Obamacare and facts,,,feel free to post some

All I know is that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare as president Obama said during the debates. The only facts that I know about it are
1- You MUST have it when time comes and EVERYONE will be forced to pay it.
2- I also know that it is very long and a hard read

This is all I have,,Please list some facts to help out in understanding if it is a good idea.Other than facts Im just wondering , Would Romney have implemented Romneycare if he were elected and would there be any difference in the attitude of the Pubs being forced to pay for Romneycare vs Obamacare. It is so hard to understand something when the left and right are so defensive and lies are told from both sides. IMO I am 40 years old,NEVER had health insurance and Ive paid out of pocketfor MRIs ,stitches,xrays and I dont owe the hospital a dime. Adding up what I would have spent the last 20 years on health insurance , I would have paid over 72,000at 300 a month which is what my last estimate was per month. Instead I got away with paying 1800 in the last 20 years. Yes I have been lucky, but I didnt pay the 72,000............Seems to me that financing a surgery would be cheaper. Yes I know that I dont know much but with me sometimes it comes down to beleiving which lie is told...and I beleive neither, I trust people on ATS more than Obama OR Romney...
Last thing,,my MRI was 300 cash, if I had insurance , they would have charged atleast 1000.....maybe this is the problem with why health insurance is so high..?
Also,are the people happy with Romneycare in the state of Mass. ?
Is it unconstitutional to make /force someone to carry health insurance? I mean, we arent cars that run into each other..

Obamacare is good.....and bad.

It's good in that it forces insurance companies to quit providing "mini-med" policies that are just a scam called insurance. It also tells insurance companies that they cannot deny people with pre-existing conditions. There are a few more good things about it, but these are what I like.

The bad part is that we are forced to purchase a policy or take part in the government plan. It does not provide a single-payer or public option, which would be even better. But in the end it actually only effects around 3 million Americans.

In my opinion, Obamacare didn't go far enough to cover more people. It would be quite cheap and easy to cover every American if our priorities were in-line.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


Awesome first post,,,fair and balanced, looking forward to more,,I kinda feel it should be optional?

reply to post by jazztrance


Why don't you go to their websight?
Otherwise you are bound to be misinformed.

reply to post by jazztrance

I mean, we arent cars that run into each other..

No but we are people who get sick and need regular maintenance. We do infect others when we are in public and not well and so wellness directly affects society and is a necessity like food and shelter and not a luxury like a car. If heath becomes a for-profit industry then there are people going to be shut out of "health" and that is unAmerican and unnecessary pandering to a market share of Health Industry that has set itself up hoping to make a killing as middlemen in the health field.

If some cheap and available alternative is not provided you kick the can of peoples health down the road to later life when instead of your maintenance they need care including new lungs, kidneys and joints and body parts.


The whole practical and workable theory behind AFFORDABLE Health Care being Nationally mandated and standardized (much like the Head Start Programs - accepted as being MANY TIMES OVER worth their cost in the long run) is based on one simple truth that is probably as old as Asop.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Studies show this to be true. So what is the big problem with a country doing the minimum to help it's people stay well? So many developed and undeveloped countries do so much more.

Obamacare = 906 pages*

Romneycare = 70 pages



(Obamacare : When you look at the bill it is actually 2 bills; 906 pages are dedicated to the Affordable Health Care Act; the rest is citation. A second bill regarding student loans and legal precedent. The two together equal 2,700 pages.)

I was thinking about insurance last night. We are required to have it when we purchase a home, or the banks won't lend.

We are required to have it to drive, to protect others from our recklessness.

We will now be required to have insurance for our health, which, I think isn't such a bad thing, as it is true that we the workers are the REAL producers. Think "human resources".

In my opinion, we should also be required to pass a test before voting (like those being nationalized are required to do, because obviously being just a citizen is not adequate to expect people to know what they're really voting for), and to be a custodial parent (to limit child abuse and neglect). Those are pie-in-the-sky dreams, but....

having said all that:
Insurance is supposed to be about communal coverage in case of disaster, it is NOT supposed to be a profiteering scheme.

I hope the contentiousness over this one overblown issue (it really doesn't affect everyone with automatic poverty, people) will at LEAST result in an actual Insurance Practices overhaul. Insurance companies are not investment banks! They are safety nets. They should not have the ability to "play the markets." The two are mutually exclusive.

Just my big mouth spouting off again. Thanks for the thread, S/F, I'm going to look much deeper into this "issue," to get to the bottom line of what all the fuss is about. (I have trouble keeping up with ALL the issues; it's sometimes overwhelming to try to do so!)

In all fairness on this, Romney was going to repeal or pull Obamacare, but it's not as though it's really got much life as it sits now anyway. Missouri wasn't the first to pass an actual ballot amendment prohibiting the medical exchanges or penalty of any kind to it's citizens for not participating in one.

Others have too and that was the big smack the Roberts court gave to Obamacare on it's major ruling. Everyone thought it was a White House win and a conservative defeat but i was quietly chuckling over how the media didn't even pick up on that much, if at all. The ruling allowed the states to do this and without those exchanges or penalty power.....Well...It kinda defeats the whole idea and way it works.

At the same time, the problem is that we're well into the transition to that system in many other ways and I never heard Romney say what WAS supposed to happen. The old system couldn't have stood. Greed is running health care to death care when people's bank accounts or insurance allotments run dry.

The problem with Obamacare in my opinion is that whatever good things it did have, and it did have some things I would have liked.....had been stripped in the nasty partisan fighting and the end result was a giant War and Peace sized book even those passing it could only make weak jokes about reading... but yeah, what else now? It's a real pickle at this point.

i plan on have quit my job by then and just be chilling. like ricky williams. i ant payin for nething

For not having health insurance starting in 2014, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700

So you can decide on your own if it's cheaper to pay the penalty or buy insurance.

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe.

Flexible Spending Account contributions are being capped at $2500.

These are just a couple of items from the law.