On March 23, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) posted this image to her Facebook page asking for Obamacare horror stories, saying “Whether it’s turned your tax filing into a nightmare, you’re facing skyrocketing premiums, or your employer has reduced your work hours, I want to hear about it.”
What she got back in return was probably only horrible for her plans. I can’t even tell how many comments were left on her page, but from people telling how Obamacare had made their lives better, or even saved their lives. And castigating Rodgers (and the Republicans) for opposing the ACA and challenging them that if they don’t like the law, then to propose improvements to it.
Of course, that didn’t stop Rodgers from posting a video about how Americans are suffering from Obamacare. Suspiciously, she posted the video less than 24 hours after she asked for people’s stories. Also suspicious is that only one of her stories was from the state of Washington, and she was even vague about that.
Good, Obamacare for some (who are happy with it) and no Obamacare for some (who are not happy with it). Fair enough?
Our state Senator took out a web ad about all the good he was doing and what he was doing to combat Obama. “Tell us what you think of him.” Of course, the last person mentioned was Obama. I was unable to send an e-mail (apparently they didn’t really want to hear from their constituents) so I mailed a letter extolling the virtues of the last named person Obama.
Hassan, that would break the law. Insurance only really works in something like healthcare when everyone has it. Making health the privilege of the wealthy doesn’t really help anyone.
THATGUY, all I know is that people in middle always get screwed. We are neither rich that we can afford ridiculous high premiums without noticing, nor we are poor to get benefit from the system. People who can really benefit with freedom in matter of economics are middle class people.
Hassan, there’s a very easy way to settle your predicament. Give away your money and possessions, and take a minimum wage job, and “see” all the benefits the poor garner. Just a thought…
BOBSURUNCLE, that is most ridiculous thing I ever heard, and can only be said by some liberal.
Okay, then get rich? [Is that the conservative side of me speaking?]
BOBSURUNCLE, no that is your side that still did not understand my original comment.
Hassan, he’s pointing out the silliness of saying you’d be better off poor in terms of receipt of healthcare. It’s a terrible argument. Prior to the ACA the middle class was more screwed. Picking up the tab for people without healthcare when they had emergency treatment, receiving comparatively (to the wealthy and the rest of the developed world) poor healthcare, and being tied to an employer for healthcare (assuming the employer provided it).
Where did I suggest that you are better off being poor?
You said that you had to be poor to benefit from the system. Suggesting that if you aren’t poor, you aren’t in as advantageous a position in terms of healthcare. It’s silly. Particularly when in this very article there are plenty of people contradicting claims that the ACA is broken.
THATGUY, are you suggesting poor are not benefiting from Obamacare? Because I think they are (and nowhere I objected to it).
As far as article/data, I know that I and all people I know who are middle class, hate obamacare and are not happy with it (not ideological reasons, but because of financial burden). Of course I object on ideological reasons as well, which is I hate insurance companies, and rather have government tax me directly, it may reduce financial burden as well.
Ok, if you’d rather be taxed, then don’t have health insurance and pay the tax penalty. You’re allowed to do that.
ZYVLYN, again absurd comment. Anything to defend Obama and Obamacare I guess.
HASSAN, if you are suggesting that single-payer would be an improvement on Obamacare, then you are likely correct. The difference between Obamacare (limiting insurance company profits while insuring the greatest possible number of people) and single-payer (eliminating insurance company profits while insuring the greatest number of people) is that the insurance industry has (so far) successfully fought single-payer… because it would simply put them out of business. Meanwhile, there is no question that cost increases have slowed since implementation of the ACA, and the average person is better off than before.
It’s okay to say you don’t like it on ideological grounds; many people don’t.
REDJON, thank you. I do not like it on ideological ground because it involves insurance company, and unfortunately many middle class people I know (including me) are not financially satisfied with it. I am sure single payer would lower the cost as well.
Hassan, my contention was that not only the poor are benefiting from the ACA, they do, as do many in the middle class. It’s unfortunate that your personal experience and people you know haven’t benefited from it, but I am also middle class and benefiting enormously from the ACA as do many of the people I know. I suppose it pays to be young, but my first few years out of college have left me with more money in my pocket (and the pockets of nearly all of my friends) because they can work where they like while having their health needs covered by the often quite good plans of their parents. Again, unfortunate that you don’t know any of the millions benefiting, but as always the personal scope is not always the most accurate when looking at such a large program for such a large market.
Single payer would certainly have been the ideal, and the Democrats and Obama should have made single payer their goal rather than aping a conservative plan. The severest problem with the ACA is that it is essentially corporate welfare for the insurance companies.
The ACA requires health insurers in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of their premiums (after subtracting taxes and regulatory fees) on medical costs. The corresponding figure for large groups is 85 percent, and this (doing the math) allows the companies 15-20% for administrative costs and profit.
Vs. about 1% for traditional Medicare and about 6% for the privately-administered Medicare Advantage.
Yet another example of how private industry is so much more efficient than government-run programs. Oh. Oops.