The Obama Re-Election Economic Fallout

[TimG]

That's right, Obama was trying to get something done. Too bad he had no help from the Republicans in Congress.

Why should they help? They did not want the plan and voted against it.

The fact is Obamacare exists because Obama put his personal vision for a legacy ahead of what was good for the country. If he had put the country first he would have recognized that the stinting mess that he could get passed was worse than doing nothing at all.

[Smallc]

And yet, he was reelected despite Republican promises to shelve the plan. As Andrew Sullivan said, Americans have made it very clear that universal access to healthcare in America is here to stay.

[Bonam]

Yes, like I said, conservatives. What you consider moderate, most of us consider....not moderate.

I really don't think the issue was conservatives among the democrats at all. The issue was that it was a bad plan, a bad template for healthcare reform.

[Shady]

Why should they help? They did not want the plan and voted against it.

I don't think he gets the grasp of EQUAL branches of government.

[Smallc]

No, that wasn't the issue. This plan only came about because conservatives didn't want a public option....so Obama took it off the table.

[Shady]

As Andrew Sullivan said, Americans have made it very clear that universal access to healthcare in America is here to stay.

But Obamacare is anything but universial access to health care. Do you still not understand that? Seriously guy, what's your problem?

[Smallc]

I don't think he gets the grasp of EQUAL branches of government.

It's really clear that you don't grasp what a branch of government is.

[Smallc]

But Obamacare is anything but universial access to health care. Do you still not understand that? Seriously guy, what's your problem?

Except that it is. Those that can afford it have to get coverage, and those who can't get help, or are already enrolled in government programs. The whole purpose of this plan, the one the Republicans originally wanted, is to prevent the massive cost of emergency care for the uninsured.

[Shady]

No, that wasn't the issue. This plan only came about because conservatives didn't want a public option....so Obama took it off the table.

He didn't need any conservaite votes if all Democrats were in favour of the public option.

[Smallc]

He didn't need any conservaite votes if all Democrats were in favour of the public option.

One can be conservative and a Democrat.

[Shady]

Except that it is.

Except that it isn't at all. Nobody "gets" coverage. You're forced to purchase coverage, and if you don't, you're fined. But under the legislation, there is no enforcement of the fines, which by the way are lower than buying coverage.

the one the Republicans originally wanted, is to prevent the massive cost of emergency care for the uninsured.

Correct, the emergency care problem was created by government.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Shady

[Shady]

One can be conservative and a Democrat.

Right. The opposition of Obamacare was bi-partisan. The support was completely partisan.

[GostHacked]

America will be just fine. How about you give the man chosen by a majority of the American people a chance before you start cheering against a great nation. He is in a very elite club of presidents who got more then 51% of the vote twice Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan. I think we sit back and give it sme time before we start running around yelling about the sky falling ok?

But it's been falling for the past 4 years. And will continue to do so. Why deny the obvious?

[Smallc]

Except that it isn't at all. Nobody "gets" coverage. You're forced to purchase coverage, and if you don't, you're fined. But under the legislation, there is no enforcement of the fines, which by the way are lower than buying coverage.

People get coverage the same way they always have. Now, more people will get it, and those that need help paying will get that too.

Correct, the emergency care problem was created by government.

Well, it wasn't really a problem so much as a solution to prevent people from dying. I can see how you'd dislike that though.

Right. The opposition of Obamacare was bi-partisan. The support was completely partisan.

The support in congress maybe, but not the support in the population.

[Sleipnir]

The opposition of Obamacare was bi-partisan. The support was completely partisan.

Support was more likely bipartisan with the opposition being partisan.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Smallc]

.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Smallc

[Sleipnir]

Yeah, I was going to point out the impossibility of his statement, but, what's the point?

I erase that part from my statement because didn't think it would deem relevant to the topic.

[TimG]

People get coverage the same way they always have.

Not true. Obamacare makes it impossible to control costs by limiting coverage so premiums will go up. This means that many companies will choose to drop their healthcare and pay the fine. Sure those people will theoretically covered by the government plan but the fact that it occurs at all should that this particular talking point is an outright lie.

[bush_cheney2004]

All of those problems which were created by Nixon have been addressed with Obama's healthcare bill. Give it a shot and see what happens. Anything has to be better then Americans dying because they can't afford it.

This is false....and ironically, healthcare insurance was coupled to employment as a way to increase competitiveness for healthy shipyard workers during WW2 (Kaiser). Other U.S. companies actually had doctors and imfirmaries on site to address worker health issues (e.g. Pabst Brewery).

[punked]

This is false....and ironically, healthcare insurance was coupled to employment as a way to increase competitiveness for healthy shipyard workers during WW2 (Kaiser). Other U.S. companies actually had doctors and imfirmaries on site to address worker health issues (e.g. Pabst Brewery).

I looked into the matter and you are right. If anything Nixon plan would have fixed many problems I am sorry.

[punked]

Not true. Obamacare makes it impossible to control costs by limiting coverage so premiums will go up. This means that many companies will choose to drop their healthcare and pay the fine. Sure those people will theoretically covered by the government plan but the fact that it occurs at all should that this particular talking point is an outright lie.

That must be why premiums have grown the slowest in 50 years and millions got refund checks right? Spares me s the nonsense.

[bush_cheney2004]

I looked into the matter and you are right. If anything Nixon plan would have fixed many problems I am sorry.

No problema....that's why I am here....to make things...right.

[TimG]

That must be why premiums have grown the slowest in 50 years and millions got refund checks right? Spares me s the nonsense.

The trouble is it is not nonsense. Here are two concrete examples of huge increases in cost brought on by Obamacare:

Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kan., this past year offered a 12-month plan that cost students $445, while capping payouts at $10,000. For the 2012-13 academic year, the Obama administration said the payout cap must be at least $100,000. Bethany said students would have had to pay more than $2,000 to get that new level of coverage.“We decided not to offer coverage for our students next year given the proposed increase in premium,” said Bob Schmoll, Bethany’s vice president for finance.

http://blogs.the-ame...dent-insurance/

The committee reported that Southwest Airlines said in its employee magazine of June 2010 that it expected the law to increase its costs. At a presentation made to Southwest in July 2011, benefits consultant Mercer told the company that under the new system it could expect to pay $414 million a year to provide health care for workers, or drop coverage entirely and instead pay $111 million in penalties.

http://blogs.the-ame...ealth-coverage/

It seems to me that anyone with basic math skills would understand that increasing the required coverage increases premiums and that if the government also gives companies an 'out' (i.e. pay the penalty) that some companies will choose that option.

Edited November 11, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...It seems to me that anyone with basic math skills would understand that increasing the required coverage increases premiums and that if the government also gives companies an 'out' (i.e. pay the penalty) that some companies will choose that option.

Right...this is not rocket science and doesn't take a Harvard MBA to figure out. The political choices and decisions have been made, so accordingly, businesses and individuals will make their decisions.

[punked]

The trouble is it is not nonsense. Here are two concrete examples of huge increases in cost brought on by Obamacare:

http://blogs.the-ame...dent-insurance/

http://blogs.the-ame...ealth-coverage/

It seems to me that anyone with basic math skills would understand that increasing the required coverage increases premiums and that if the government also gives companies an 'out' (i.e. pay the penalty) that some companies will choose that option.

Yes but those with basic math skills would also look at the part of the healthcare law that makes illegal to spend more then 20 on overhead and thus insurance premiums are slowing in growth and people are getting refunds would say yep that is better then what they had before. Is it perfect? Nope but what healthcare system is? Is it better then before well the proof is out there so don't tell me what you think it is going to do tell me what it has done. The American people just had an election in this and 51 percent of the people hated your alternative.