Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

Why is everyone agains the new healthcare law? It does a lot of good things. Is it perfect, heck no, but it does do something. I just don't believe a person that has worked hard all their lives should go bankrupt because they get sick. Now I see a lot of things in the new law that helps people. The budget office has already said it will save money in the long run, which is suppose to be an objective, nonpartisan office. Now I don't know everything about the new law, but I do know that it is doing some good and that is what is important. Isn't it? Now I am not a Obama supporter or a person that is against Obama, I am kind of neutral. I think we were in so much of a mess, no President could have pulled us out of the problems in one term. What really needs attention is the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid, but no one is coming up with any ideas that everyone can agree on. Now why do you think that is?

 

Obviously, not everyone is against Obamacare. However, those who are mostly just because we cannot afford it. The math just does not work.

 

As the various parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act begin to be phased in, I keep hearing stories about people that wouldn't otherwise have health care coverage for very serious health issues. They estimated over 2 million more peolpe were able to stay on their parent's insurance after they turned 18. One guy said his daughter couldn't get insurance because nobody wanted to insure a young woman that might get pregnant and have an expensive hospital birth. One woman said that her insurance company tried to drop her when she was diagnosed with cancer and this was after decades with the same insurance company but the new law prevented her from being dumped. I can't wait until everyone is under the protection of this new law. It won't affect me personally because I already have group insurance but if it dos, I will run straight to this forum and brag about my experience. Ha!

 

I'll be one of those who may have a chance to get treatment in hospitals that they otherwise would deny me access to because of my income. So I'm waiting patiently for it to come into effect, and hope it's in time. Others in America though will continue to refuse to be covered by this law, and most of them will face fines they will refuse to pay, and some of those may be arrested eventually. I know of some people in my area who pointed shotguns at census workers as they approached their homes. I can't see that kind of person liking the new requirements much lol

 

Subjecting the entire population to gov't dictated health care is my main objection. Why not simply design a program that benefits those in need & allow the rest of us to opt-out?

 

IQless1, I do think lawyers and the lawsuits that they bring cause insurance rates to go up and doctors to pay a high premium for insurance just to protect themselves from these type of useless lawsuits. Even though I agree with a lot of the policies in the health care law that help and protect people, I do not agree that they did not tackle this part of the health care. These lawsuits are a big part of the rise in insurance costs, or at least it is in my opinion. If this could be curbed or even reduced in some way, I think rates will go down.

 

This above whine courtesy of the board's consummate dancer arounder.

 

I don't know what you even mean by this. The only thing the the government has done is made it easier for people to get access to private insurance. I object that we still have to buy private insurance when the Medicare model is more efficient and works better. The rest of us already in group insurance plans only see the benefits of the protections written into the law.

 

First of all, my understanding and I could be wrong, the Budget office has announced it would save money in the long-term, if that is true, how is it costing us more money. Secondly, it does not change your insurance that you have now or in the future. It requires people to get insurance, which is really a good thing isn't it. Now the people that cannot afford health insurance can get it through a government program. Now that makes sense doesn't it. You will not be paying higher premiums to pay for the uninsured, because everyone will have insurance. If I am wrong here, correct me please. Now I also agree that they need to do something about the lawsuits and making insurance available throughout the country, instead of only having certain insurances available in each state, which this new law did not tackle, but overall I think it is a good thing.

 

When the CBO uses reality figures in stead of the Pelosi/reid/BO numbers, they have determined that the government will go broke trying to fund Obamacare. See http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/new-cbo-report-proves-we-cannot-afford-obamacare/ amongst numerous other sites.

 

So a non-partisan, objective agency uses the wrong figures. That doesn't make sense. Arn't they suppose to use their own figures and find out the truth? Now there must be a conspiracy in the CBO? My goodness. I am sorry, it just does not make sense that an agency specifically designed to determine if the numbers add up or not would do something like this. And how to we know those other reports are not using their own numbers? Are they charged with finding out the truth or are they reports made by partisan people?

 

They are required by law to use the figures presented to them. Pelosi/Reid/BO wrote the bill and inserted the figures they were to use. They used them and got the results Pelosi/Reid/BO were looking for. They later used reality and came to a completely different answer. It is called politics.

 

So now you are saying that the CBO did use other figures and found out that the health care bill will cost us a lot of money. And I am not sure they are suppose to use the figures sent to them by law. I think they are suppose to investigate the figures and determine themselves if those figures are correct. That is the CBOs job to find those mistakes and figure these things out and give an objective opinion. Now you are saying the Democrats are manipulating the CBO. I sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Now I think the health care law will do a lot of good. I also think it needs some revisions to take care of problems that were not addressed.

 

They are required by law? Would you mind showing the rest of us what law that is?

 

Technically, I was wrong. It is a rule, not a law. Try readint this;

http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010...ulation-of-the-cbo-score-to-get-their-number/
BTW, without the ‘doctors fix’ there will be not medicare. No doctors will be participating just so they can lose money.

 

The CBO is required to use the data provided to them, a fact moen knows quite well.
The CBO report using non-partisan data debunked earlier speculation that Obamacare would save any money & it issued a report detailing why the previous calcualtion was flawed. Heck, Paul Krugman, the leading liberal economist has written extensively of the higher costs of Obamacare & the need to raise taxes now in order to offset cost overruns in the near future.
This is all common knowledge but the left tries to quash it & they refuse to report on it.

 

I don't understand. If the Medicare model works so well why don't they just keep it as-is and let it benefit those who need it? Why deny people the freedom to choose their own coverage?

 

So this Right-wing blog is now supposed to be proof of your assertions? Isn't their opinion really just agreeing your opinion but basically still just two Right-wing opinions? Most of what the CBO does is estimate based on what it can know not everything that isn't possible to know. Estimates are basically educated guesses and they are just as likely to be less as they are to be more than what is projected. I don't think that the ambiguous factors can be construed to be outright lies. That is a bigger lie in and of itself than any amount the CBO's numbers are off the mark.

 

So post it. I'd like to see the CBO's debunked re-estimates.

 

Sounds like a lot of double talk coming from someone attempting to defend something he knows is inaccurate.