It makes it so you pay higher taxs and there is a increase in government speading. While this sounds okay it just dosn't work, it hurts the economy more then it fixs. It makes it so the middle class are the ones that hurt the most. More taxs means less buying power less buying power means the economy starts tp slow down usually. This causes business and people to move there where there is less taxs. Obamacare means massive increase in the amount of taxs witch the ritch can take but the middle class at least the lower middle class will take a hurting.
For those who say we should not have to have insurance - what happens when such a person has an accident, and needs medical care? Do we let them die?
I'm not all that opposed to Obamacare, per se. It definitely helps many people who would be relatively lacking without it. However, it is yet another form of wealth transfer, from those paying taxes to those who pay less or none. In the end, huge numbers of Americans will face new and higher fees and taxes, such as higher payroll deductions for Medicare.
The fact is that we cannot pay for everybody. What good is a system that is unsustainable? The U.S. over the past many decades is clearly on an unsustainable course, financially. Far too many people are receiving benefits from the system without contributing to it, or without having contributed nearly enough. Nothing like this ever gets "turned around," and comes out okay in the end - nothing with anything like the scale of the U.S.
What will happen is that things will get worse. Our politicians, wanting above all else to maintain their own position and power, will continue to promise whatever they deem necessary to stay in; it amounts to vote-buying on their part, regardless of what is actually good for the country and people. The federal government, in the end, will do the worst thing for the greatest amount of people.
Rather than being "of, by, and for the people," our government is becoming more and more the adversary of the people, especially those who support the system, the taxpayers, those who work, the middle class, etc.
Two years ago, the Obamacare law itself was "only" a little under 800 pages long, with an additional 23,000 pages of federal regulations that accompanied it. I would think it has since increased in size.
What could go wrong?
Everybody have a nice day! : P
@Porkloin. You said it perfectly. And I'd add, it's going to end up that those who, by no choice of their own, put into the system, cannot draw out as promised, due to it all given away to those who put nothing in. If the government really wanted to see that everyone had insurance, why can they not enact laws to govern healthcare facilities and their insurance gouging practices, that the insurance companies pass on to the people.
They said it would save us thousands and it ended up costing us millions! To quote Obama, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor too. But Obama care is gonna save a lot of money for you! Period!" Such an idiotic plan.
The way society acts terrified of everything these days makes you wonder how in the world we all survived before. Incredibly, doctors used to actually "work with" patients who were undergoing financial hardships. Don't believe it? It happened to me when I was a teenager with a life threatening illness. My parents weren't able to pay, were between jobs, and had no insurance, and the doctor literally said "Don't worry about it, we will work with you. Just pay what you can." Amazing? Yes, but true. Something has gone terribly wrong since then. Starting with everybody has pretty much lost their minds.
UtherPenguin, I'm almost certain Canada is far more socialist on healthcare than OBamacare. Obamacare is just a portal to privatized health insurance companies. Canada has healthcare for the people by the government. Which is more socialist.
Why don't you just shove those words down your own hole terrff because I am a Republican with the ideology of a Conservative and though Obama was a decent President the Affordable Health Care act was a massive failure. It was supposed to save us thousands and it ended up costing us millions! You are insulting just one political party and are following one party. You could, for once in your pathetic life, drill into your feeble mind that you do not have to follow the views of one party all the time and you can follow the person that you think will make a change in this country,..... Except Trump, he is bad.
Generation Y took liberalism and defiled it completely. Apart of me dies everytime a teenie declares himself a liberal, because I remember a time in history when liberals use to be the freedom fighters of the world.
Lol. The Democratic party at one point over a hundred years ago was conservative, and likewise the Republican party at one point was liberal. So when you people try to use Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr. When you say that you created great Republicans, you're only lying to yourself. The Republican party is the party of Ted Cruz, Kim Davis, Donald Trump, and Rush Limbaugh. No one who is in the Republican party is in any way Philosophical.
Yes, and they are very smart, experienced, and well educated people who have great opinions.
Are any of the people you listed:
Inexperienced in the government?
No, they are not.
@reretarff The modern day concept of Conservative and Liberal is, relatively speaking, a very recent development. To say that Abraham Lincoln or anyone else was one way or the other is simply modifying their beliefs to agree with the speakers beliefs. Lincoln was a member of the Republican party, which was predominately an abolitionist party at the time. He was not a conservative or a liberal because both of those concepts weren't available at the time. The modern-day Liberalism started around LBJ's time and the modern-day Conservatism began with Reagan. It is better to consider both those instances as creating entirely new parties.
I'm not talking about liberal vs conservative in political terms. I'm talking about general views terms.
The term liberal and the term conservative change with generation.
For example, in Lincoln's terms, abolitionists were liberal, and Jim Crow Enthusiasts were conservatives. The definition of liberal is To speak out against what is known and common.
Slavery was known and common at that time. Being against slavery was a new concept that was not used to or majorly favored.
The terms liberal and conservative have always existed.
You are an idiot! You do not even know the words you speak of, Trump by all means is not a real Republican nor a good candidate neither is Hillary Clinton, the cunt is no better than Margaret Thatcher. I say that Bernie or Paul are the ways to go.
Not sexist. Women are just more alligned to sycophancy on average than men. Probably 90% of men are sycophants, while at least 95% of women are sycophants. If we were to measure the level of sycophancy between men and women, men would also score a lot lower, considering we actually had a way to scale that
I had cancer and know how much money a single hospital visit can be. Obama Care is mostly insufficient, but I like the overall idea and theme of Obama Care and hope our next president can continue and make Obama Care even better!
Admittedly the ACA is better than universal healthcare. The actual law seemed to affect the nation positively, but out of principal I am opposed to the bill. It defies the conventional role governments were supposed to have, as believed by the founding fathers.
A lot of people do not understand what the affordable care act did though. It forced the price down on premiums for a select number of participants based on their income level. Everyone else who did not apply for a new healthcare plan on healthcare.Gov, or were to late to register, had their premiums raised slightly to offset the losses. Premiums later leveled out as most big corporate insurance companies actually experienced a boost in profit due to all the new healthcare signets. One of the worst things about the law is how it forces certain people to possess healthcare plans, which is very authoritarian and regulatory.
"According to Lawrence Goldfarb: "Repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) will have a negative economic impact because it will force non-wealthy individuals to spend a higher percentage of income on health care rather than expansionary products and services" "
I don't know this guy, but if these are truly his words, then he's an idiot. I am a non-wealthy person, and BECAUSE of the ACA I no longer have the option of the consortium 90-10 that was always given to me for free as an employee of the school district. Now my only option is a high deductible plan that has a monthly fee and an outrageous deductible before the insurance will even spend a penny on my medical bills. I am literally paying 13,000 more per year (depending on whether or not I use my full deductible) for health insurance than I was 4 years ago. That's twice my take-home pay. And somehow I am supposed to believe the argument that if the law was repealed, my insurance would somehow go up even more??? Absurd, the ACA caused this problem.
No. I pay into my state's healthcare exchange: Covered California. There's nothing Leninist about it, as I'm paying completely out of pocket to cover deductibles and premiums. I even have a silver plan. I suppose I'm paying money to help cover a portion of other people's insurance in the exchange. But that's the way health insurance works anyway! **shrugs**
I honestly don't know why Obamacare is such a big deal, as the only controversial part is that participating health insurance providers can't refuse you for a pre-existing condition, which opens the door for many to be covered. Yeah, some get cheaper rates than others, but all insurance providers work that way. You wont find any that don't.