacare". I know it's a small thing, but it just sounds degrading.

Obama, himself, has clearly stated that he's proud of the "nickname" of the law. So, I don't know why it's a problem.
He wanted it, he got it and he's going to go down in history for it. (one way or the other)


Den

.

[DreamStalker]

Now, this may not matter to some, most , or any of you, but I really am tired of the, "Affordable Care Act" being referred to as, "Obamacare". I know it's a small thing, but it just sounds degrading.

Hmmm .... what part makes it degrading? The Obama part (he is a liar after all) or the care part (very little care in healthcare)?

The Corporate Greed Act would be more appropriate IMO ... but then pretty much all congressional ACTs mandates for corporate greed making it harder to tell them apart.

[Cutnstuf]

I thing you guys know exactly what I mean. It was penned by the right as a slur. Let's not play dumb.

[Wulfman...]

I thing you guys know exactly what I mean. It was penned by the right as a slur. Let's not play dumb.

I had barely posted my previous comment when they showed Harry Reid on TV referring to it as "Obamacare".

Some sources indicate that "Hillary Clinton's campaign coined Obamacare" while other sources attribute it to some editorial writers or letters to the editors around May 30, 2007.

Another couple of paragraphs from an article in the "Atlantic Wire":
"Andy Martin wrote on his blog Contrarian Commentary, "In a 'bid 'em high' contest with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, Obama proposes free health care for everyone: Obamacare." Martin's post is dated one day before Healthcare Financial Management's issue date, but magazines typically post-date their issues so they look fresher on the newsstands. The March issue likely came out in early February."

"Headline writers squeezed for space gave the term momentum since "Obamacare" is so much shorter than "Obama's health care overhaul" or "Obama's health care bill." On May 30, 2007, The Hotline headlined a roundup of news about then-candidate Obama announcing his health care proposal "Obama: Here's Obamacare." A few days later, Jason Horowitz's story for the June 6 New York Observer (which also post dates its issues) was titled, "Stat! Clinton Readies Scalpel for Obamacare." Neither contains the term in the body of the story, so it was likely the work of an editor."


Den

.

[Cutnstuf]

"Some sources", "Other sources", gee thanks for being so informative. You must be a member of the media. LOL!

[Wulfman...]

"Some sources", "Other sources", gee thanks for being so informative. You must be a member of the media. LOL!

Do a friggin' Google search on "origin of the term Obamacare" and you can read the damn links (sources) for yourself.

Not a member of the media. But, when people make statements and claims that I question, I do my own homework.


Den

.

[Cutnstuf]

"Some sources", "Other sources", gee thanks for being so informative. You must be a member of the media. LOL!

Do a friggin' Google search on "origin of the term Obamacare" and you can read the damn links (sources) for yourself.

Not a member of the media. But, when people make statements and claims that I question, I do my own homework.


Den

.

It depends on what you read, I suppose. The following is from the Atlantic Wire.

ELSPETH REEVE 2,931 ViewsOCT 26, 2011
House Democrats are blocking their Republican colleagues from using Obamacare in letters mailed on the taxpayer's dime to voters, but who made up the term in the first place? Lots of people are asking this question, getting answers like "Certainly a republican, potentially Glenn Beck" and "I am about 80% sure it was Rush Limbaugh" and "Hillary Clinton's campaign coined Obamacare." Iowa Rep. Steve King claimed President Obama himself made it up. Free Republic posters want to claim credit. Lots of liberals suspect an insidious plot by Fox News. But the answer appears to be: a lobbyist.

Jeanne Schulte Scott argued for the trade journal Healthcare Financial Management in March 2007 that then-President Bush had "put all his eggs into his 'privatization' basket" in his 2007 State of the Union address; nevertheless, he made health care the "issue du jour" for the 2008 presidential race. "Health care is hot!" she wrote, and then made a prediction that seems so quaint given all that's passed in the last four-and-a-half years:
The many would-be candidates for president in 2008 are falling over themselves offering their own proposals. We will soon see a "Giuliani-care" and "Obama-care" to go along with "McCain-care," "Edwards-care," and a totally revamped and remodeled "Hillary-care" from the 1990s.