Will Obamacare succeed where term limits failed?

[Major Robert Dump]

Delayed a year.

L O Effing L. Republican blame game GOGOGOGOGO

[Xiahou]

Not trying to "blame" anyone, just correctly and factually charting the legislative and published history of the initiatives that became Obamacare. It's all factual, it's all on record. Any resemblance between Grouch Marx singing "I'm Against It" and current Republican doom-sayers is purely voluntary.

Again, the adoption of a mandate-type plan was an half-hearted response to Hillarycare that never enjoyed widespread support among Republicans or conservatives.

Single-payer healthcare has facts, empiricism, and real-world results. Private sector healthcare has ideology (and in the USA, inertia). Explain to me which of these proposals, on this basis, is more "conservative."

Single-payer, socialized medicine would not be my favored choice. I think it would almost certainly, however, lower the astronomical growth of medical costs. Would it lower them enough to make them sustainable? I doubt it- not without rationing. Regardless, Obamacare != single-payer healthcare. It is increasing costs. And it makes most of our problems worse.
------------

Delayed a year.

L O Effing L. Republican blame game GOGOGOGOGO

Conveniently, that puts the implementation after the mid-term elections. The Democrats know they're got a big steaming turd on their hands and the last thing they want is a year of suffering under the employer mandate leading up to the elections.

Edit:An exit question.. Under what authority can the administration postpone implementation? I'm not aware of the law having that flexibility in it. Anyone want to set me straight here?

[Lemur]

Looks like the new thing will be to blame all healthcare problems on Obamacare. Whih is quite clever—there are a lot of problems. Great summation:

[An anti-Obamacare] ad mentions not being able to choose your doctor, which would be bad. If you chose an insurance plan in an exchange established by Obamacare, that plan will probably have a network of doctors from which you have to choose if you want your care paid for, and if your doctor isn't on it, then you've been prevented from choosing your own doctor.

Of course, that isn't because of Obamacare, it's because of the way insurance works in America; it's how it worked before Obamacare, and it's how it'll work after Obamacare. But it's a lot simpler to say, "Now that we're under Obamacare, I didn't get to choose my doctor!" And did you know that under Obamacare, medications could come with dangerous side effects? Or that under Obamacare, kids who get shots will cry? Not only that, under Obamacare, you could get cancer and die—even if your doctor wanted to save you. In fact, under Obamacare, we're all going to die one day. Thanks for all the misery, pain, and death, Obama.

[Xiahou]

And what if you need to choose a new insurance plan due to Obamacare and none of the compatible new plans feature your current doctor in their networks?

Is it fair to blame Obamacare then? Think it won't happen?

[HoreTore]

No, because it was already so that in the event you had to swap insurance for some reason, you wouldn't necessarily get to keep the same doc.

You can't blame the new system for carry-over* faults in a new system, while at the same time praising the old system. You can whine about them both at the same time, but you can't pick and choose. Sorry.







*couldn't find a good word on the spot, suffer my norwenglish....

[Ironside]

Single-payer, socialized medicine would not be my favored choice. I think it would almost certainly, however, lower the astronomical growth of medical costs. Would it lower them enough to make them sustainable? I doubt it- not without rationing. Regardless, Obamacare != single-payer healthcare. It is increasing costs. And it makes most of our problems worse.

I'll point out that the US are beaten by a lot of countries in life length, child mortality, etc, etc, running around with 50-70% of the costs. To be fair the americans might be sicker than the rest, but that rationing does seem to work better than yours.

And Obamacare looks this way because the Republicans decided to think like you. The earlier versions were quite a bit stronger towards single-payer socialized medicine.

[Ironside]

Sometimes I like to put on my tin foil hat and consider the possibility that Obama and the entire democratic party are incompetent on purpose, in order to further the Republican agenda of discrediting government in every way possible, to further their own master plan of making us all corporate slave-bitches.

Then I take the tin-foil hat off, cuz those things give you a headache.

That would require the politicians to give up power, for money or something. Now power without purpose and getting payed extra for (ab)using that power, that fits your gloomy view.

[Ironside]

But the money is the power. After serving in Congress, many politicians go work for lobbyists. The entire system is self-perpetuating. Also, insider-trading laws don't apply to Congressmen, so conflicts of interest are just a-okay. I wouldn't put any level of corruption past our most venerable institution. It takes suspension of disbelief just to take it seriously.

You suggested that it was general party policy, ergo even the ancient ones. Yes the springboard politicians could very well be playing that game, but for the veterans, the pull would rather be to be flattered into appearing very important by changing laws. Bribery is a part of that, but not the main driving force. They would not intentionally outsource their own power though.

[Fisherking]

I have not followed this, as I live outside the country and hope I am not effected by it.

But I do have a question or two.

If it is so good, why is there a tax penalty for individuals who don’t want to use it?
And, what happens to Doctors who are not employees of a large health care provider?

Most of the rest, I assume is a degree of scare mongering by the Republicans.

The only other thing I have heard that could be alarming is the supposed doubling or tripling of individual plans. This could be more of the scare tactics, I hope, but maybe not.

Also, as everyone is to be insured and everyone must be excepted but smokers pay a higher premium, I find that somewhat disingenuous.

After all, doesn’t someone obese or with another lifestyle related condition, not an equally high risk nonsmoker or not as the smokers who have to pay higher premiums? Just a little social engineering to go along with the program, huh?

[Lemur]

If it is so good, why is there a tax penalty for individuals who don’t want to use it?

Because if we are to prop up and nurse along our broken system of private insurance, we have to expand the pool and convince the majority of citizens to buy some sort of coverage. In other words, force the reckless, the healthy, and the young to buy coverage they otherwise might not, thus spreading the pool and market to cover the sick, the lame, and the old.

I believe it's superficially similar to what's implemented in Switzerland.

Of course, I would argue that there is zero evidence that private insurance is the appropriate way to fund healthcare, but that's because I don't see evidence that market forces work properly in healthcare. Market capitalism is great at many, many things. But when there's no evidence that it works in a certain context, it's time to re-think.

For example, I become a screaming socialist state-lover when it comes to the military. I think PMCs are a horrible idea. I don't much like mercenaries or their side-effects. I think the military should be paid for straight outta taxes. I hear that makes me a pinko commie.

Likewise, I simply do not see evidence that national healthcare is best run by market principles—and those who advocate complete privatization and deregulation have nothing but theory and ideology on their side (which should tell you a great deal). But if we need to broaden the market to force our jackalope system to limp along for a bit ... eh, okay.

At least Obamacare sets up state exchanges, out of which something useful may grow.