[ SECRET POST #2476 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2476 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.





















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 048 secrets from Secret Submission Post #354.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Can someone who is pro and someone who is against Obama are please explain what it is to me? And why you are pro or con? I'm Brazilian, this whole thing makes little sense to me...

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Do you mean the act itself or the whole meltdown tantrum being thrown in response to it?

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

The act. I get the whole not voting on budget and now the government shut down thing. I just don't get why this thing is so controversial that things would get to this point over it.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

I think you might be looking for a mature, rational explanation that just isn't there.

I honestly do not think the Republicans are responding to this in the context of how it would affect the country, I'm not even sure they've considered it at any point, but how it would affect their party's narrative and voter base. I also believe there is a great deal of pressure on them from the insurance and medical industries contributed to their campaigns.

"We're not going to be disrespected, We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."
-- Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), quoted by the Washington Examiner, on the government shutdown.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sort of in the middle, but I'll try to sum up the two sides as best I can (hopefully others who are more strongly for or against will correct any misapprehansions I may have.)

For: A lot of people in the country do not have any sort of health coverage, either because they can't afford to pay for it or are young and healthy and don't feel they need it. These people tend to wind up in emergency rooms when hurt or sick, where the law requires that they be stabilized at taxpayer expense if they can't pay, but they don't get any more treatment than that. More than a few people die unnecessarily as a result.

Obamacare requires that everyone in the country have health insurance, either through a private insurance company or a government program; helps to pay for it if they can't afford it; and requires them to pay a fine if they can afford to buy it but refuse to. The theory is that it's better to impose some financial burden on everyone so that nobody has to go untreated and maybe die for lack of health coverage, and that ultimately some money will be saved for taxpayers because they won't have to pay for all the emergency room vists, lost productivity due to untreated illnesses, etc. Furthermore, the new health care exchanges will mean more profit for private insurance companies.

Against: It's unfair to ask people who are working to provide for themselves and their families to foot the bill to get poor, unemployed people health care they haven't earned and therefore don't deserve. The government also does not have the authority to require by law that the citizens buy anything they don't want to. Government assistance programs tend to be wasteful and frequently abused, and encourage people to be lazy because they don't have to provide for their own needs.

Some people who were happy with the insurance they already had will wind up losing it because the companies who provided it will change their policies to comply with the new laws, and they may not find coverage that works as well for them. Also, allowing the government to exert any control over the insurance market is tantamount to full-blown socialism (and here anon cannot explain further, because she isn't too clear on why any amount of socialism is inherently evil and will destroy the free market and doom the country, but apparently it is.)

There is definitely a political element to the whole thing. Irrespective of the pros and cons of the law itself, the Tea Party Republicans don't even want to take the chance that it *might* be successful. If it was, that would reflect well on President Obama and the Democrats, and currently the entire Republican strategy depends on making sure that doesn't happen by any means necessary. (Ironically, it's their own approval ratings that have been spiralling downward since the shutdown began, while approval for Obamacare has risen slightly.)

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Your last paragraph is something that people have been saying pretty much since the last time we tried to overhaul health care during the Clinton administration - that the Republicans are against improvements to the system not because they're afraid they won't work, but because they're afraid they will. Once Americans get used to the idea of easily accessible heath care they will not give it up again easily, and the Republicans will ultimately be cemented as the party that fought to keep it as difficult as possible for people to go to the damn doctor.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

This is a good summary of the situation, but I'd like to add to the "Against" side the penalties. The first year it's $95 per person per year or 1% of taxable income, whichever is *highest*. The second year it's $325 per person per year, the third $625, and after that it will increase by inflation or 2.5% of taxable income.

If you qualify to pay the $95 the first year, you obviously can't afford health insurance and certainly not those exponentially increasing fines. So those people will sort of be between a rock and a hard place financially.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Adding to your "for" column: some people don't have insurance currently because no one will give them insurance due to pre-existing conditions (and pre-existing conditions, in this case, includes everything from bum knees to being fat.) The ACA makes that illegal.

Oh, and the ACA also makes it illegal for women to be charged higher premiums than men for the same coverage. So, there's that too.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Here's the bare bones of it. It. Is. Law. End of story. The supreme court said it was NOT unconstitutional. The Republicans have no right to hold the government hostage, but they are. Basically there are many reasons for why they are doing it: They must always oppose whatever Democrats want to do, they're still in denial about Obama winning a second term (They honestly believed FOX about Mitt winning and the polls being "skewed". Obama won over Mitt with more votes than he had winning over McCain, so that was a huge blow to them) There might also be a little racism in the mix as well, since he is our first and only Black president.

Re: Obamacare

[kelincihutan]

I'm going to assume that you are just as staunch a defender of the "law of the land" when it comes to things like border security and the Second Amendment. Otherwise, defending just one thing on the basis of legality and objecting to others for reasons of principle would be massively hypocritical of you.

Re: Obamacare

[lynx]

I'm not an USian either, but I found this link useful as a place to start:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/us-shutdown-explainer-non-americans

Adding to that: Basically the Tea Party movement has gained A LOT of force among the Republicans and they are VERY right-wing. Like, neoliberalism taken to crazy levels, if they weren't working within democratic parameters and means (poorly-designed democracy, but still democracy), I'd dare to call them anarcho-capitalists.

These old white guys are very powerful, economically invested in the US NOT having a decent healthcare system because it won't make profits for a lot of them, and emotionally invested on not letting a liberal black man win over them. So it's basically a huge temper tantrum that happens to screw over a lot of people from the lower classes to even the middle class.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

neoconservatism, not neoliberalism. they hate liberals and anything to do with liberals. hate loathe despise going to hell et cetera.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

This, basically. They don't want higher wages, yet they also don't want government assistance programs. The cost of living has skyrocketed and the rate of pay has basically stayed the same. What they want basically evens out to "Everyone who isn't rich should just die."

Too bad they need the poor and the dwindling middle class to keep their asses rich. Seriously, Wal*mart expects INCREASING sales every year. If you don't make their increased sales margin, you don't get a bonus. They make billions of dollars a year, and yet they are upset they're losing money. High cost of living+dwindling help=Not much money to spend on your shit. Not rocket science.

I can't really say I'm either for or against it

[(Anonymous)]

Hopefully, this will help though. It's a lot of changes to the current system, some big, some small. And making this many changes to an already complicated system is going to cause headaches. That being said, 'because it's difficult' is not a great reason not to change from the previous system - a system that a lot of people thought needed to be changed. A lot of the problem comes from not agreeing what needed to be changed or how to change it. Also, when a lot of money is involved (as this involves insurance, business contributions, and personal contributions before and after taxes, a ton of money is involved), people can be very concerned about how that money is spent (especially if it is spent in a way that one doesn't think will benefit many of one's constituents).

Re: Obamacare

[kelincihutan]

As someone who is very much against, my major objection boils down to two things.

1. I can not afford to buy insurance, but now, if I don't, I must pay a fine. Which I can afford to pay this year, but it will go up year by year and quickly get to where I can't afford it.
   
   To break this down into numbers, I work as a waitress right now. I make, in gross pay, about ~$500 every two weeks. I lose over half of that to federal, state, and social security tax withholding, leaving me with ~$200-$240 every two weeks to live on. (Don't anybody freak out, I'm not starving. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice to say, I've worked it out to where I'm not on government assistance of any kind nor am I taking money from family members.) Since plans from private insurers are out of my reach, that puts me on what are called "exchanges." The "Bronze" plans--the cheapest ones--cost ~$300-$400 per month, and have deductibles in the $5000 and $6000 ranges.
   
   So, if I do not pay 75-100% of my income every four weeks for health care, I am fined on my tax returns and become a criminal for being poor. Even though I am in the lowest income bracket. But, supposedly, this law helps people who are basically me, afford insurance. Even though this is helpful in absolutely no way at all.



2. I object, on principle, being required to buy anything simply because I am alive and an American citizen. Before anyone brings up the oh-so-clever car insurance thing, let me point out that owning a car is not the same thing as being alive. Not everyone owns a car. Heck, in New York City, most people do not. As a result, they do not need to buy car insurance. But everyone has a health status, and via Obamacare everyone is now mandated to buy insurance, whether they need it or not. Which makes this law tantamount to a fee to be alive.
   
   Really, seriously, not cool.

I won't get into how hilariously inept the people manning HealthCare.gov are, and the part about how this stops being funny when you realize that those same people are in charge of health care decisions now.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

How is it that you don't qualify for subsidies or Medicaid with an income that low?

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Could you qualify for government assistance of some kind if you applied?

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

+1 to all of this.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

I'm in the same boat as you, it sounds like. I should say that I'm about as liberal as you can get, and it's because of this that I'm very VERY opposed to Obamacare. Like you said, it's charging people for being alive, and fining them if they can't afford the ludicrous prices for this shit.

I work at my family's business. Because of the screwy tax bullshit and because we're all technically 'self employed', it's basically impossible for us to qualify for any kind of govt aid like food stamps or medicare/aid, although we do qualify for a 'bronze' plan. We're dirt fucking poor and are now going to be expected to pay $100 per month, per person?

If we get a household plan, that's hundreds of dollars a month that WE DON'T HAVE, for a plan that has a deductible so high that it would probably bankrupt our family if we ever had to get medical care under it. It's fucking ridiculous.

And this is the fucking pricing we got from the gov website after inputting all of our info. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. I think a lot of people don't understand how expensive this is going to be, and how this mandate might literally destroy people's lives.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

One of the things the ACA is supposed to do is expand Medicaid so people who straight up can't afford insurance (like you) still have insurance. This is supposed to be covered by federal government funds entirely for the first three years, and up to 90% covered in the later years. Depending on your state, however, some politicians (read: mostly Republicans) are refusing to expand Medicaid.

Basically, there were provisions for your situation, but politicians are being assholes about it. Fortunately, there's this:

"The government has said people who would have been covered by Medicaid in states that aren’t accepting the expansion will not face fines."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10/12/4384009/poorest-of-the-poor-left-out-of.html#.UltPNFCkrzo#storylink=cpy"

So, if you're eligible for Medicaid (or would be), you're supposedly golden.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Well, it's a shitty plan, yeah. We should have had single-payer, and then neither of those would be issues. But... compromise, I guess, and a visceral fear of socialism, or something, so that wasn't apparently a viable option.

I do think that, in a lot of ways, for all that it's a shitty plan, it's still a good law, because for all that it is bad, it is still better than it was before - for health policy as a whole. Because even if it is bad that people are forced to buy health care, it's still better than them not being able to buy health care. Even if everything you say is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that the law is a bad law - just a lot shittier than it could have been, and unfortunately shitty for you, and that sucks and I'm sorry.

Re: Obamacare

[ariakas]

This thread's been very illuminating for me, so thanks for starting it. It's positively mind-blowing that the US didn't introduce a single-payer medical system (except for the elderly, who are allowed to be godless socialists, apparently - they've earned it) back when the rest of the developed, and hell even much of the developing, world was doing it.

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

The elderly and veterans. (The Veterans' Administration is also pretty much socialist.)

Re: Obamacare

[(Anonymous)]

Back when the details of Obamacare were being hammered out there was a depressing amount of "keep the government's hands off Medicare!"-type sentiments coming from people protesting it. Some people don't actually seem to be aware of the fact that Medicare is a godless socialist program.