Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

View Poll Results: Do you still support the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare?
Was for it, Still for it 99 44.39%
Was for it, now against it 5 2.24%
Was against it, still against it 108 48.43%
Was against it, now for it. 4 1.79%
Had no opinion then, have no opinion now. 5 2.24%
Other 2 0.90%
Voters: 223. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 18, 2013, 04:26 PM   #1
tshrimp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Do you still support the affordable care act/Obamacare

Now that the bill has passed and we know more about what is in it I was wondering how people are thinking about ACA/OC now?
tshrimp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 04:33 PM   #2
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by tshrimp View Post
Now that the bill has passed and we know more about what is in it I was wondering how people are thinking about ACA/OC now?

I support it.

It means that for the first time since becoming an adult, my wife can actually get health insurance without being denied for having pre-existing conditions.

And yes, any condition, including those stemming from medical malpractice, is deemed a pre-existing condition, which health insurance companies would not touch.

Now, they can not deny her.

BL.
bradl is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 04:35 PM   #3
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
What is different from what passed 2 years ago?
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 04:37 PM   #4
iMikeT
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: California
Yes I still support Romneycare but I think it needs to be strengthened with a public option.
iMikeT is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 04:44 PM   #5
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
What is different from what passed 2 years ago?
The law was designed to take effect over several years. So far, dependent children can stay on parent's insurance until they're 26, pre-existing conditions no longer a reason to deny coverage, consumers and businesses have received refunds in the past 2 years from the 80/20 rule and others I can't recall at the moment.

Now we're seeing rates for the state exchanges that will go into effect in October. So far, the rates are better then individuals can do now in NY, CA and OR.

I'm sure I left out a lot.
__________________
The distance in time between 1980 and now is the same amount as the distance in time between 1980 and WWII.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 05:09 PM   #6
shinji
macrumors 6502a
 
shinji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
I was in favor of it and still am, but the law isn't perfect because it doesn't do enough to address the real problem, which is the rising cost of medical procedures and drugs. Even with more insured citizens resulting in less use of ER for non-emergency care, we are still stuck with that problem. And Obamacare really doesn't do anything to curb America's extremely high prescription drug prices compared to the rest of the world.
shinji is online now   4 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 05:12 PM   #7
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by shinji View Post
I was in favor of it and still am, but the law isn't perfect because it doesn't do enough to address the real problem, which is the rising cost of medical procedures and drugs. Even with more insured citizens resulting in less use of ER for non-emergency care, we are still stuck with that problem. And Obamacare really doesn't do anything to curb America's extremely high prescription drug prices compared to the rest of the world.

Petty much my feelings on it but I have always viewed it as a stepping stone to single payer.
__________________
The distance in time between 1980 and now is the same amount as the distance in time between 1980 and WWII.
rdowns is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 05:24 PM   #8
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Petty much my feelings on it but I have always viewed it as a stepping stone to single payer.
I'm not sure how you see this as a stepping stone to single payor. While I am in favor of single payor, I don'y see the connection.

It is my impression that the insurance industry is far too powerful a lobbying force and monetary force for funding candidates ever to happen here...or at least not in the very distant future.
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 05:48 PM   #9
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
I'm not sure how you see this as a stepping stone to single payor. While I am in favor of single payor, I don'y see the connection.

It is my impression that the insurance industry is far too powerful a lobbying force and monetary force for funding candidates ever to happen here...or at least not in the very distant future.
Don't forget all of the doctors that get kick backs from the drug companies.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 06:34 PM   #10
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Don't forget all of the doctors that get kick backs from the drug companies.
Please source that assertion.

I, personally, don't know any docs who are getting kick backs from the drug companies. That, of course, is just personal experience and is of no scientific value.

But I would appreciate information about "all the docs" who are getting kick backs from the drug companies, and the form of those kick backs.

Thanks...
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 07:05 PM   #11
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Still against, and still shocked the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate under congress's taxing authority, when the President and Democrats specifically said it was not a tax. Kind of hard to bring this new tax law to the Supreme Court to question its constitutionality as a tax when they made the law a tax, not the legislators.

What kind of tax is it anyway? The federal government is only allowed to collect 4 types of taxes (direct, excise, duty, and income) under the constitution, and the 10th amendment limits the federal government to only those powers specifically enumerated. Adding a new tax should require a constitutional amendment, as was done to add the income tax.

Further, a tax is when the Government takes money from the people and puts it in the treasury. How can forcing the people to buy insurance from a private company be considered a tax?

If not a tax but a penalty against those who choose not to buy private insurance, as the laws proponents called it, then the federal government just turned American contract law on it's head, namely that free people can't be forced into a contract under duress, and can only voluntarily enter a contract. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to buy my product and you do it to avoid imminent peril, that contract is not valid, but somehow the federal government can now force you into a contract with a private insurer or you'll pay a penalty...is that not duress. Up next, required preventative medicine from Big Pharma, and required organic foods from Kraft™? Or maybe forced employment contracts during recessions to help unemployment?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
astrorider is offline   9 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 07:25 PM   #12
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Please source that assertion.

I, personally, don't know any docs who are getting kick backs from the drug companies. That, of course, is just personal experience and is of no scientific value.

But I would appreciate information about "all the docs" who are getting kick backs from the drug companies, and the form of those kick backs.

Thanks...
Have you ever seen the salesman in the suit with the small samples of drugs that visit the office. Doctors are encouraged to give out the free samples.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 07:35 PM   #13
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Have you ever seen the salesman in the suit with the small samples of drugs that visit the office. Doctors are encouraged to give out the free samples.
So you are saying that providing "small samples" of a drug to a doc constitutes "kick back".

You also seem to imply (and I mention this with caution as it is an inference not directly stated in your post) that the docs with give these samples to patients inappropriately (whether the patient really needs it or not), because they are unduly and inappropriately influenced by the detail person.

Once again...I have trouble understanding how giving "small samples" of a drug constitutes "kick back".

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think my question has been answered.
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 08:41 PM   #14
MacNut
macrumors P6
 
MacNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
So you are saying that providing "small samples" of a drug to a doc constitutes "kick back".

You also seem to imply (and I mention this with caution as it is an inference not directly stated in your post) that the docs with give these samples to patients inappropriately (whether the patient really needs it or not), because they are unduly and inappropriately influenced by the detail person.

Once again...I have trouble understanding how giving "small samples" of a drug constitutes "kick back".

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think my question has been answered.
Why else do drug companies supply free samples if not to get patients to pay for it later on. I think there is incentive for doctors to prescribe these drugs.
__________________
The thoughts in my head are rated TV-MA. Viewer discretion is advised.
Now batting, Number 2 Derek Jeter, Number 2
MacNut is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 08:47 PM   #15
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Why else do drug companies supply free samples if not to get patients to pay for it later on. I think there is incentive for doctors to prescribe these drugs.
Sure, the patients will buy the drugs if appropriately prescribed. Again, there seems to be an inference that the drugs were not appropriately prescribed, and the patients were being somehow taken advantage of.

Also...I still don't see how this constitutes "kick back" to the docs.
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 08:50 PM   #16
FDX
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Have you ever seen the salesman in the suit with the small samples of drugs that visit the office. Doctors are encouraged to give out the free samples.
How is that a kick back for the doctor?
__________________
Well, I've got to be somewhere.
FDX is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 08:54 PM   #17
malman89
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
I'm not sure how you see this as a stepping stone to single payor. While I am in favor of single payor, I don'y see the connection.

It is my impression that the insurance industry is far too powerful a lobbying force and monetary force for funding candidates ever to happen here...or at least not in the very distant future.
I think it's a stepping stone due to the Marketplaces. It's the only location to get those government sweetened premium rates - according to their last email sent earlier today. It might be (not certain) the only place for individuals to get rebates on coverage. Soon enough, the government could just change it from 'good deals on providers' coverage' to 'good deal on our coverage'.

I don't expect it any time soon, but that's one way I can see it playing out.
__________________
Late 2006 Model - 13.3" MacBook, 2 GHz C2D, 4 (3.3) GB RAM, 500 GB 7200rpm HD running OS X 10.6.8
malman89 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 09:58 PM   #18
ugahairydawgs
macrumors 68020
 
ugahairydawgs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDX View Post
How is that a kick back for the doctor?
It makes sense if you don't think about it
ugahairydawgs is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:08 PM   #19
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
I do not support Obamacare.

The United States should have single payer universal healthcare, with the OPTION of buying private insurance.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:16 PM   #20
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
I'm not sure how you see this as a stepping stone to single payor. While I am in favor of single payor, I don'y see the connection.
The way I understand it, the regulations in ACA will slowly strangle the profitability of all private insurance providers until none of them can remain viable and the government will be forced to step in. Either that or there will be an extended fresh set of M&As until only one company exists.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:16 PM   #21
rebby
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: MN
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
Still against, and still shocked the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate under congress's taxing authority, when the President and Democrats specifically said it was not a tax. Kind of hard to bring this new tax law to the Supreme Court to question its constitutionality as a tax when they made the law a tax, not the legislators.

What kind of tax is it anyway? The federal government is only allowed to collect 4 types of taxes (direct, excise, duty, and income) under the constitution, and the 10th amendment limits the federal government to only those powers specifically enumerated. Adding a new tax should require a constitutional amendment, as was done to add the income tax.

Further, a tax is when the Government takes money from the people and puts it in the treasury. How can forcing the people to buy insurance from a private company be considered a tax?

If not a tax but a penalty against those who choose not to buy private insurance, as the laws proponents called it, then the federal government just turned American contract law on it's head, namely that free people can't be forced into a contract under duress, and can only voluntarily enter a contract. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to buy my product and you do it to avoid imminent peril, that contract is not valid, but somehow the federal government can now force you into a contract with a private insurer or you'll pay a penalty...is that not duress. Up next, required preventative medicine from Big Pharma, and required organic foods from Kraft™? Or maybe forced employment contracts during recessions to help unemployment?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Amen!!!
__________________
Curt Rebelein, Junior | https://rebby.com
15" rMBP 2.8 i7, 16GB, 512GB | 11" MBA 1.7 i7, 8GB, 256GB
Mini Server 2.53 C2D, 8GB, Dual 750GB | 128GB Retina iPad | 64GB iPhone 5s
rebby is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:22 PM   #22
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydde View Post
The way I understand it, the regulations in ACA will slowly strangle the profitability of all private insurance providers until none of them can remain viable and the government will be forced to step in. Either that or there will be an extended fresh set of M&As until only one company exists.
Anyone that remembers the surreal horrors of private Insurance Bad Faith during the 1980's and 90's knows that forcing people en masse into the jaws of the private insurance industry is a disaster waiting to happen, even if the providers are making billions more a year.

Plus the mandate is a massive federal overreach, while a social security type tax for universal healthcare is not.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2013, 11:42 PM   #23
MegamanX
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
I do not support Obamacare.

The United States should have single payer universal healthcare, with the OPTION of buying private insurance.
I agree that is what we need. Sadly the party of NO will never let that happen. It is a massive step forward in the correct direction.
MegamanX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2013, 02:08 AM   #24
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacNut View Post
Why else do drug companies supply free samples if not to get patients to pay for it later on. I think there is incentive for doctors to prescribe these drugs.
Free samples may encourage a doctor to prescribe something found to be effective. That isn't a kickback. Doctor distributes them to patients. Patients show positive results. Doctor prescribes them in the future. A kickback would be something like paying the doctor a large sum to speak at a conference because they prescribe whatever drug.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 19, 2013, 02:18 AM   #25
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegamanX View Post
I agree that is what we need. Sadly the party of NO will never let that happen. It is a massive step forward in the correct direction.
Stop.

President Barack Obama signed this into law on March 23, 2010.

Nancy Pelosi was the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader was Harry Reid.

When the House Passed Obamacare, 34 Democrats joined the GOP in opposition.

The Democrats were in control and didn't push through single payer because they caved to idiots like Sarah Palin and her death panel nonsense, and the insurance lobby which were licking their chops at the chance to make BILLIONS of dollars with a government mandate that FORCED Americans to buy their garbage products.

A huge chunk of the ACA is nothing more than a bailout of the private insurance industry which now has a cash cow with a federal gun held to it's head.

Obama should have done the right thing and given the country what it really needs: Universal Healthcare for all American Citizens, from the cradle to the grave.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC