johnny138 wrote:People like you never, ever stop to think of where the money is going to come from to pay for this. Every supporter of Obamacare in this thread incessantly talks of benefits and completely ignores costs.
Actually, the costs of Obamacare have been discussed at length by myself and others. And we're still discussing the costs. Please read the thread before posting.
My father in law is dying of cancer but he was a business owner and worked his ass off his whole life. Because he saved money, we have funds for the treatment but his care causes a burden on our family. Do you think the people who hold up pictures on Facebook are the only ones that get sick? Rather than devote my money to my own family's care, you'd rather me send my money to a woman I don't even know? Not. Going. To. Happen.
I am sorry to hear about your father-in-law. I am also at the point in life where relatives just one generation above me are starting to become seriously ill, and you have my sympathies. But I think you're looking at the issue in terms of absolutes. The choices are not support your family or support a stranger with massive health care bills. The logic of insurance is fairly straightforward. Everybody pays into the system whether or not they draw back, but when they do need funds, their withdrawl is funded by the premiums of the others in the insurance pool. Obamacare simply compels all citizens and legal residents to buy health insurance. It's true that the poor will be subsidized, but the vast majority of Americans will get insurance through work or be forced to buy it on the open market at their own expense. The other side of this coin is that health insurance companies must guarantee issue, cover preexisting conditions, and pay for all preventative treatments. The end goal is for everybody to be insured, and for no one to go bankrupt paying for health care.
Republicans think about it all the time. We try to bring down costs all the time by limiting law suit damage so malpractice insurance costs will come down. We also try hard to get incompetent doctors thrown out of practice. But liberals fight us at every turn on those measures. Liberals aren't serious about bringing down healthcare costs or they would support those measures.
I agree with you that liberals tend to be more focused on expanding coverage than lowering costs. But tort reform is not incompatible with Obamacare. In fact, even before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the Obama Administration spent $25 million to test alternatives to the medical liability system. And the Affordable Care Act dedicated another $50 million to expand the state demonstration projects. Democrats are more open to tort reform than is often suggested, but we're not interested in debating the issue until Republicans accept Obamacare as established law and withdraw their vow to repeal it.
Yes, those evil capitalist scumbags that go around creating the jobs for you to earn money and support yourself. They all stole that capital to start businesses, didn't they? No one ever EARNED any money they have, right?
You're railing against strawmen. Nobody has made the arguments you're trying to refute.
What about the business owners that will be forced into bankruptcy trying to pay for this? Isn't the economy struggling already? Aren't business owners already facing tough times? And Obama and his supporters now want to slap another heavy tax on them. Does anyone really believe there won't be economic consequences to that?
The same concerns were raised about RomneyCare (MassCare) and they never came to fruition. Massachussetts is a good predictor of how the US will respond to the full implementation of health care reform. Six years after RomneyCare passed, the states health care costs have risen only 1% above the national average annual increase, and 99% of the state's population now has health insurance. The mass layoffs that conservatives feared didn't happen.
Videos of Obama saying it isn't a tax is irrelevant? Videos explaining where this money comes from is irrelevant? Videos of Pelosi admitting she doesn't have a CLUE what's in the bill she's asking people to pass is irrelevant?
They're about as relevant as videos of Romney championing MassCare as a model for the national health reform, the most recent in the fall of 2009, just months before ObamaCare passed into law. They're interesting for five minutes then you move on. What's truly relevant is the current positions of the national parties and their representatives. There's no question that Romney is now opposed to a system he once advocated and that he would repeal ObamaCare if given the chance. There's also no question that Obama will accept the constitutionality of ObamaCare under the government's taxing power. In reality his position had already changed during the trials; after all, it was the US government who advocated in court that the IRS penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a tax. That was the Government's alternate position, and the one the court accepted.