It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'ObamaCare Approved' Insurance Goes into Effect Tomorrow and Why I am ANGRY About It

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 2 2014 @ 11:38 PM

originally posted by: links234

I don't outright oppose it though. I don't know what I would tell your friend, except that the PPACA is giving a lot of people the option of having health insurance where they wouldn't have it before. That should be worth something, shouldn't it?

Except, the majority of those people who did not have insurance was due to their not WANTING the insurance. The largest percentage of the uninsured was the age group that were in their twenties; which happens to be the very same age group that the ACA is dependent upon, in order to succeed. Funny that!

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 03:07 AM

originally posted by: LanceCorvette
Just curious, who did you vote for for President, House and Senate in the last few elections?

Were you "for" the ACA until it affected you?

What was your position on the ACA before it affected you?

All of the consequences you are reporting, and all the adverse consequences that conservatives predicted would happen, are happening. Did you pay attention to the predictions, and what were your thoughts on these predictions? Did you dismiss them, and believe what the government told you instead?

Because seriously, if you voted for any candidate who voted for the ACA, you not only foisted these problems onto yourself, but also onto the rest of us who knew this wouldn't work, people who were unwilling to go along but are now forced to.

Ron Paul in 2008
Gary Johnson in 2012

I'm still for the ACA. Most of the problems with the bill have been invented problems the right created so they would have something to oppose. Most notably, states that didn't expand Medicare.

The greatest irony with the ACA is that it's the exact same plan the right officially endorsed from 1988 to 2008. Because of that, they have no room to make a valid criticism, it's all just political theater.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 02:52 PM
a reply to: SourGrapes

Well...seeing as people are covered until they're 26 under their parents insurance it shouldn't really matter if a 24 year old wants it or not.

I wasn't referring to the people didn't want insurance. I was referring to the people who broke their arms when they were kids so were either kicked off or denied insurance policies under 'pre-existing' conditions. I'm referring to the people who couldn't afford health insurance because it wasn't a few hundred dollars a month it was thousands, when these people make

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:16 PM
I am lucky I live in Canada, it just looks like America has a really messed up health program before and after obamacare. Every time I talk with Americans about health care they always say stuff about our system that is totally bogus like; people die in waiting rooms regularly; seeing a specialist takes forever or the healthcare is not as good which is total bs. After 3 kids and various vists to ER and the doctor I haven't paid a dime and received first rate care while in the US I'd probably be bankrupt or pay some insurance plan that would cost way too much.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 09:44 PM
The "Affordable" Care Act (ObamaCare) is OVERKILL of the highest order.

All Congress had to do was make Government Medicare available for anyone who wants it and is willing to pay $150 per month for the coverage. (Uncle Sam will pay the cost over $150.) Medicare endures a lot of medical-provider fraud, but the system is already built and operates very efficiently, when it comes to paying the doctors and hospitals.

The Medical Provider Community would HATE this type of setup because Medicare pays them less than Private insurance. I suppose many doctors would stop accepting Medicare, like they're now doing with Medicaid, but we're a free market economy.

What to do about those who still will not buy health insurance and continue to visit the E.R. when sick or injured? Would it be in-humane to get rid of the EMTALA law? The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act says that Hospitals MUST make a person well enough to return home, even if he/she doesn't have a dime to their name. Even though U.S. law now mandates that everyone have medical insurance, a growing number of middle-class Americans rely exclusively on EMTALA and never fully pay for their medical care. (They just send a "good faith" amount of money to their medical providers periodically, to keep the bill collectors at bay and to satisfy the re-payment law's minimum requirement.)

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: carewemust

During the congressional debate the GOP refused to allow anything remotely close to what you've suggested. The idea of mandating private health insurance was from the GOP plan from 1993, in addition to the results of Romney's plan in Massachusetts.

posted on May, 3 2014 @ 10:44 PM

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: carewemust

During the congressional debate the GOP refused to allow anything remotely close to what you've suggested. The idea of mandating private health insurance was from the GOP plan from 1993, in addition to the results of Romney's plan in Massachusetts.


The Democrats had enough Democrat and Independent votes to pass the PPACA.

They could have passed anything because -Zero- Republicans voted for PPACA anyway.

It was some Democrats that stopped the "Public Option" and that was only for show to make it look like they were "concerned".

The Democrats passed *Exactly* what they wanted to pass for Obama's first two years in office. Obama.Care was one of those.

And that old tired reference to some ancient Heritage Foundation blog is no longer relevant to anything at all.

edit on May-03-2014 by xuenchen because:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Lieberman and the blue-dogs would never allow for a single-payer system. That's why we have this BS private insurance non-sense.

If the GOP wasn't so butt-hurt after the '08 election the country would be way better off. No, just because they lost, they had to oppose everything the administration tried to do. I said earlier, the Dems barely had a supermajority in 2009, just a few months.

There was no possible way for the Dems to do 'whatever' they wanted.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: links234
Yes. It does. In fact, I will mention that to them.
PS sorry it took so long for a reply.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in