Obamacare & The Supreme Court - Round 2

Nobody has said the ACA has solved all our problems or that its good enough...but AlanLeroy cant participate in a discussion without misrepresenting the positions of his opponents....or making up bullshit about whats in (not in) the law. Clearly Alan doesn't believe any of the line items I mentioned represent significant progress. Its a free country. Alan is free to ignore the millions of lives improved by the ACA and stomp his feet. I promise i wont lose one minute of sleep. I cant promise i'll withhold my laughter.

Oh, and i pointed to the end of life planning earlier on this thread after alanLeroy lied and said Obamacare left it unadressed....looks like he's still having trouble on that front. He has lots of trouble when it comes to very basic, citable facts.

Boiler always argued that Obamacare was simply another wealth redistribution program. I was told that I was wrong, yet I've been proven correct.

I got my copy from the .gov web site not "some right wing site"try here

I have another copy: here

Have fun on the reading as it is a long one.

Since Forkie hasn't read the entire law either, I'd start using the links provided to PJ.

Once your week of reading has been completed, then I'll start on the various chapters that pertain to your list and we will see what the law said about those issues.

Very basic citable fact 1: The US still spends more of its GDP on healthcare than any other country
Very basic citable fact 2: The US healthcare system is still ranked at the bottom of wealthy nations.
Very basic citable fact 3: We still have 30,000,000 uninsured.

eh..there's a difference between 'End of life care' and 'Optional End of life counseling'. One costs hundreds of billions of dollars. The other is...er...optional. I had hoped the ACA expert PJ would have known the difference between the two. Let's just say Obamacare left the real issue of end of life costs 'effectively' unaddressed.

Not only has it 'not solved all of our problems', the ACA hasn't solved the biggest ones. 5 of the 6 accomplishments of the ACA that PJ cited could have easily been resolved with minor legislation....amendments to existing law. No big deal. You want to prevent discrimination against pre-existing conditions or revocations in individual policies...make the 1996 HIPPA Law apply to individual policies like it does for Group Policies. HIPPA used one paragraph to outlaw discrimination in group policies that covered the bulk of the American population. Why did we need the 2000 page ACA to make that happen?

PJ is free to ignore the real facts of what the US spends on healthcare vs what we get in return...and stomp his feet about how wonderful the ACA is. The fact of the matter is that we still need healthcare reform...because the system is still broken and the ACA did not fix it. This is not a small matter of 'no law's perfect' or 'be happy with what we were able to do'. It's the elephant in the room...that the Affordable Care Act did not really cut healthcare costs and make healthcare affordable...nor did it improve our healthcare ranking and it left 30,000,000 without health insurance. I guess in PJ's mind the lack of those kinds of results are minor details. In my book it's how you measure real accomplishments.

He is deluded enough to think the only way to address those issues is to give the Democrats another majority so they can cram another 2000 pages of laws up our collective asses. At some point Americans are going to start asking 'Why didn't you really fix it last time?'. And that's why we have the spin machine to make people warm and fuzzy about everything the ACA does for you. Yeah right. Start asking what it didn't do for us and how we can really fix it.

Ridicule, always a solid response. As usual.

I think Alan has a valid point. Obamacare took some of the worst features of the existing healthcare system and cemented them into place. The private parte insurance component of Obamacare guarantees profits to an obsolete business.

Of all of the so-called good things about the ACA, the only reason this is part of the law is because those who wrote the legislation knew that for it to succeed, a large pool of people who are least likely to use the insurance would still need to be a part of the insurance premium revenue stream. Parents of 18-26 year olds are more likely to be able to afford (and pay) insurance premiums for their 18-26 year old children than those children are likely to do so on their own. It wasn't an effort to cover more people. It was only an effort to put more money into the pool, and that isn't happening at anywhere near the rate that the socialists/Marxists/communists who wrote the legislation thought it would.

Pj - which statement from below is incorrect?

Here I thought the process was controlled by Insurance Companies, Big Pharma and the AMA. Well at least that's where over 30 of those "socialist/Marxist/communist" Obamacare insiders ended up....on K street as Lobbyists...Glaxo, United Health, Blue Cross...all got their very own Obamacare insider. How convenient.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/318577-architects-of-obamacare-reap-windfall-as-washington-lobbyists

Just maybe that's why the bill was 2000 pages long. The puppeteers have needs too.