ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[Nordling]

Obamacare is NOT a tax. It's insurance reform mostly. The fact that the GOP sued to get the whole thing dismantled and PART of their complaint was that Obamacare INCLUDES a mandate resulting in special tax does not make Obamacare a tax as a whole. Your car contains gasoline, does that mean your car is gas? That's silly.

 

[Neudiin]

Someone rattle smoe's cage again. At least his posts were interesting to read, the rest is just regurgitated stuff that you've all posted already. I'm looking forward, like every other time, for this election to be over.

please carry on beating your dead horse =)

 

[AmberCutie]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

 

[Nordling]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

Totally agree. I can only assume that it's about ignorance or pure politics. Neither are on my to do list. My only complaint is that Obamacare had to be watered down so much--but that can be remedied in future congresses.

 

[Shaun__]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

I started yelling with someone at work over the Affordable Care Act. He got a good paying job with insurance right out of high school and never knew what it was like to not have health care. He could not understand how important healthcare really is to people in this country.

What started the yelling was when he said it was going to make him wait longer for care. Another way of saying that is fuck you I got mine. Yes it may make me wait longer, because more people are able to get non-emergency care the same as me.

I am fine with waiting if it saves someones life.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

Well not being a US citizen but knowing a few people south of the border one pointed me to this link and she says it pretty much sums it up http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcar ... a-Care.htm

 

[AmberCutie]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

Well not being a US citizen but knowing a few people south of the border one pointed me to this link and she says it pretty much sums it up http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcar ... a-Care.htm

In reading the "cons" section of that, I really don't see the big deal. None of that seems particularly life-breaking. Am I just dense?

On reddit there is a sub section named "explain like I'm five". I am tempted to post on there for someone to ELIF how Obamacare is actually evil and/or bad for the USA. Feel free (anyone here) to "Explain like I'm five (years old)" why this is so bad.

 

[Mirra]

Most rants I hear about it sound like a bunch of sleaze ball businesses using it as an excuse that they'll have to fire a bunch of people claiming it will cost them so much money. Claims that it will hurt businesses etc. That didn't sound right to me so I went searching for answers and found this pdf on urban.org that made it seem extremely likely that anyone claiming such was full of it.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

I don't care what people call Obamacare. I call it "saves me over $400 a month on my necessary prescription pills" as well as gives me cheaper trips to my doctor.

I welcome Obamacare into my life. I was grandfathered in to some previous insurance plan that was costing me nearly $400, on top of the $400 prescription I take for my bladder disease. I switched over to a new plan that even the ins rep on the phone called "obamacare" and am so incredibly happy with it. I am now paying less than $200/month for my PPO, as well as paying only $60/month for my pills. Including my birth control, which I need to regulate my cycle, not just to be "not a momma."

Can someone break down what is so goddamned bad about this? It's a welcome thing in my life, but so many are quick to call it evil that I am just dumbfounded.

Well not being a US citizen but knowing a few people south of the border one pointed me to this link and she says it pretty much sums it up http://useconomy.about.com/od/healthcar ... a-Care.htm

In reading the "cons" section of that, I really don't see the big deal. None of that seems particularly life-breaking. Am I just dense?

On reddit there is a sub section named "explain like I'm five". I am tempted to post on there for someone to ELIF how Obamacare is actually evil and/or bad for the USA. Feel free (anyone here) to "Explain like I'm five (years old)" why this is so bad.

Probably has more to do with people being told what to do (being legislated into buying healthcare) (something I was also told they didn't like about it).

 

[AmberCutie]

If only we had government health care...


:whistle:

 

[Nordling]

Yes, like the "con" #10 which says the amount you can deduct from taxes will be reduced...but it doesn't address how that is balanced by the overall reduction in healthcare costs for the end user. In other words, you can't deduct as much but the amount you pay in the first place will be less.

 

[AmberCutie]

Yup it just seems like a buncha mumbojumbo to me. All I know is that it has improved my life. :shrug:

 

[Nordling]

If only we had government health care...


:whistle:

Yups, and that was the President's original intention, but since the needed "moderate" Republicans like Olympia Snow said they wouldn't even look at "single payer," they had to compromise down to "Romneycare."

 

[Jupiter551]

Probably has more to do with people being told what to do (being legislated into buying healthcare) (something I was also told they didn't like about it).

That's the argument I keep seeing about it, and it's pretty nonsensical to me. Why aren't the same people crying foul over the government "forcing" them to pay taxes for government run schools?

Consider the same argument applied elsewhere:

Surely in a capitalist society if you want to send your child to school you pay for it, government shouldn't be in the business of opening schools! Schools should be privately owned and funded, that way it's a free market system that encourages competition, rewards success, and stops the government from sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong! If you want to pay for your child to get an education then you can choose which school they go to, if you don't want to (or rather, can't afford to) then that's your choice too. That's what freedom is all about! Charging everyone taxes so that kids can go to government funded schools is socialism!

See how stupid that is? See how it's not really freedom? Well, it's freedom to get an education if you're rich and freedom to go fuck yourself if you're not, basically. So is private health insurance without some form of publicly funded health insurance. Freedom to be rich and taken care of or be poor and die.

 

[Nordling]

Probably has more to do with people being told what to do (being legislated into buying healthcare) (something I was also told they didn't like about it).

That's the argument I keep seeing about it, and it's pretty nonsensical to me. Why aren't the same people crying foul over the government "forcing" them to pay taxes for government run schools?

Consider the same argument applied elsewhere:

Surely in a capitalist society if you want to send your child to school you pay for it, government shouldn't be in the business of opening schools! Schools should be privately owned and funded, that way it's a free market system that encourages competition, rewards success, and stops the government from sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong! If you want to pay for your child to get an education then you can choose which school they go to, if you don't want to (or rather, can't afford to) then that's your choice too. That's what freedom is all about! Charging everyone taxes so that kids can go to government funded schools is socialism!

See how stupid that is? See how it's not really freedom? Well, it's freedom to get an education if you're rich and freedom to go fuck yourself if you're not, basically. So is private health insurance without some form of publicly funded health insurance. Freedom to be rich and taken care of or be poor and die.

Sadly, with regards to education, that's almost identical to what many Republicans are saying. Romney/Ryan want to basically dismantle public education and replace it with "vouchers" and other private entities.

 

[Mirra]

Probably has more to do with people being told what to do (being legislated into buying healthcare) (something I was also told they didn't like about it).

That's the argument I keep seeing about it, and it's pretty nonsensical to me. Why aren't the same people crying foul over the government "forcing" them to pay taxes for government run schools?

Consider the same argument applied elsewhere:

Surely in a capitalist society if you want to send your child to school you pay for it, government shouldn't be in the business of opening schools! Schools should be privately owned and funded, that way it's a free market system that encourages competition, rewards success, and stops the government from sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong! If you want to pay for your child to get an education then you can choose which school they go to, if you don't want to (or rather, can't afford to) then that's your choice too. That's what freedom is all about! Charging everyone taxes so that kids can go to government funded schools is socialism!

See how stupid that is? See how it's not really freedom? Well, it's freedom to get an education if you're rich and freedom to go fuck yourself if you're not, basically. So is private health insurance without some form of publicly funded health insurance. Freedom to be rich and taken care of or be poor and die.

Sadly, with regards to education, that's almost identical to what many Republicans are saying. Romney/Ryan want to basically dismantle public education and replace it with "vouchers" and other private entities.

The Republicans in my state are already trying to implement vouchers for those who want to send their children to private schools with the money for the program coming out of the pockets of public schools. Public schools in this state have already been slashed and cut down putting our school system in shambles in all but the wealthiest parts of the wealthiest counties.

 

[Jupiter551]

Sadly, with regards to education, that's almost identical to what many Republicans are saying. Romney/Ryan want to basically dismantle public education and replace it with "vouchers" and other private entities.

Well tbh it'll be great for the economy, they can use all the kids who can't afford to go to school anymore as a platform to reintroduce child labour - small businesses will boom! There's no unions for kids and it's acceptable to pay them a lower hourly rate, suddenly US manufacturing CAN compete with cheap Chinese labour again lol.

 

[Bocefish]

Like I said before, quickly name 5 things the government does well aside from the military and cutting welfare and government checks on time.

The gov. will control what prescriptions you can get, there will eventually be an approved list of meds and if your meds aren't on there, so sorry. Thousands of women go to NY from Canada because it takes months for them to get a mammogram if they find a lump, or so I'm told.

This was one of the cons from the earlier provided link.

Between 3-5 million people could lose their company-sponsored health care plans. Many businesses will find it more cost-effective to pay the penalty and let their employees purchase their own insurance plans on the exchanges. Other small businesses might find they can get a better plan through the state-run exchanges. (Source: CBO, The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Employment-Based Health Insurance, March 15, 2012)

Here are some of the reasons summed up that 83% of Doctors hate it:

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/

Here's some more reasons:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... hysicians/

Oh and btw, for the Obama Koolaid "It's not a tax" drinkers:

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional right to mandate that people must buy health insurance from a private company. However, it does have the right to tax those that don't. Therefore, it upheld the Act.

 

[jackie_O]

Probably has more to do with people being told what to do (being legislated into buying healthcare) (something I was also told they didn't like about it).

That's the argument I keep seeing about it, and it's pretty nonsensical to me. Why aren't the same people crying foul over the government "forcing" them to pay taxes for government run schools?

Consider the same argument applied elsewhere:

Surely in a capitalist society if you want to send your child to school you pay for it, government shouldn't be in the business of opening schools! Schools should be privately owned and funded, that way it's a free market system that encourages competition, rewards success, and stops the government from sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong! If you want to pay for your child to get an education then you can choose which school they go to, if you don't want to (or rather, can't afford to) then that's your choice too. That's what freedom is all about! Charging everyone taxes so that kids can go to government funded schools is socialism!

See how stupid that is? See how it's not really freedom? Well, it's freedom to get an education if you're rich and freedom to go fuck yourself if you're not, basically. So is private health insurance without some form of publicly funded health insurance. Freedom to be rich and taken care of or be poor and die.

My problem with the mandate isn't that it is socialist. I'm perfectly fine with national, socialized healthcare. I'm fine with my tax dollars going to that.

What I'm not fine with is being required by the federal government as private citizen to *buy* insurance from a private company or else be penalized for not choosing to *purchase* healthcare.

I would much prefer an actually socialized universal healthcare than this gun to my head do it or else method. I understand why it was done, I understand it was a measure to ensure that Americans didn't just wait to buy healthcare when a problem cropped up since companies would no longer be able to deny people with previous conditions from getting insurance.

I really do get the compromise, but it isn't good enough. If you are going to make me spend money, at least force me to give it to a private company. Tax me and make a universal healthcare for all. Over all I like Obamacare, I think its a step in the right direction, I just don't think it was a step far enough.

 

[Mirra]

Here are some of the reasons summed up that 83% of Doctors hate it:

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/

Here's some more reasons:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... hysicians/

The 2nd article is by Adam Frederic Dorin, M.D., MBA who just happens to be the guy who owns/operates the Americas Medical Society website... so really this is more like one man's opinion stated twice. Just sayin'.

 

[Nordling]

Like I said before, quickly name 5 things the government does well aside from the military and cutting welfare and government checks on time.

The gov. will control what prescriptions you can get, there will eventually be an approved list of meds and if your meds aren't on there, so sorry. Thousands of women go to NY from Canada because it takes months for them to get a mammogram if they find a lump, or so I'm told.

This was one of the cons from the earlier provided link.

Between 3-5 million people could lose their company-sponsored health care plans. Many businesses will find it more cost-effective to pay the penalty and let their employees purchase their own insurance plans on the exchanges. Other small businesses might find they can get a better plan through the state-run exchanges. (Source: CBO, The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Employment-Based Health Insurance, March 15, 2012)

Here are some of the reasons summed up that 83% of Doctors hate it:

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/

Here's some more reasons:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... hysicians/

Oh and btw, for the Obama Koolaid "It's not a tax" drinkers:

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional right to mandate that people must buy health insurance from a private company. However, it does have the right to tax those that don't. Therefore, it upheld the Act.

Why don't you just cite Donald Duck comic books to "prove" your point. "America's Medical Society" is NOT the AMA and doesn't even have a wiki entry. And as I've mentioned before, The Washington Times is a rag completely subsidized by the Moonies.

Sources DO make a difference. You can argue that a stopped clock is correct twice a day, but do you really want to trust that as a way to tell time?

 

[Nordling]

Here are some of the reasons summed up that 83% of Doctors hate it:

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/

Here's some more reasons:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... hysicians/

The 2nd article is by Adam Frederic Dorin, M.D., MBA who just happens to be the guy who owns/operates the Americas Medical Society website... so really this is more like one man's opinion stated twice. Just sayin'.

Good catch. I missed that.

 

[Bocefish]

Abuse of Power: The IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), section 3403 of the PPACA/Obamacare bill, describes how fifteen unelected individuals will be appointed by the President (or, in his/her absence, the Secretary of HHS) to essentially and bluntly ‘ration’ medical care. Furthermore, section 10320 of the bill speaks to “expanded powers” of the IPAB, wherein such things as gas, food, eating habits, and the type of car you drive will be scrutinized and analyzed to assess additional penalties and fees.

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/
WTF!?

 

[Mirra]

Abuse of Power: The IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), section 3403 of the PPACA/Obamacare bill, describes how fifteen unelected individuals will be appointed by the President (or, in his/her absence, the Secretary of HHS) to essentially and bluntly ‘ration’ medical care. Furthermore, section 10320 of the bill speaks to “expanded powers” of the IPAB, wherein such things as gas, food, eating habits, and the type of car you drive will be scrutinized and analyzed to assess additional penalties and fees.

http://americasmedicalsociety.com/obama ... -of-power/
WTF!?

What? You're not going to refer to them as the "death panels" that the rest of the anti-Obamacare people like to refer to them as?

 

[Shaun__]

We have several beautiful Canadians on this site, and I have never noticed them complaining too much about their healthcare. I have never noticed any of the members from other countries doing it either. You would think someone with government healthcare would be telling us how bad it is.

 

[Nordling]

We have several beautiful Canadians on this site, and I have never noticed them complaining too much about their healthcare. I have never noticed any of the members from other countries doing it either. You would think someone with government healthcare would be telling us how bad it is.

That is a HUGE point. I have a lot of online Canadian friends and they all rave about the Canadian system and refer to it in many cases the way our gun lovers refer to their guns... "...cold, dead fingers..." and all that. lol

 

[AmberCutie]

I really do get the compromise, but it isn't good enough. If you are going to make me spend money, at least force me to give it to a private company. Tax me and make a universal healthcare for all. Over all I like Obamacare, I think its a step in the right direction, I just don't think it was a step far enough.

A step in the right direction is enough for me, and signs that we might move further in the right direction, at least.

 

[Bocefish]

Personally, I don't want this in any way, shape, or form!

Politifacts findings about the 15 person panel...

Our ruling

Ryan said that Obama "puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of Medicare who are required to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors."

Board members aren’t elected, but it’s a stretch to say they’re entirely unaccountable. They’re appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The president can fire them for neglect of duty or malfeasance.They’re required to recommend cuts to Medicare in years that other cost-saving measures don’t meet growth targets — but Congress can overrule their recommendations.

Meanwhile, "denied care" is a strong way to phrase the board’s possible effect. It’s expected to recommend cutting provider payments, with an eye on cutting waste and inefficiency. That could restrict some seniors’ access to care, depending on the what actions the board actually takes. Meanwhile, the board oversees only a small percentage of the Medicare savings in the health care law.

Ryan creates the specter of an unaccountable board making all of Medicare’s spending decisions, but that’s scarcely the case. There’s an element of truth to his claim, but his overstatements add up to a Mostly False impression.

 

[Just Me]

:roll: It is semantics whether to call it a tax or not. Personally, I don't care what it is called. It is something necessary if we are ever going to get healthcare costs under control. If it makes you feel good to call it a tax that is certainly your prerogative. Of course you and the right wing conservatives shot themselves in the foot by calling it a tax. It would never have made it past SCOTUS otherwise. Or wait. Are you only calling it a tax now since it did pass? I never know with the flip flopping the republicans do.

For someone who doesn't care what it's called, you sure go on and on about what it's called. :lol:

I don't care what it is called. The republicans care what it is called. Now. They call it a tax so they can call it the biggest tax increase in history, which it wasn't. They did not call it a tax when it was before the supreme court. I think I was pretty clear by going on about whether it was a tax or not that I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the republicans. If I wasn't clear I apologize. I do notice you did not refute the facts I posted, only comment on what you believe I care about. :lol:

What part of this do you not understand:

By a 5-4 vote, the court held the law's mandate requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty valid under Congress's constitutional authority to levy taxes. The financial penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses "the essential feature of any tax," producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

The Republicans called it a tax from the beginning, Obama lied for months swearing it wasn't a tax, yet his lawyers defended it as a tax.





It's collected by the IRS and is based on your income, but it's not a tax. Ya right! Just like the asshole in Ft. Hood screaming allah akbar or whatever the muslim extremist yell as they try to kill every America in sight was classified 'workplace violence.' Just like Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice blamed the Benghazi attack on a fucking video for 2 weeks and as 'mob violence.' Keep drinking that Obama kool-aid.

You are missing the forest for the trees again. I am not arguing that it is not a tax. I posted a link for you when you stated it was the biggest tax increase in history. That is what I refute. I will call it a tax here if it makes you happy. I did not sign the Karl Rove pledge not to raise taxes. I have nothing against taxes. :lol:

I also refuted your statement that Obama is the one not showing leadership and working with the republican congress. It has been stated by a republican in the house that their sole goal is to make Obama a one term president. If you think Mitt would be better at bipartisan leadership, look at his record in Massachusetts which I provided a handy link to.

http://io9.com/5888322/critical-thinking-explained-in-six-kid+friendly-animations

 

[Just Me]

Personally, I don't want this in any way, shape, or form!

Politifacts findings about the 15 person panel...

Our ruling

Ryan said that Obama "puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of Medicare who are required to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors."

Board members aren’t elected, but it’s a stretch to say they’re entirely unaccountable. They’re appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The president can fire them for neglect of duty or malfeasance.They’re required to recommend cuts to Medicare in years that other cost-saving measures don’t meet growth targets — but Congress can overrule their recommendations.

Meanwhile, "denied care" is a strong way to phrase the board’s possible effect. It’s expected to recommend cutting provider payments, with an eye on cutting waste and inefficiency. That could restrict some seniors’ access to care, depending on the what actions the board actually takes. Meanwhile, the board oversees only a small percentage of the Medicare savings in the health care law.

Ryan creates the specter of an unaccountable board making all of Medicare’s spending decisions, but that’s scarcely the case. There’s an element of truth to his claim, but his overstatements add up to a Mostly False impression.

You do understand what overstatements and false impressions are? You are really posting something that contradicts you? What is it you are exactly against then?