Do you still support the affordable care act/Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by tshrimp, Jul 18, 2013.

?

Do you still support the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare?

  1. Was for it, Still for it

    100 vote(s)
    44.6%
  2. Was for it, now against it

    5 vote(s)
    2.2%
  3. Was against it, still against it

    108 vote(s)
    48.2%
  4. Was against it, now for it.

    4 vote(s)
    1.8%
  5. Had no opinion then, have no opinion now.

    5 vote(s)
    2.2%
  6. Other

    2 vote(s)
    0.9%
  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2

    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.
     
  3. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    What is different from what passed 2 years ago?
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #4
    Yes I still support Romneycare but I think it needs to be strengthened with a public option.
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7

    Petty much my feelings on it but I have always viewed it as a stepping stone to single payer.
     
  8. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #9
    Don't forget all of the doctors that get kick backs from the drug companies.
     
  10. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #10
    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...
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #15
    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.
     
  16. FDX
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    #16
    How is that a kick back for the doctor?
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #18
    It makes sense if you don't think about it
     
  19. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #19
    I do not support Obamacare.

    The United States should have single payer universal healthcare, with the OPTION of buying private insurance.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location:
    MN
    #21
    Amen!!!
     
  22. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page