Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its almost like they secretly helped write the bill...

It's almost as if that's just easy political rhetoric that isn't actually true. It's almost as if one of the major reasons the insurance companies are so opposed to this bill is because, unlike everything on healthcare that's been past in the last 50 years, they played no part in crafting this bill. They played politics on it, backed the Republicans to stop the bill getting passed, and got it wrong and the bill is real bad for them as a result (can't deny on pre-existing condition, have to spend 85% of revenue on healthcare etc, can't pick and choose which medicare plus patients to take from the system).

Unlike, say, the drug companies, who did play a major role in writing up the ACA, and did very nicely out of it as a result.

But why am I bothering. I mean really, you believe what you want, and you don't much care if it has any connection to the real world.

 sebster wrote:
[But why am I bothering.

Grakmar once answered this question well when I asked it.

 Ouze wrote:
Grakmar once answered this question well when I asked it.

That was a really good answer.

This is the video that I watched in my sociology class that gives a descent enough explanation. Take from it what you will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-Ilc5xK2_E
I am kinda curious what this will mean for me since I get my insurance through the VA for free being a disabled veteran, has anyone heard anything about that?

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Clearly, it is the Union's fault!

There's already a union thread for you to spam without contributing. Keep it there.

Clearly, if the Insurance company had been packign a gun; this never would have happened!

In other news, I really like seeing people who were opposed to the ACA begin to become advocates of Single-payer system. I'm glad to have more people recognize that single-payer is where the system needs to move, and provide it bi-partisan support.

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Clearly, it is the Union's fault!

There's already a union thread for you to spam without contributing. Keep it there.

Clearly, if the Insurance company had been packign a gun; this never would have happened!

In other news, I really like seeing people who were opposed to the ACA begin to become advocates of Single-payer system. I'm glad to have more people recognize that single-payer is where the system needs to move, and provide it bi-partisan support.

Right... ACA isn't even close to singer payer system. It's doubling down on the current system.

If we could only find out who came up with the idea of a mandate and pushed for it...

 d-usa wrote:
If we could only find out who came up with the idea of a mandate and pushed for it...

Why? does it matter?

I'm thinking the whole healthcare system needs to crash, before single payer is even on the table.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If we could only find out who came up with the idea of a mandate and pushed for it...

Why? does it matter?

I'm thinking the whole healthcare system needs to crash, before single payer is even on the table.

All that crap matters when you can lay it at the feet of Obama, so yes it does.

Republicans wanted to kill the public option and Republicans wanted the mandate.

So Obama killed the public option and gave them the mandate.

And now Republicans (and that includes you) say that Obama never compromises and forced the mandate on us.

And that is why people are getting tired of this crap, because people like you are constantly bitching and moaning about anything that can somehow be traced back to the Obama administration, but when something is done by Republicans we get the "why? does it matter?" crap.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Clearly, it is the Union's fault!

There's already a union thread for you to spam without contributing. Keep it there.

Clearly, if the Insurance company had been packign a gun; this never would have happened!

In other news, I really like seeing people who were opposed to the ACA begin to become advocates of Single-payer system. I'm glad to have more people recognize that single-payer is where the system needs to move, and provide it bi-partisan support.

Right... ACA isn't even close to singer payer system. It's doubling down on the current system.

Yup, no disagreement from me.

However, I still think doing something was better than doing nothing. If the "something" that was done builds momentum for single payer when single payer was "off the table" before, I'm even more for that something.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If we could only find out who came up with the idea of a mandate and pushed for it...

Why? does it matter?

I'm thinking the whole healthcare system needs to crash, before single payer is even on the table.

All that crap matters when you can lay it at the feet of Obama, so yes it does.

Republicans wanted to kill the public option and Republicans wanted the mandate.

So Obama killed the public option and gave them the mandate.

And now Republicans (and that includes you) say that Obama never compromises and forced the mandate on us.

And that is why people are getting tired of this crap, because people like you are constantly bitching and moaning about anything that can somehow be traced back to the Obama administration, but when something is done by Republicans we get the "why? does it matter?" crap.

Fair enough... and me personally... I DON'T put it on Obama's feet. I put it on the Democrat Leadership's feet. This doesn't get passed w/o Pelosi and Reid.

So, do you agree that the ACA as a whole is a good bill?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

Yup, no disagreement from me.

However, I still think doing something was better than doing nothing. If the "something" that was done builds momentum for single payer when single payer was "off the table" before, I'm even more for that something.

Yup. Can't remember who (thinking Azazel said this), but give 'em a taste. Then, when it crashes, they'll be clamoring for it.

The CEO of Aetna is correct, once Obamacare provisions the prevent his company from screwing over the people purchasing his company's insurance kicks in rates will have to be raised. The ability of an insurance company screw over their customers by dropping them after they get really sick is good for their bottom line, and allows them to charge people less for insurance that won't really insure them if they get really sick.

 whembly wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

It's the government's fault. In the United States you have to pay income tax if your employer gives you money which you use to buy your own health insurance, but not if your employer buys your health insurance themselves as a fringe benefit.

Not quite.

Via wiki:

...For everyone else, health insurance must be paid for privately. Some 59% of U.S. residents have access to health care insurance through employers, although this figure is decreasing, and coverages as well as workers' expected contributions vary widely.[16] Those whose employers do not offer health insurance, as well as those who are self-employed or unemployed, must purchase it on their own. Nearly 27 million of the 45 million uninsured U.S. residents worked at least part-time in 2007, and more than a third were in households that earned $50,000 or more per year.

You are incorrect - health insurance paid for privately includes both employer-sponsored health insurance and independently purchased health insurance. Your own cite proves that, and does not actually address the question.

 d-usa wrote:
Republicans wanted to kill the public option and Republicans wanted the mandate.

Even if this was true, why did the Democrats give a feth? The Democrats had enough votes that they could and did pass the ACA unilaterally. Not a single Republican vote was gained by this so-called compromise. So even if you believe the Democrats fruitlessly compromised their goals for zero benefit, how is that not the Democrats fault?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

It's the government's fault. In the United States you have to pay income tax if your employer gives you money which you use to buy your own health insurance, but not if your employer buys your health insurance themselves as a fringe benefit.

Not quite.

Via wiki:

...For everyone else, health insurance must be paid for privately. Some 59% of U.S. residents have access to health care insurance through employers, although this figure is decreasing, and coverages as well as workers' expected contributions vary widely.[16] Those whose employers do not offer health insurance, as well as those who are self-employed or unemployed, must purchase it on their own. Nearly 27 million of the 45 million uninsured U.S. residents worked at least part-time in 2007, and more than a third were in households that earned $50,000 or more per year.

You are incorrect - health insurance paid for privately includes both employer-sponsored health insurance and independently purchased health insurance. Your own cite proves that, and does not actually address the question.

er... what are we correcting each other on?

 d-usa wrote:
Republicans wanted to kill the public option and Republicans wanted the mandate.

Even if this was true, why did the Democrats give a feth? The Democrats had enough votes that they could and did pass the ACA unilaterally. Not a single Republican vote was gained by this so-called compromise. So even if you believe the Democrats fruitlessly compromised their goals for zero benefit, how is that not the Democrats fault?

preach on brother! (ducks... and hides!)

 AlexHolker wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Republicans wanted to kill the public option and Republicans wanted the mandate.

Even if this was true, why did the Democrats give a feth? The Democrats had enough votes that they could and did pass the ACA unilaterally. Not a single Republican vote was gained by this so-called compromise. So even if you believe the Democrats fruitlessly compromised their goals for zero benefit, how is that not the Democrats fault?

Because, despite the trash they keep on feeding the public and that gets regurgitated on here by people whose dislike for Obama or anything Democrat far outweighs any version of the actual truth, the ACA was debated for a very long time and was a very real attempt to reach a bipartisan compromise by dumping things that the Democrats really wanted and including things that Republicans wanted.

Yet, despite the facts, people continue to pretend that the ACA was crammed down our throats faster than any piece of legislation in the history of the United States and purely consists of giant piles of manure made from the dreams and hopes of Democrats and coated by the tears of Republicans even though that some of the pieces that are hated the most were actually requested by the very people that are demonizing them.

 whembly wrote:
er... what are we correcting each other on?

There are three different forms of insurance relevant to Trasvi's question: government-sponsored, employer-sponsored and individually sponsored. Trasvi asked why #2 was more prevalent relative to #3, and I responded that it was because of the US government's treatment of fringe benefits (like employer-sponsored health insurance) compared to normal income. You responded with a cite that focused primarily on the prevalence of #1 relative to #2 and #3 combined.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 whembly wrote:
er... what are we correcting each other on?

There are three different forms of insurance relevant to Trasvi's question: government-sponsored, employer-sponsored and individually sponsored. Trasvi asked why #2 was more prevalent relative to #3, and I responded that it was because of the US government's treatment of fringe benefits (like employer-sponsored health insurance) compared to normal income. You responded with a cite that focused primarily on the prevalence of #1 relative to #2 and #3 combined.

Re-read the responses....

Gotcha.

@Whembly: Glad we're all on the same page now.

 d-usa wrote:
Because, despite the trash they keep on feeding the public and that gets regurgitated on here by people whose dislike for Obama or anything Democrat far outweighs any version of the actual truth, the ACA was debated for a very long time and was a very real attempt to reach a bipartisan compromise by dumping things that the Democrats really wanted and including things that Republicans wanted.

You are making excuses for the Democrats to not be held accountable for their own actions. The Democrats were willing to pass the ACA unilaterally - we know this because that's exactly what they did in the end. So if they didn't want the ACA to look like what they turned it into in this so-called attempt to compromise, why didn't they just say "Fine, you don't want to compromise? We're passing the ACA the way we want it, and if you don't like it, tough gak."

 d-usa wrote:

Because, despite the trash they keep on feeding the public and that gets regurgitated on here by people whose dislike for Obama or anything Democrat far outweighs any version of the actual truth, the ACA was debated for a very long time

True... universal healthcare, mandates, medicare/aid expansion has been extensively debated for loooooooooog time.

and was a very real attempt to reach a bipartisan compromise by dumping things that the Democrats really wanted and including things that Republicans wanted.

eh... no. The mandate in its current iteration were not wanted by the current Republican. It's a bit disingenuous to say that the Republicans of today wanted it when it was really debated by Republicans (and Democrats) in the '80s and '90s.

You can say all you want that the mandate was a (R) idea... but the truth of the matter, none of the (R) at the time of the bill's passage wanted anything to do with it.

Yet, despite the facts, people continue to pretend that the ACA was crammed down our throats faster than any piece of legislation in the history of the United States and purely consists of giant piles of manure made from the dreams and hopes of Democrats and coated by the tears of Republicans even though that some of the pieces that are hated the most were actually requested by the very people that are demonizing them.

Well... it was crammed down our throats. How can you say it wasn't.

In fact, it wasn't even passed in a tradtional manner as it was passed via the "Budget Reconciliation" process.

Just because the Rs refused to pass it doesn't mean that the Rs didn't ask for it. That kind of political maneuvering is pretty obvious and was laid wide open for everybody to see last week when one of them had to filibuster his own bill.

What usually happens is that they (politicians) call for a compromise thinking that they won't get it and then they can refuse to pass the bill. You just look like idiots when you get your compromise and then you still refuse to pass the bill.