Honest question -- why is Obamacare discussed in the context of repeal AND replace? It is framed as if there must be a replacement. Why not just repeal?
Honest question -- why is Obamacare discussed in the context of repeal AND replace? It is framed as if there must be a replacement. Why not just repeal?
Because our health care system before, and arguably now, is abysmal.
Considering the number of people now insured through the exchange for the Republicans to repeal it and not do something in exchange would be taking insurance away from all of those people and going back to the way things were before. It would be political suicide at this point which is why they're trying to push off the replace and repeal to 2020 so that it's someone else's issue but they get the credit for getting the ball rolling.
Quite frankly we're at the point where Health Care has to be a global human right. I just think that people finally have come to their senses about this. We've been having (mostly) free health care here in Canada for I don't know how many years and, while we do have our issues, nothing comes close to those the US suffer through right now.
Nobody should live in fear of being unable to afford the most basic of all things.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Because GOP.
The ACA is heavily integrated within the market, and it accomplished much it was meant to do. It expanded healthcare coverage to an additional 20million or so Americans. It also made it affordable for those who need extra help. It also curved the rapid growing premiums of healthcare. Something I often see is people complaining about their premiums going up $200 since Obamacare. People don't understand that premiums would have gone up $500 without Obamacare (arbitrary numbers but you get the idea). It was never supposed to decrease premiums, it was meant to fight the rapid growth.
If you're young or already sick, you get help as well. There's a lot of good that came from the ACA, and when you cut through all the negative propaganda, you can see why Obama considers it his greatest legacy.
Removing all of the good aspects of the ACA, will greatly harm the American Healthcare industry. If you have to remove the good parts, you need to replace it with something else or the healthcare markets will become very unstable very quickly.
Last edited by God Save The King; 2017-01-09 at 11:16 PM.
“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
– C.S. Lewis
Because people like not having health insurance denied because they have a pre-existing condition, and their premiums going up at a lower rate than they did before Obamacare.
Honest question: did you do ANY research on the topic before asking your question? I think you probably didn't or you wouldn't have needed to ask.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Medicare really shouldn't be privatized to start with... The government should manage it as it is far to easy to gain a monopoly on it never mind the fact people who need medical aid are rarely picky shoppers.
Because none of the problems caused by the prior system and the ACA won't be fixed, and the ACA had good parts to it. To those who think their insurance is going to become cheaper after this, haha yeah, like any company would do that.
Because the number of people without insurance has fallen by 21 million since Obamacare took effect, and a big proportion of those are poor white working class voters. i.e. people who voted for Trump.
Now if republicans want to commit political suicide sure they can just repeal.....
Paranoid answer: Because it's corporate welfare and big insurance had a talk with their lobbyists who shook some chains on the hill.
Real answer, because people want care for those with preexisting conditions, insurance for their kids in college until age 26 and states like having that medicaid money.
This guy obviously doesn't know what the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, actually does. (Hint: It has almost nothing to do with the actual infrastructural ongoings of our healthcare systems.)
The ACA aims to make our existing healthcare system more accessible, it doesn't make nearly any significant change to the way things are done, medically speaking. Repealing it doesn't leave us without a system for doling out medical aid, it simply takes us back to requiring people to pay for any/all procedures.
Until the U.S. becomes more inwardly focused, ideally leaning towards the intellectual nationalism of the early years, I'd prefer we have no nationalized system and instead leave it up to the individual states.
Because politicians will never learn, lol. Health care is a monumentally difficult problem to solve, and now three separate administrations have or are going to try to "fix it" as one of their first acts in office before they have a clue how hard it it.
Bill and Hillary tried to do it and crashed and burned.
Obama did it but gave us an impossibly convoluted thing that isn't much of an improvement.
Trump is coming basically like the first two saying "oh, well, we'll just fix it, how hard can it be?" and I guarantee he's not going to have any more luck at it.
Health Care should be something you spend at least three years working on as a new president before you try to cram a quick-fix down the country's throat.
But we need to solve the underlying problem, which is not "how do we pay for it?" it's "why does it cost so much to begin with?" when most countries have similar quality of care at a fraction of the price.
Except that doesn't happen, which is one of the main problems.
With no insurance, people wait until they are sicker and go to an ER where they get treated in a hospital at a 900% price hike and never pay the bill.
Then those who either do pay or do have insurance end up subsidizing the cost of healthcare anyway in the form of higher premiums/bills (i.e.: my $45 CBC will now cost you $250; my $100 CMP will now cost you $750; my $50 one view chest x-ray will now cost you $250).
More health insurance access, ideally, increases the number of people who are: 1.) Able to get primary care treatment and preventative medicine to avoid costly hospitalizations, and 2.) Insured if they do end up in the hospitals, increasing hospital reimbursement and reducing the need for massive overcharging to make up for the loss.
Thinking that repealing the ACA will 'reduce premiums' because the public taxpayer is 'no longer subsidizing poor people' is short sighted. You still are, it will just happen when you end up in the hospital and pay a much higher bill.
I am 100% in support of the overall goal of the ACA. It may have things that need to be fixed, but it is a step in the right direction.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2017-01-09 at 11:32 PM.
Because it has actually provided insurance coverage for millions of people who didn't have it before (I know many people just don't have morals anymore, but they are still citizens and we should be trying to help them). Furthermore, without a replacement it would actually cost $350 billion over the next decade (http://crfb.org/papers/cost-full-rep...dable-care-act - this is from a bipartisan committee). Basically, a full repeal without replacement would save $1.55 trillion, but cost $1.9 trillion.
This is a problem with the Republican dependence on placard sized concepts...it ignores reality, and reality bites back really hard when you ignore it.
Obamacare is not a Healthcare system, it's a government act that has requirements surrounding how the healthcare system needs to operate and how you can and are required to get medical insurance coverage. It's primary purpose was to ensure everyone had a path to acquire medical insurance coverage so that the healthcare system could continue to operate at a high level of efficacy because it was well (or at least better) funded rather than be on the decline because by law, hospitals are required to provide a basic level of care regardless of your ability to pay. Where I live, it was common for hospitals to shutdown or reduce efficiency (lay people off, shut down wings, etc...) because the patients it was treating didn't have insurance and would default on their hospital bills so the hospitals weren't getting paid, but were still required to provide service and therefore were required to spend millions a year they would never get back.
If Obamacare were to disappear there would still be hospitals, clinics, urgent care, etc... providing healthcare, but it would go back to the way it was before with hospitals hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate and medical insurance companies being able to deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions or if not denying, charging so much for the coverage that it's unrealistic anyone would actually pay the premiums.
So rare that someone actually understands what the ACA has done.
Basically what the guy with dead parents said. ^^^
- - - Updated - - -
If you actually think that the ACA isn't much of an improvement, you either don't understand the facts behind it or you just refuse to accept it. Judging by the rest of your post, I'd say it's the second option and you just don't want to admit that it was a good thing.