Obama Care

While I was working the other day a older man told me that Obama Care is supposedly going to try to force people to use it. Which means they will automatically take part of your check out for HealthCare and that if you deny it and don't want it they will still take the cost of having it out of your taxes. Now I'm not the most politically or economically smart person in the world just wondering if anybody else has heard of this and what do you guys think about it? I'm pretty heated. They already take out enough money from my checks as it is.

Sorta. It's more like you get fined for not having it. There are exceptions to who has to have it. Obviously if you can't afford it, you don't have to. I don't know the requirements for who has to have it, but it's not much different than how parents get fined when they don't send their children to school, or how you get fined for driving without a license, or how you get fined (pay a tax) for your local police and fire stations whether or not you use them, or how you get fined for pretty much anything else in America. That's just how America works.

If you have health insurance, they don't tax you a dime. If you don't have insurance, but make enough money to have health insurance, they fine you.

GAMEchief wrote:

Sorta. It's more like you get fined for not having it. There are exceptions to who has to have it. Obviously if you can't afford it, you don't have to. I don't know the requirements for who has to have it, but it's not much different than how parents get fined when they don't send their children to school, or how you get fined for driving without a license, or how you get fined (pay a tax) for your local police and fire stations whether or not you use them, or how you get fined for pretty much anything else in America. That's just how America works.

If you have health insurance, they don't tax you a dime. If you don't have insurance, but make enough money to have health insurance, they fine you.

Game is right. Its why the conservative side of the US didn't want it. You are forced to buy into a system no only to cover yourself but to cover everyone.

I'm ok with mandatory health care what I'm not ok with us having to have an RFID chip embedded in my skin to revive any sort of medical treatment. Which from what I've read is the plan.

SilkyNick wrote:

I'm ok with mandatory health care what I'm not ok with us having to have an RFID chip embedded in my skin to revive any sort of medical treatment. Which from what I've read is the plan.

I would just go around hacking people's RFID cards if this happens :/ You should join me. Buy an RFID reader/writer, then sit there and read people's cards and write other people's data to theirs, so that everyone has the wrong data. It would eventually cause so much chaos that they would phase out the RFID cards, because everyone would have mixed up data.

For example go up to person 1, read their data. Go up to person 2, read their data, and write person 1's data. Go up to person 3, read their data, and write person 2's data. Etc etc, until everyone has everyone else's data. And also, you wouldn't even have to touch the person, you would just have to be close to the person, or bump into them or something.

Nah if they implement the RFID chips I'm just going to steal other people's chips and go undercover

SilkyNick wrote:

Nah if they implement the RFID chips I'm just going to steal other people's chips and go undercover

Lol I'm just gonna mess everyone's chips up. If you got enough people fucking around with the chips, reading and writing them randomly, you could screw it up so bad that they wouldn't be able to do anything besides shut down the program. They would never be able to catch you, all you're doing is walking around with a little device that looks like a phone in your hand, bumping into people.

SilkyNick wrote:

I'm ok with mandatory health care what I'm not ok with us having to have an RFID chip embedded in my skin to revive any sort of medical treatment. Which from what I've read is the plan.

Oh cool? Well you ok with them turning away cancer patients too right? Welcome to Obamacare. Health care is going to be rationed, end of story. If it's not cost effective people are going to be denied treatment. The only way to determine treatments' cost effectiveness per person is to look at how much money has been spent on you, what they have to spend now, an what they can plan to spend in the future. When you exceed x amount you are no longer worth treating. Chips and such come later. For now you medical history is just public knowledge and your treatment is a government matter. Frankly I don't care if you can't afford treatment and die, but I care when the government tells me I have to cover your as and then also decides who gets treated for what and when.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Oh cool? Well you ok with them turning away cancer patients too right? Welcome to Obamacare. Health care is going to be rationed, end of story. If it's not cost effective people are going to be denied treatment. The only way to determine treatments' cost effectiveness per person is to look at how much money has been spent on you, what they have to spend now, an what they can plan to spend in the future. When you exceed x amount you are no longer worth treating. Chips and such come later. For now you medical history is just public knowledge and your treatment is a government matter. Frankly I don't care if you can't afford treatment and die, but I care when the government tells me I have to cover your as and then also decides who gets treated for what and when.

Well thats kind of mean of Obama

Like that all doesn't happen now? People are turned away all the time because they can't pay (even though that's actually against the "rules"). A lot of places will refuse proper treatment if you don't have insurance. Also yes I'm fine with certain cancer patients not receiving millions of dollars in treatment, such as terminal cancers that we have no way of stopping. There is a point where we should stop trying to play god and cut it as a loss

SilkyNick wrote:

Like that all doesn't happen now? People are turned away all the time because they can't pay (even though that's actually against the "rules"). A lot of places will refuse proper treatment if you don't have insurance. Also yes I'm fine with certain cancer patients not receiving millions of dollars in treatment, such as terminal cancers that we have no way of stopping. There is a point where we should stop trying to play god and cut it as a loss

Actually, we were floating tons of people. They show up to the ER, get treatment, and then just default.
If people got turned away before it was because they couldn't afford a service. Now they get turned away because the government judges them to be a poor investment.
The government shouldn't have that power and your health and treatment should be a personal matter.

SilkyNick wrote:

I'm ok with mandatory health care what I'm not ok with us having to have an RFID chip embedded in my skin to revive any sort of medical treatment. Which from what I've read is the plan.

... The fuck have you been reading?

That is not even remotely a true thing.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Oh cool? Well you ok with them turning away cancer patients too right? Welcome to Obamacare. Health care is going to be rationed, end of story. If it's not cost effective people are going to be denied treatment. The only way to determine treatments' cost effectiveness per person is to look at how much money has been spent on you, what they have to spend now, an what they can plan to spend in the future. When you exceed x amount you are no longer worth treating. Chips and such come later. For now you medical history is just public knowledge and your treatment is a government matter. Frankly I don't care if you can't afford treatment and die, but I care when the government tells me I have to cover your as and then also decides who gets treated for what and when.

First of all, this is not true.
Second of all, saying that people dying due to their insurance not covering their illness would somehow be magically solved if they didn't have insurance addresses absolutely nothing. People can still pay out of pocket for whatever medical service they want. Taking away someone's insurance isn't going to make them rich enough to treat their medical problems. In fact, it should lower prices enough such that the average healthcare cost per person per healthcare service would be drastically less than it is currently. You have to remember one of the other arguments conservatives have against this, and probably the only valid one depending on your interpretation of the Constitution, is that "Obamacare" regulates insurance companies to make sure their coverage for your dollar is substantial and won't fuck over the consumer, which under a private plan, it not only can but repeatedly has (and one of the largest reasons Obamacare was created).

I don't know why you think it would be illegal for doctors trk privately just because their patient also has insurance.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Actually, we were floating tons of people. They show up to the ER, get treatment, and then just default.

This is always blown out of proportion. The only way to get free medical treatment is to declare bankruptcy. People act like this happens left and right.
We essentially just socialize healthcare for people who literally can't afford it and have to declare bankruptcy after receiving it. Which we technically did anyway, ever since bankruptcy became a thing. The only difference is now hospitals can't assume someone doesn't have enough money or insurance and just let them die regardless of their financial status.
ER's are cramped, but it's not the end of the world. It saves lives. It does cut out of hospital profits and digs however minutely into tax payer dollars (imo, easily worth whatever bankruptcy-over-healthcare costs), but it really just boils down to whether or not you approve of welfare programs. A small cost to the people for a large benefit to an individual.

Basically, they will fine you if you choose not to participate in healthcare. So, you might as well just participate and get the health benefits.

Regardless of what you all say this is something you can't really deny, Obamacare is a step to socialized medicine. Like they have over in Europe. Where doctor's get paid a lot less and work as agents of the government. The Health Care system we had before Obama Care was messed up, and it needed to be fixed. But Obama Care, was not at all the way to fix it. :/ If anything it just made American Health care more fucked up and diluted. We should not have made even single a step closer to socialized medicine, in my opinion. Another thing Obamacare is going to do over the years is create a doctor shortage. Doctors are going to start getting paid a lot less, and taxed a lot more. The doctors we have now are going to retire early to avoid this senario, and less and less people are going to want to become doctors with the extreme cut in their pay. A direct quote from our president "Obamacare won't raise the defecit by a dime." Hah, I beg to differ. And so does the Congressional Budget office. Obamacare is projected to add 1.4 Trillion to deficit in only 10 years of time. Thats quite a bit more than a dime. Now, I do not consider myself a diehard conservative, but I'm defiantly not a liberal. More of a moderate, myself. But I do not care for Obamacare, not one bit.

I, personally, am totally fine with socialized medical treatments. European countries that have it have a lot higher standards of living, and as much as America likes to preach the infallibility of a free market, it has been proven fallible many times in the past, which is exactly why such legislation (e.g. minimum wage, health regulations, food content disclosure, social security, unemployment, etc.) comes to exist in the first place.

Considering how much better off European countries are than us -- economically, in health, in crime, and in standards -- I think we should be striving to be more like them, not less. Just because we didn't originate an idea doesn't mean it's wrong...

Red wrote:

Another thing Obamacare is going to do over the years is create a doctor shortage. Doctors are going to start getting paid a lot less, and taxed a lot more.

citation needed

The doctors we have now are going to retire early to avoid this senario, and less and less people are going to want to become doctors with the extreme cut in their pay.

citation needed

A direct quote from our president "Obamacare won't raise the defecit by a dime." Hah, I beg to differ. And so does the Congressional Budget office. Obamacare is projected to add 1.4 Trillion to deficit in only 10 years of time. Thats quite a bit more than a dime. Now, I do not consider myself a diehard conservative, but I'm defiantly not a liberal. More of a moderate, myself. But I do not care for Obamacare, not one bit.

There are different aspects to Obamacare. It's hard to predict how much it will cost. Unfortunately, it is a giant bill, and while multiple smaller legislation would be better, you can blame Congress for not functioning efficiently enough to allow that, especially with the petty and absolute 100% lack of compromise by Republicans on the matter. It had to be an all-or-nothing bill, so now we have it all. Much of the legislation is a necessity -- namely the regulations on insurance. IMO, I would rather pass the whole thing and later remove or alter the flawed parts than not have it at all. The pros far outweigh the cons.

I indeed have no citations, but inferences and references from my personal experiences.

You say I need a citation for the fact that doctors are going to get paid a lot less, and taxed a lot more. One, anyone who is wealthy and under the rule of Obama is going to get taxed more. The more money you make the higher you are in the tax bracket, thus the more you are taxed. There need not be a citation for that, as this is common knowledge. Doctors ARE going to get paid a lot less, this also does not really need a citation. Doctors in a system of socialized medicine get paid A LOT less. They work moreso as agents of the government and cannot thrive in the private market sector any longer, as other high paying jobs such as lawyers, accountants, and other cheif executives still do. I strongly believe in Capitalism, and market forces much more than I agree with socialism and the idea that everyone should be equal. If you work harder than everyone else, you should be at the top. Not equal to the bottom.

In Obamacare, doctors will work just as hard, but will not be able to reach the financial highs they would have if this giant step towards socialized medicine hadn't been made. You could say I need a citation in my statement that there will be a doctor shortage, I can't argue with that. But I can argue that an inference could easily be made that BECAUSE of the higher taxes (not because of Obamacare, but because of Obama himself), BECAUSE of the lower pay, that there probably will be less doctors, and probably less aspiring doctors.

And you're correct, by all means it is a mere guess that there will be a doctor shortage. Not at all a fact.

Red wrote:

I indeed have no citations, but inferences and references from my personal experiences.

We can see socialized medicine at work in the top countries in the world. There are plenty of objective references for this.

You say I need a citation for the fact that doctors are going to get paid a lot less, and taxed a lot more. One, anyone who is wealthy and under the rule of Obama is going to get taxed more. The more money you make the higher you are in the tax bracket, thus the more you are taxed. There need not be a citation for that, as this is common knowledge.

You are using this as justification for why people won't become doctors. This is not a valid conclusion to make when you acknowledge that other jobs get taxed as well, as if people will stop becoming doctors so that they can work fast food instead. I feel like you don't understand how a bracketed tax system works. But people are not going to stop becoming doctors and start becoming something else that is taxed the exact same amount due to the amount they are taxed. And they certainly aren't going to become something that pays less just to be in a lower tax bracket, because again... they are tax brackets. The total percentage they pay is much lower than the amount for their bracket.

Doctors ARE going to get paid a lot less, this also does not really need a citation. Doctors in a system of socialized medicine get paid A LOT less.

You seriously cannot just say it in bold and call it a citation. I'm not even acknowledging this as a point.

They work moreso as agents of the government and cannot thrive in the private market sector any longer, as other high paying jobs such as lawyers, accountants, and other cheif executives still do.

citation needed

I strongly believe in Capitalism, and market forces much more than I agree with socialism and the idea that everyone should be equal. If you work harder than everyone else, you should be at the top. Not equal to the bottom.

That's literally not how socialized medicine works, so I don't see how this is relevant.

In Obamacare, doctors will work just as hard, but will not be able to reach the financial highs they would have if this giant step towards socialized medicine hadn't been made.

citation needed

You could say I need a citation in my statement that there will be a doctor shortage, I can't argue with that.

Then stop making the claim.

But I can argue that an inference could easily be made that BECAUSE of the higher taxes (not because of Obamacare, but because of Obama himself), BECAUSE of the lower pay, that there probably will be less doctors, and probably less aspiring doctors.

I'd say you were wrong. Glad that's settled, I guess?

And you're correct, by all means it is a mere guess that there will be a doctor shortage. Not at all a fact.

It's an unfounded guess based on unfounded claims, that I'd posit were entirely false, but I'm more interested on why you would believe them in the first place.

I believe these "claims" in the first place because of personal experience. My dad is an ER (Emergency Room) doctor. He has trk long and hard hours in the ER and deal with loads of drunk, lazy, shitheads that come to the ER because they are addicted to alcohol or painkillers. A lot of them just come in a demand what medicine they are addicted to, when thats the last thing they need. The healthcare system prior to Obamacare was completely and utterly fucked up. But I do not think Obamacare is the way to fix it. I believe these "claims" because I am against obamacare due to the effect it is going to have on my dads work and my own future.

I have come to the hospital with him numerous times because when I was growing up I wanted to be a docotor myself. An eye doctor, or ophthalmologist to be exact. But now my plans for my future are different. I don't know if I want to be a doctor in a system of socialized medicine. I hate just about 90% of the government, hell why would I want trk for it. Socialized Medicine entails doctors getting paid a lot less. With all of the assholes and fuckup drunkards my Dad and the rest of doctors in ERs around america have to deal with everyday, the last thing I think should happen is for them to get paid less. And with Obamacare don't worry, they will.

Red wrote:

I believe these "claims" in the first place because of personal experience. My dad is an ER (Emergency Room) doctor. He has trk long and hard hours in the ER and deal with loads of drunk, lazy, shitheads that come to the ER because they are addicted to alcohol or painkillers. A lot of them just come in a demand what medicine they are addicted to, when thats the last thing they need. The healthcare system prior to Obamacare was completely and utterly fucked up. But I do not think Obamacare is the way to fix it. I believe these "claims" because I am against obamacare due to the effect it is going to have on my dads work and my own future.

That story didn't have any relevance to Obamacare. What does their demanding their addicting medications have to do with Obamacare? The hospital doesn't have to give them what they demand, and in fact isn't supposed to. I agree that that's the last thing they need, and that's why hospitals don't do it, and nothing about Obamacare will make them do it.
I agree the issue with ER's being forced to treat all patients regardless of financial status or necessity is a touchy issue, but you realize that is a law already, right? Obamacare doesn't create that. That's how it already is. Obamacare is more focused on regulations to the insurance and healthcare industries outside of Emergency Room care, and in manners that does not include providing expensive care to those who can't afford it.

Socialized Medicine entails doctors getting paid a lot less.

Either provide a citation, or I'm just going to say "socialized medicine does not entail doctors getting paid a lot less." You can't just start an argument and make things up.

With all of the assholes and fuckup drunkards my Dad and the rest of doctors in ERs around america have to deal with everyday, the last thing I think should happen is for them to get paid less. And with Obamacare don't worry, they will.

I'm not worried.

If he hates his job, maybe he shouldn't work it. I can aspire my whole life trk in fast food, but I don't deserve to demand deregulation of the food industry because I feel that my job didn't live up to my expectations. Even in the entirely uncited case that doctors will be paid less, I'm not hesitating for one moment to say that my dad, and the many other lives saved as a result of this legislation, deserves to live more than your dad deserves an extra $1k/year.

If you aren't familiar with preventative measures, we also have data on how efficient they are. Obamacare emphasizes preventative care, which decreases medical costs overall, along with increasing health of the general population. The expense and time to treat an individual with a developed disease is exponentially greater than the unbelievably inexpensive and time-efficient preventative alternative for catching such diseases early. If you want to look at the broader picture, an individual not developing a disease (time not spent in the hospital or handicapped) is time that individual can contribute back economically by holding a job instead of relying on welfare programs or the non-welfare alternative of dying.

I can only hope you realize that the medical field does not revolve around the ER. That is an unbelievably small fraction of healthcare regulation and a section that Obamacare has little to nothing to do with.

You act as if women going to the doctor for birth control, people having cancerous tumors removed, curing asthma with steroidal inhalers instead of permanent emergency use, annual checkups, dermatology, et-fucking-cetera are all relevant to morphine addicts going through withdrawal. You do realize that is an absolutely absurdly insignificant section of the population for you to base regulation of the entire healthcare system around? The amount of lives saved and economic benefit of Obamacare is not nearly outweighed by your disdain for drug addicts who attempt to abuse already existent healthcare regulations.

Canada FTW my son.