Why obamacare is not same as universal health care?

[heloo]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is it because under Obamacare, we are forced to buy insurance from different sellers?

Thanks

 

[aSagacious]

One of the primary tenets of Obamacare is the promise of universal healthcare.

 

[kpcrew]

Well ask yourself what universal means and then go from there. There is a wealth of information at your fingertips, go forth young padawan.

 

[LifeTake2]

Because it isn't universal.

As long as there are people in the US without access to paid healthcare we don't have universal healthcare.

Basic definition.

 

[coyotelime]

23 million still left without healthcare.

If his bill had said healthcare for all by 2020 I don't think it would've been passed, plus a 3.8% tax on people making 200k+ probably wouldn't have been enough.

 

[Midd]

I can't take any healthcare debate seriously once the word "Obamacare" is invoked..

 

[ManBroDude]

I can't take any healthcare debate seriously once the word "Obamacare" is invoked..

2nded

It's like the buzzword for all right-leaning folks with no real grasp on the whole story.

 

[heloo]

Because it isn't universal.

As long as there are people in the US without access to paid healthcare we don't have universal healthcare.

Basic definition.

I know as of current, but in 2014, the law will require individuals to buy insurance - individual mandate. So by 2014, will it be universal?

Thanks

 

[Flasheh]

I know as of current, but in 2014, the law will require individuals to buy insurance - individual mandate. So by 2014, will it be universal?

Thanks

No, people will still be able to opt out of having health insurance, they will just have to pay a fee for doing so.

 

[jcruiser]

"Obamacare?"

"I have no problem with people saying 'Obama cares'. I do care." ~ Obama

He does care. And it's not really his health care plan, it's just a bunch of small ideas made by other politicians comprised into one big one.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

2nded

It's like the buzzword for all right-leaning folks with no real grasp on the whole story.

Haha. I read the title and thought, "clearly we have a republican here."

 

[Narmerguy]

I can't take any healthcare debate seriously once the word "Obamacare" is invoked..

👍 I don't understand it, it's not at all like he even did the majority of the work to create it.

 

[Gigantron]

-Registered this past September
-6 posts
-Starts only one thread and invokes "Obamacare" at the same time

= Troll

 

[LifeTake2]

I know as of current, but in 2014, the law will require individuals to buy insurance - individual mandate. So by 2014, will it be universal?

Thanks

No.

As of a year ago there were ~50 Million in the US without insurance.

The Heathcare reform act signed by the President aims to add 32 Million to insurance by 2014.

That still leaves nearly 20 Million without coverage. For those 20 Million it is clearly not universal.

FYI, while I do not agree with how Congress went about their failed attempt at universal care; I find it one of our nations greatest failings that we don't provide it for our residents.

 

[NickNaylor]

👍 I don't understand it, it's not at all like he even did the majority of the work to create it.

No, but it was predominantly his initiative that got the thing going. I don't see the problem with using Obamacare. It's not derogatory. It's shorter than typing "healthcare reform law." You could use ACA but many people probably wouldn't know what that is.

 

[aSagacious]

I can't take any healthcare debate seriously once the word "Obamacare" is invoked..

I like to consider myself a level-headed moderate. I just find 'Obamacare' easier to say than 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' or 'The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010' but you can believe whatever you want. 😉

 

[kpcrew]

No, but it was predominantly his initiative that got the thing going. I don't see the problem with using Obamacare. It's not derogatory. It's shorter than typing "healthcare reform law." You could use ACA but many people probably wouldn't know what that is.

I agree with this. It's because the president can set the agenda and has a lot of influence over what politicians will consider. The presidential veto is a powerful weapon and he tends to be the de facto leader of his party while in office.

 

[Narmerguy]

No, but it was predominantly his initiative that got the thing going. I don't see the problem with using Obamacare. It's not derogatory. It's shorter than typing "healthcare reform law." You could use ACA but many people probably wouldn't know what that is.

I like to consider myself a level-headed moderate. I just find 'Obamacare' easier to say than 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' or 'The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010' but you can believe whatever you want. 😉

That might make sense if the same term wasn't also used in a derogatory fashion, the vast majority of the time by a specific political group (conservatives). In fact, with few exceptions, its use is almost primarily by that specific group, and whether or not you intend to use it in a derogatory fashion, that's what it was created for and that's its primary use. Throw in that we're on an internet forum that is prone to flame wars and highly charged around medical issues...don't expect intelligent, balanced, "moderate" responses when using loaded speak.

Somehow I imagine our highly educated, expensively trained imaginations can come up with another substitution to "Healthcare Reform Law" that doesn't use the same partisan language designed to flare up partisan talking points.

 

[Guy Montag]

That might make sense if the same term wasn't also used in a derogatory fashion, the vast majority of the time by a specific political group (conservatives). In fact, with few exceptions, its use is almost primarily by that specific group, and whether or not you intend to use it in a derogatory fashion, that's what it was created for and that's its primary use. Throw in that we're on an internet forum that is prone to flame wars and highly charged around medical issues...don't expect intelligent, balanced, "moderate" responses when using loaded speak.

Somehow I imagine our highly educated, expensively trained imaginations can come up with another substitution to "Healthcare Reform Law" that doesn't use the same partisan language designed to flare up partisan talking points.

Agreed. Level-headed people are now, for all intents and purposes, relegated to assuming that it is being used in a derogatory fashion. I'm sure there are those that simply prefer to use it to save time, but to me it is usually used in the same way that people use his middle name, which is to create some generic negative connotation.

It is targeted to ~30 million Americans, but this does leave some ~20 million still uncovered, so it is not technically universal to my knowledge. The slightly higher taxation of the upper brackets wouldn't have been high enough.

 

[ppfizenm]

Is it because under Obamacare, we are forced to buy insurance from different sellers?

Thanks

It's taboo to call it "Obamacare". Make's you look under-educated and ignorant because of the negative connotations it carries.

Appears I have been beaten to it. Sorry for the redundant post.

 

[NickNaylor]

If I use the term "Obamacare" and you immediately think I'm a *****, then that's through no fault of my own and more a reflection of your prejudice. If I know people are familiar with the term "ACA" then I'll use that, otherwise it's Obamacare. Everyone knows what "Obamacare" is. Not everyone knows what the "ACA"/"PPACA" is.

 

[kpcrew]

That might make sense if the same term wasn't also used in a derogatory fashion, the vast majority of the time by a specific political group (conservatives). In fact, with few exceptions, its use is almost primarily by that specific group, and whether or not you intend to use it in a derogatory fashion, that's what it was created for and that's its primary use. Throw in that we're on an internet forum that is prone to flame wars and highly charged around medical issues...don't expect intelligent, balanced, "moderate" responses when using loaded speak.

Somehow I imagine our highly educated, expensively trained imaginations can come up with another substitution to "Healthcare Reform Law" that doesn't use the same partisan language designed to flare up partisan talking points.

The funny thing is that the people who use obamacare in a derogatory manner probably have no idea what changes are effected and how it will benefit them personally.

 

[ppfizenm]

If I use the term "Obamacare" and you immediately think I'm a *****, then that's through no fault of my own and more a reflection of your prejudice. If I know people are familiar with the term "ACA" then I'll use that, otherwise it's Obamacare. Everyone knows what "Obamacare" is. Not everyone knows what the "ACA"/"PPACA" is.

By that logic any derogatory term is okay to use if everybody knows what it means.

 

[NickNaylor]

By that logic any derogatory term is okay to use if everybody knows what it means.

Not necessarily. Obamacare is used by conservatives who are usually criticizing the ACA, but in and of itself the term isn't derogatory. The N word or "****face," on the other hand, are clearly derogatory. There is no legitimate non-derogatory use.

 

[ppfizenm]

Not necessarily. Obamacare is used by conservatives who are usually criticizing the ACA, but in and of itself the term isn't derogatory. The N word or "****face," on the other hand, are clearly derogatory. There is no legitimate non-derogatory use.

If anyone finds it offensive however it qualifies as a derogatory term. I'm sure at KKK meetings no finds the N word offensive but that doesn't mean it isn't.

It was invented as a pejorative.

 

[NickNaylor]

If anyone finds it offensive however it qualifies as a derogatory term. I'm sure at KKK meetings no finds the N word offensive but that doesn't mean it isn't.

It was invented as a pejorative.

You do know Obama himself has no problem with the term, right? And that Democrats also use the term?

Just sounds like people getting their panties in a bunch to me.

 

[ppfizenm]

You do know Obama himself has no problem with the term, right? And that Democrats also use the term?

Just sounds like people getting their panties in a bunch to me.

You do know black people call each other the N word right? I use the word f***t but that doesn't mean I would be okay with it if you did.

And of course Obama is going to say he is okay with it. How would it look otherwise? The president had his feelings hurt by the big bad republicans?

 

[NickNaylor]

You do know black people call each other the N word right? I use the word f***t but that doesn't mean I would be okay with it if you did.

And of course Obama is going to say he is okay with it. How would it look otherwise? The president had his feelings hurt by the big bad republicans?

Neither of those situations is really the same.

Either way, it really doesn't matter. I still stand by my point: if you're going to dismiss someone from a healthcare reform discussion because they use the term "Obamacare," that reflects more poorly on you than it does on them.

 

[IlDestriero]

I dismiss people that call it Maobama care.
Oh wait, I call it that.

 

[NickNaylor]

I dismiss people that call it Maobama care.
Oh wait, I call it that.

Now that's a good one.

 

[ppfizenm]

Neither of those situations is really the same.

Either way, it really doesn't matter. I still stand by my point: if you're going to dismiss someone from a healthcare reform discussion because they use the term "Obamacare," that reflects more poorly on you than it does on them.

And you missed mine. It wasn't intended to be nice or even neutral. It's a buzz word to undermine the concept.

I don't believe I said, not going back and reading what others did, that I would dismiss anyone for using it. We have words though and people are too loose with them without knowing their meanings. It can speak poorly on someone's intelligence.

 

[Wolfman89]

I like to consider myself a level-headed moderate. I just find 'Obamacare' easier to say than 'Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' or 'The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010' but you can believe whatever you want. 😉

How about "Healthcare reform"? The words are simple and don't take long to type.

You do know Obama himself has no problem with the term, right? And that Democrats also use the term?

Just sounds like people getting their panties in a bunch to me.

As an ex-political staffer I think it was effing ******ed that the Dems allowed the GOP to coin the phrase describing healthcare reform. But I could go to great lengths to describe how the Dems utterly f*cked up the healthcare reform debate during the summer/fall 2009.

 

[VixRap]

I find it one of our nations greatest failings that we don't provide it for our residents.

Because the role of a nation is to purchase products and services for its citizens, right?

Italy, Greece, and Spain aren't financial disasters due to fiscal conservatism. That's for sure.

 

[Starlightembers]

Because the role of a nation is to purchase products and services for its citizens, right?

Italy, Greece, and Spain aren't financial disasters due to fiscal conservatism. That's for sure.

Without stating my opinions on the subject, you are making an irrational leap that providing universal health care is going to run a country into financial ruin (not to mention showing ignorance of the complex situations that have led to economic troubles in those countries). The US, for example, does not provide universal health care and we are currently facing a massive debt and period of recession; on the flip side, there are quite a few countries -- such as Canada, Sweden, etc -- that provide universal health care and, all things considered, are doing OK. Though it can sometimes correlate, providing certain things for the citizens of a particular country does not in any way equal a lack of fiscal responsibility (and vice versa -- as one can see in the US, a failure to provide does not always equal the presence of said responsibility). Furthermore, there are a lot of things that the United States provides its citizens (with tax money) that most of us on this forum have, in some way, likely benefited from, including those who oppose universal health care -- for example, public education.

 

[VixRap]

Without stating my opinions on the subject, you are making an irrational leap that providing universal health care is going to run a country into financial ruin (not to mention showing ignorance of the complex situations that have led to economic troubles in those countries). The US, for example, does not provide universal health care and we are currently facing a massive debt and period of recession; on the flip side, there are quite a few countries -- such as Canada, Sweden, etc -- that provide universal health care and, all things considered, are doing OK. Though it can sometimes correlate, providing certain things for the citizens of a particular country does not in any way equal a lack of fiscal responsibility (and vice versa -- as one can see in the US, a failure to provide does not always equal the presence of said responsibility). Furthermore, there are a lot of things that the United States provides its citizens (with tax money) that most of us on this forum have, in some way, likely benefited from, including those who oppose universal health care -- for example, public education.

Sorry, but health care "rationing" isn't my cup of tea.

The economic problems in Europe are due to the stupidity of universal healthcare and myriad government meddling in markets. They simply can't freakin' fund it, and, thankfully, that system is crashing down.

 

[LifeTake2]

Because the role of a nation is to purchase products and services for its citizens, right?

No, because the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is the foundation of our nation. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html (2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph clarifies is it the job of the government to secure these).

And to deny people access to basic healthcare is denying them 2 of those points.

It should be considered a basic moral duty to assure that those less fortunate have access to medical care.

 

[VixRap]

for example, public education.

U.S. public education sucks dick.

 

[VixRap]

No, because the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is the foundation of our nation.

And to deny people access to basic healthcare is denying them 2 of those points.

It should be considered a basic moral duty to assure that those less fortunate have access to medical care.

You people are nuts. Nobody's denying anybody anything.

Right now, I can't afford a Ferrari. Is Ferrari denying my access?

Healthcare is a market. Period.

 

[VixRap]

It should be considered a basic moral duty to assure that those less fortunate have access to medical care.

How should the doctor be paid?

How should the pharmaceutical company be paid?

How should the manufacturers of the equipment be paid?



People for universal healthcare remind me of little children who don't understand where babies come from. This isn't Fantasyland. There is no magic stork that gives us free medical equipment, medicine, and care.

 

[theseeker4]

People for universal healthcare remind me of little children who don't understand where babies come from. This isn't Fantasyland. There is no magic stork that gives us free medical equipment, medicine, and care.

LMFAO! But, but, but, it's for the children!

 

[LifeTake2]

How should the doctor be paid?

How should the pharmaceutical company be paid?

How should the manufacturers of the equipment be paid?



People for universal healthcare remind me of little children who don't understand where babies come from. This isn't Fantasyland. There is no magic stork that gives us free medical equipment, medicine, and care.

Vix, I'm going to try and explain how this works for you. But first, I probably knew were babies came from before you were conceived so I would strongly suggest you refrain from insults against an unknown target.

That said, there is no magic stork. Healthcare is every other modern nation is seen as a right; and therefore is it paid for by the government, funded through the same means as other government functions. Every time you drive, watch TV, eat dinner you benefit from these same government funding methods. It is not new or foreign, the only thing missing is the agreement that it is a right and not a privilege to not die from treatable illness.

It is easy to understand, and there are several clear alternatives to implementation...but they all assure people don't die of preventable medical causes due to a lack of access.

 

[VixRap]

Healthcare is every other modern nation is seen as a right;

By one segment of the population.

and therefore is it paid for by the government, funded through the same means as other government functions. Every time you drive, watch TV, eat dinner you benefit from these same government funding methods. It is not new or foreign, the only thing missing is the agreement that it is a right and not a privilege to not die from treatable illness.

It is easy to understand, and there are several clear alternatives to implementation...but they all assure people don't die of preventable medical causes due to a lack of access.

You didn't answer the questions I posted above.

 

[LifeTake2]

By one segment of the population.

You didn't answer the questions I posted above.

By the population as a whole, poor & rich.

How did I not, the government pays for it. They generate revenue the same way they do for other things and then use that to pay for what is deemed appropriate.

If you want specifics about how it works in different countries, try "Healing of America" by T.R. Reid, it might open your eyes a bit which will be valuable before you try to become a physician to these same people you feel should just die at home if they can't afford to pay.

 

[VixRap]

By the population as a whole, poor & rich.

How did I not, the government pays for it. They generate revenue the same way they do for other things and then use that to pay for what is deemed appropriate.

You're ****ing insane. The U.S. government is in debt up to its eyeballs already.

become a physician to these same people you feel should just die at home if they can't afford to pay.

Very presumptuous and downright rude and, quite frankly, despicable of you to claim I feel people should die if they can't afford to pay. I'd be one of the guys who'd be more than happy to PERFORM SERVICES FOR FREE if someone was in dire need. I'm sure many others would, as well. That's not including the charities, etc.

 

[Starlightembers]

U.S. public education sucks dick.

I would agree with you that the US public education is far from perfect (I certainly have not had positive experiences with it), it is still a considerably better situation than if we had none at at all; however, the quality of the education, though a worthy topic of discussion, is besides the point in this case. The point I was making, and the reason I brought up education, is that most seem to agree that we should provide an education to everyone regardless of their ability to pay for it and would be outraged if the government were to cut it completely and leave education as a privatized system; yet, these same people are against universal health care. Using your argument against universal health care (the government's job is not to give out good), you would also have to be against pubic education. Are you?

How should the doctor be paid?

How should the pharmaceutical company be paid?

How should the manufacturers of the equipment be paid?

You do realize that physicians (and pharmaceutical companies, manufactures, etc) in countries with universal health care get paid, right? Instead of billing individual, privatized HMOs for a visit/drug.etc, however, they just bill the government.

As for compensation, though it varies between countries, the difference between the US and some of those with universal health care is not magnificent. In fact, once you adjust compensation to purchasing power parity (adjusting the numbers so that $1,000 can buy the same amount of goods in every countries), specialist physicians in Australia, which has a system of universal health care, make more than American specialists (primary care makes less). -> Source <- Now, if that difference in earnings is enough to sway you one way or the other is a more personal opinion.

People for universal healthcare remind me of little children who don't understand where babies come from. This isn't Fantasyland. There is no magic stork that gives us free medical equipment, medicine, and care.

You are not exactly acting like the example of a mature adult, either. For what it is worth, I am not sure where I stand on universal health care -- as it is usually carried out in countries that have it -- at this moment; however, if you are going to disagree with it, at least have sound arguments you can back up.

Very presumptuous and downright rude and, quite frankly, despicable of you to claim I feel people should die if they can't afford to pay. I'd be one of the guys who'd be more than happy to PERFORM SERVICES FOR FREE if someone was in dire need. I'm sure many others would, as well. That's not including the charities, etc.

It is worth pointing out that not having insurance increases you risk of death. Waiting until someone is in critical condition to provide care is not a good system; especially since, even if you can stabilize them, they will likely not have access to follow up care. Every person who is sick (to any capacity) and is un/under insured is in dire need of care.

 

[kpcrew]

U.S. public education sucks dick.

This is probably the only thing that you said that has any merit.

 

[VixRap]

By the population as a whole, poor & rich.
.

Yes, I'm sure the latter will be relied upon quite heavily.

 

[VixRap]

you would also have to be against pubic education. Are you?

Yes.

You do realize that physicians (and pharmaceutical companies, manufactures, etc) in countries with universal health care get payed, right? Instead of billing individual, privatized HMOs for a visit/drug.etc, however, they just bill the government.
.

Payed? You're a pre-med?

 

[kpcrew]

Yes, I'm sure the latter will be relied upon quite heavily.

You're obviously coming into this thread with an agenda, but the rich have the most money so that only makes sense. It's not as if the rich are rich solely by merit and it's certainly not asking too much to require them to provide a portion of their wealth for the benefit of society. It's like people don't learn about the social contract anymore.

 

[VixRap]

This is probably the only thing that you said that has any merit.

What was the point of this post?

If you think my points have no merit, provide a counter-point.

If not, you look like a lemming agreeing with the crowd because you're not deep enough to construct opinions.