Seniors, Are You For or Against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)?

Are You For or Against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)?

  • I'm For the Affordable Care Act

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • I'm For the Affordable Care Act, but Would Prefer Universal Insurance

    Votes: 14 41.2%

  • I'm Against the Affordable Care Act and Universal Insurance

    Votes: 6 17.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 20.6%
  • Total voters
    34
SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
Please take the poll and vote whether you are for or against the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

I have never been without health insurance, I obtained it through my employer during my entire adult life working full time for free or low cost to me. When I retired, I paid the COBRA payments until that ran out, and then I paid for my health insurance completely out of pocket from my savings.

The costs kept rising every year in outrageous amounts, and I felt I was being drained of my hard earned savings for no valid reason. I don't have medical issues, and rarely even go to see a doctor. I no longer even go for the 'preventative' x-rays and tests yearly. But I do want coverage in case I do get seriously ill, or am in a car accident or something like that.

I am for the Affordable Care Act, and the only thing IMO, that would be better at this point is a Universal or Single Payer Insurance.

Are you for or against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)?
 

Thankfully... I live in a state that allowed the Medicaid expansion throught the ACA... My son is low income and applied and got Medicaid as well as his current VA benefits. He had to be taken to the hospital emergently Sunday night... NOT a VA hospital.. His ambulance bill came today.. $915 The Fire Department will submit that bill to Medicaid and will settle for what they pay.. Same with the hospital. He also had to be transferred to a VA hospital yesterday.. That transfer will be covered by Medicaid. If he did not have the ACA and the medicaid expansion, you can bet his portion of this bill would be over $10,000 and he would have to file medical bankruptcy. So you ask if I approve of the ACA?? You bet your life.. It's helping to save my son.
 
Quicksilver, I'm so sorry to hear your son had to be rushed to the hospital like that, I hope he'll be okay. The ACA is definitely helping, that's for sure.
 

Thanks Seabreeze.. The last time this happened, a 23 hr hospital stay cost $16,000. We were able to get the VA to pick up some of that because it was an emergency.. The hospital granted him charity and wrote off the rest. I was not certain he could get Medicaid as well as VA... but he did, and it has proven to be a God send.
 
SeaBreeze said:
Please take the poll and vote whether you are for or against the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

I have never been without health insurance, I obtained it through my employer during my entire adult life working full time for free or low cost to me. When I retired, I paid the COBRA payments until that ran out, and then I paid for my health insurance completely out of pocket from my savings.

The costs kept rising every year in outrageous amounts, and I felt I was being drained of my hard earned savings for no valid reason. I don't have medical issues, and rarely even go to see a doctor. I no longer even go for the 'preventative' x-rays and tests yearly. But I do want coverage in case I do get seriously ill, or am in a car accident or something like that.

I am for the Affordable Care Act, and the only thing IMO, that would be better at this point is a Universal or Single Payer Insurance.

Are you for or against the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare)?
Click to expand...

Are you on Medicare?? :confused: (over 65?) Medicare and a Supplemental Insurance is all you need..

Please correct me if I am wrong, I understand that Seniors over 65 do not need the Affordable Care Act..
 
While I would have prefered a single payer health care system, I've realized from the start that such a plan would never be passed by congress. The act that did pass despite its enormous complexity and the concessions that had to be made to many interest groups has worked far better than I ever thought possible. If the Supreme Court chooses to kill it now, I will view it as scotus' worst exercise of ideological vengeance ever. Count me as very much in favor of the ACA.
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Good News for Obamacare Is Bad News for Conservative Pundits[/h]There is a double standard in the media. When bad news comes up with respect to Democrats or liberals, the corporate media relentlessly plays this up. But when facts arise that contradict right wing talking points, the corporate right wing media, simply pretends that they do not exist.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...is-bad-news-for-conservative-pundits-20140418

Conservatives were sure at every turn that Obamacare would fail, but as the numbers roll in, those convictions are looking increasingly ideological.

First they said nobody would enroll. Then they said first-year premiums would be through the roof. And later, they warned of a "death spiral," wherein premiums would go up uncontrollably. My colleague Sam Baker has written an excellent analysis of the situation, the upshot of which is that Obamacare is on a winning streak.

The next great frontier of conservative hyperbole concerns premiums for 2015, with critics warning that costs will double or even triple next year.

As of this week, we have good evidence to the contrary. Health insurance premium rates are expected go up just 7 percent—a rate of increase much lower than what critics were predicting. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is predicting that premium hikes will be relatively modest.​
 
Respectfully, I resent a poll that simply "dumbs down" the members of the board just as partisan politicians have attempted to dumb down their constituencies. Politicians and pundits attempt to break this down as "for" or "against". This is a much more important topic than this. This issue deserves an exhaustive disection and an equitable solution... without politics!!! (As if that will ever happen in our partisan political clime.)

Something had to be done. Presidents since Truman had attempted to get a handle on medical care for our entire citizenry. The lobbyists of pharmaceuitcal companies and insurance companies are/were entirely too strong. Finally, this POTUS decided something was going to get accomplished.
Before this POTUS was sworn into office in January 2009, the opposing Party took an oath to make certain his tenure was not a success. Part of that plan was to not accept and not to pass any health care plan. Attempts at bipartisan discussions were either disrupted by partisan hacks or stalled by partisan bickering. The goal of the nay-sayers was to stall.... stall... stall. When the roadblocks could not be removed, the plan was pushed through Congress.
The ACA is a flawed plan. There are monumental holes in the plan that need fixed/closed. The Republicans have spent 6 years attempting to defund/derail/undo/defeat/stall the ACA. NO ATTEMPT has been made, in a bipartisan manner, to find solutions or offer a workable alternative. The battle cry has been "Defund Obamacare!". All we've heard is "Repeal Obamacare!"
Meanwhile, the roll out was rough. Shoddy... somewhat typical... contracting of a software company to design the website. But, the speed bumps were negotiated and the plan has had some successes.
Today, millions are enrolled and are insured through the ACA. Now, to repeal or defund the plan would be devastating to those who have been encouraged to participate. 2015 will see significant posturing by the new majority in both Houses of Congress. The Tea Party radicals will still attempt to shut down the ACA, no matter how many citizens are adversely affected. The more commons sense Republicans will look for means of putting their own "fingerprints" on some modifications to the ACA.
The discussion of the ACA is far from over. The noise will ramp up significantly in the next six months. The very first thing the new Congress will do is repeal the tax on medical devices. That lost revenue stream will need to be made up elsewhere and it wont' be. The plan will be financially starved until enough people cry "uncle" and real solutions are mandated by the citizens.
 
There were are too many problems with health care and health insurance as far as costs go. The ACA has some good provisions such as pre existing conditions not excluding anyone. But the problem was COSTS which was gouging insurance companies and providers. You also had the sniffle patients wanting INSURANCE(concept ment for catastrophic events) to pay for routine maintenance. They all gamed the system to their advantage. The ACA turned out mostly to be an INSURANCE bill, NOT a CARE bill.

I don't want socialized medicine but it should be an option for those that cannot afford capitalist health care. The cheapest way I see administering health care to the poor or uninsured is clinic style medicine meaning if you have to go to a clinic and wait all day to see the doctor so be it. No you can't keep your doctor if you like your doctor you'll have to see the doctor the clinic provides you.
 
Ken N Tx said:
Are you on Medicare?? :confused: (over 65?) Medicare and a Supplemental Insurance is all you need..

Please correct me if I am wrong, I understand that Seniors over 65 do not need the Affordable Care Act..
Click to expand...

Neither of us are on Medicare yet, my husband will apply next year. I believe you're correct, those who have Medicare won't need the ACA.
 
Jackie22 said:
Good News for Obamacare Is Bad News for Conservative Pundits

There is a double standard in the media. When bad news comes up with respect to Democrats or liberals, the corporate media relentlessly plays this up. But when facts arise that contradict right wing talking points, the corporate right wing media, simply pretends that they do not exist.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/poli...is-bad-news-for-conservative-pundits-20140418
Conservatives were sure at every turn that Obamacare would fail, but as the numbers roll in, those convictions are looking increasingly ideological.

First they said nobody would enroll. Then they said first-year premiums would be through the roof. And later, they warned of a "death spiral," wherein premiums would go up uncontrollably. My colleague Sam Baker has written an excellent analysis of the situation, the upshot of which is that Obamacare is on a winning streak.

The next great frontier of conservative hyperbole concerns premiums for 2015, with critics warning that costs will double or even triple next year.

As of this week, we have good evidence to the contrary. Health insurance premium rates are expected go up just 7 percent—a rate of increase much lower than what critics were predicting. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is predicting that premium hikes will be relatively modest.​
Click to expand...

"...premium hikes are expected go up JUST 7 percent..." Key word 'premium'. Insurance premiums are not care. If you have the metallic bronze plan you have high deductibles and co pays which negate any lower premiums.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/h...ionhotel.com/hotel-brno-astorkaked-ATCHEN.TTF-

True, the lower premium plans would help in the event of a catastrophic illness but it does nothing for the sniffle people or routine maintenance/events.
 
rkunsaw said:
My wife and I are on medicare with a supplement and drug insurance. When obamacare was passed our premiums went up 60%. I will be glad when obamacare is repealed.
Click to expand...

So I guess you are telling me that you will be glad when my son has no healthcare?? What do republicans have against people having healthcare?? It amazes me.

My question is.... which one of the Republican leaders are going to tell people that they no longer can have healthcare..... that their kids under 26 have to be taken off their plan...... that their pre-existing condition will make them unable to buy insurance..... that their child with cancer has reached the lifetime limit and will no longer be able to be treated..... Which one of them is going to break that news to the Americans who now.. some for the first time in years can see a doctor.. Tell me..
 
From an older thread here:

The GOP has plans to not only gut Medicare benefits for seniors, but they also plan to cut Social Security Benefits in the future also...


Republican Budget Creates a Fast Track to Cut Social Security and Ends Medicare as We Know It

The House GOP’s FY2014 budget proposal, The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible, Balanced Budget, threatens the future of Social Security and Medicare, and the well-being of virtually all Americans. The Republican budget would expand tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, while pulling away critical Medicare and Social Security protections from the middle class.

UNDERMINES SOCIAL SECURITY

The Republican budget strikes three major blows to Social Security, a self-financed insurance program, which past Congresses have worked hard to keep out of budget discussions, in recognition that Social Security does not and, by law, cannot add to the federal debt of the United States.

First, bucking legal and historical precedent, today’s Republicans make Social Security a major part of their budget proposal.1 In addition, the Republican budget, proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI-1), would: Create an unprecedented new fast-track procedure to ram through Social Security benefit cuts.

In a radical departure from the way Social Security changes have been legislated since 1935, the Republican budget would force Congress to fast-track legislation determining the future of Social Security.

As the following bullet describes, the Ryan budget moves the goal posts, adding a new test of whether Social Security needs reform and then forces the president to submit legislation whenever the new test is violated. Within two months of the president submitting Social Security legislation, Congress would have to consider it “under expedited procedures.”2

Every year, the Social Security trustees project Social Security’s income and outgo for a 75 year valuation period, far longer than used by private pensions and most other countries for their Social Security systems.

Notwithstanding this already conservative practice, the Ryan budget requires the president and Congress to reform Social Security on an expedited, fast track basis, even if it is in 75 year actuarial balance—simply because it is found to be out of balance in the 75th year!3

The new requirement that the Republicans seek to impose is simply another way of forcing draconian cuts that the American people reject.

Projections over 75 years, by their nature, lack certainty. Projections of Social Security's solvency change every year, which means that Ryan's plan could force big changes to Social Security based on very short-term variations in the program's finances.

BOTTOM LINE:

Social Security affects virtually every American. Moreover, unlike many divisive issues, poll after poll shows that the American people are united and clear about how they want Social Security reformed. They do not want to see benefits cut and they favor asking all working persons and their employers to make payroll tax contributions on...

Read 6 page PDF with informative links here: http://www.strengthensocialsecurity....heet_FINAL.pdf

 
SeaBreeze said:
From an older thread here:

The GOP has plans to not only gut Medicare benefits for seniors, but they also plan to cut Social Security Benefits in the future also...


Republican Budget Creates a Fast Track to Cut Social Security and Ends Medicare as We Know It

The House GOP’s FY2014 budget proposal, The Path to Prosperity: A Responsible, Balanced Budget, threatens the future of Social Security and Medicare, and the well-being of virtually all Americans. The Republican budget would expand tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, while pulling away critical Medicare and Social Security protections from the middle class.

UNDERMINES SOCIAL SECURITY

The Republican budget strikes three major blows to Social Security, a self-financed insurance program, which past Congresses have worked hard to keep out of budget discussions, in recognition that Social Security does not and, by law, cannot add to the federal debt of the United States.

First, bucking legal and historical precedent, today’s Republicans make Social Security a major part of their budget proposal.1 In addition, the Republican budget, proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Representative Paul Ryan (R, WI-1), would: Create an unprecedented new fast-track procedure to ram through Social Security benefit cuts.

In a radical departure from the way Social Security changes have been legislated since 1935, the Republican budget would force Congress to fast-track legislation determining the future of Social Security.

As the following bullet describes, the Ryan budget moves the goal posts, adding a new test of whether Social Security needs reform and then forces the president to submit legislation whenever the new test is violated. Within two months of the president submitting Social Security legislation, Congress would have to consider it “under expedited procedures.”2

Every year, the Social Security trustees project Social Security’s income and outgo for a 75 year valuation period, far longer than used by private pensions and most other countries for their Social Security systems.

Notwithstanding this already conservative practice, the Ryan budget requires the president and Congress to reform Social Security on an expedited, fast track basis, even if it is in 75 year actuarial balance—simply because it is found to be out of balance in the 75th year!3

The new requirement that the Republicans seek to impose is simply another way of forcing draconian cuts that the American people reject.

Projections over 75 years, by their nature, lack certainty. Projections of Social Security's solvency change every year, which means that Ryan's plan could force big changes to Social Security based on very short-term variations in the program's finances.

BOTTOM LINE:

Social Security affects virtually every American. Moreover, unlike many divisive issues, poll after poll shows that the American people are united and clear about how they want Social Security reformed. They do not want to see benefits cut and they favor asking all working persons and their employers to make payroll tax contributions on...

Read 6 page PDF with informative links here: http://www.strengthensocialsecurity....heet_FINAL.pdf
Click to expand...

So if I may be so bold to ask....Unless a Senior is extremely wealthy and does not need his SS check or Medicare to keep his health.... WHY would ANY Senior vote Republican??
 
Last edited:
QuickSilver said:
Yet it seems to me many do.. So the same puzzle remains.. Why do people consistantly vote against their own interests?
Click to expand...

Influenced by the media, as Josiah said? That's why it's best to hear both sides, and add your own research when it comes to things that may affect you personally. Not everyone does that, and some people just don't understand what's really going on.
 
health care need fixing is the affordable health care act the way to go, I don't think so should we all care for ourselves that would be nice, will we can we no so what is the fix I do not know......what I know is I worked three full time jobs for 20 years then one full time and one part time....saved and paid my way now I am retired with four part time jobs....one two days a week one, one day a week and one, one day a month and one several days a month my time.....I still pay my way and one fellow I work with at the hardware who is almost my age having talked to him now gets health care paid for on my dime......having talked to him I have determined he has had some bad luck....mostly his own doing he is lazy and .....expects the world to care for him.....I don't like it......but I don't know how to fix it....more taxes sure why not
 
When I hear that a Senior turns down their Medicare coverage and refuses to take a Social Security check, then they can talk demagoguey and crow about the government shouldn't "be involved" in our lives.. If you run to the bank to spend your SS money... I don't want to hear about how great the Republicans are and how you voted for them.

Note.... by "You"..... I mean the General YOU... not anyone particular on this thread.
 
It seems amazing to me, as an outsider, to know that lots of people in the US don't want the plan, it seems to be the best thing that President Obama has done for the country.We have the NHS here [National Health Service] which means that we don't pay for the GP visit, or any hospital surgery or appointment at all, and for the over 60's free prescriptions as well.If we want to see a private consultant and then have a procedure done privately [and more quickly than the NHS can provide] then we have to pay for that, and a lot do.Nor do we pay for an ambulance, or anything at all. Of course we all do pay.... in National Insurance payments which are taken from salaries at source, like income tax, but it's all very affordable.If you can't work or are retired, then you don't pay NI at all.
 
Thanks Oakapple for your perspective. Many of us admire your achievement especially when we consider that the NHS uses up less than 10% of your Gross Domestic Product whereas health care in the US costs us nearly 18% of our GDP.
 
Every US citizen has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life means that they can get medical care, good medical care. Even if a person is poor they should still get equal medical care. I don't think access to doctors should be only for the elite or even just for the middle class. There are people who are less fortunate and they, too, are citizens and have the right to access to good health and life.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top