Obamacare written to deceive the public.

[Aractus]

You're a dipshit....why? Because we are discussing whether or not the administration deceived the American people and treated them as stupid inorder to get this bill passed. What we are not talking about is whether or not Obamacare is good or bad or if the health care system in the United States need reform.

If I was Obama, I would have taken the money and instead of giving it to wealthy health insurance companies.....I would have gone out and built some hospitals and trained up doctors. I would have provided the people with healthcare and not healthcare insurance......but that's just me.

God you're stupider than I thought.

I just showed you graphs that show that the USA overspends on healthcare, and your response is "we need to throw more money at it"? The USA is in very serious need of health reform.

As an outsider I understand what Obamacare is without needing to look it up: it makes businesses of a certain size provide healthcare insurance to its workers. It's got nothing to do with the government giving money to anyone.

[Heywood]

God you're stupider than I thought.

I just showed you graphs that show that the USA overspends on healthcare, and your response is "we need to throw more money at it"? The USA is in very serious need of health reform.

As an outsider I understand what Obamacare is without needing to look it up: it makes businesses of a certain size provide healthcare insurance to its workers. It's got nothing to do with the government giving money to anyone.

Negative Aractus. You are the first class idiot who unable to grasp the topic of this thread....and in frustration attempts to talks about something completely different.

This is what you look like:

[Aractus]

Sorry, let me sum it better for you.

This is obamacare, as I understand it, in a nutshell:

1. More businesses are required to provide health insurance.
2. People who do not get health insurance provided by their workplace are required to take out private health insurance or pay a levy.
3. Insurance companies are required to provide cover to everyone and cannot knock people back if they apply for insurance.

The USA federal government isn't paying anyone with the bill. All it aims to do is get more people covered by covered by private health insurance. Now believe me, if I understand it - and I haven't had to look any of that up - then it must be pretty clear what the bill is, I don't think your argument that Obama has "hidden its intent" and lied about it is right at all.

In every other first world country, besides the USA, and even now in Mexico and a number of other third-world countries, there is universal healthcare. How that is implemented varies a lot across different countries, and in fact no two countries are exactly the same.

What we have in Australia is this:

1. Public healthcare is provided free of charge for everyone, with a 2% income tax levy. Dental work is not covered (this is fairly standard internationally). The main reason is that there are a lot less dentists than there are doctors and nurses, and consequently they don't have as big a voice when it comes to lobbying the government to include dental care in a universal healthcare system.
2. Higher income earners pay an additional 1% levy (I think it's $80,000 +), which they don't have to pay if they take out private health insurance. This is a way of encouraging people to take out private health insurance, which takes some of the burden off the public system.
3. 44% of Australians have private health cover.
4. We have subsidised pharmacotherapy. Most pharmaceuticals can only be supplied by a specialised and qualified pharmacist.

What the USA has at the moment is a system that costs far too much and provides far too little.

You're an idiot. You're outdated laissez-faire ideology is absolutely pathetic. We already know that whenever a public health issue is provided to a small number of people it has a ripple effect far greater to a much wider number of people. If your poor are healthier and happier, ultimately the wealthy are also healthier and happier. If you let pestilence and disease breed in slums, ultimately it affects the rich as well.

[Heywood]

You're an idiot. You're outdated laissez-faire ideology is absolutely pathetic. We already know that whenever a public health issue is provided to a small number of people it has a ripple effect far greater to a much wider number of people. If your poor are healthier and happier, ultimately the wealthy are also healthier and happier. If you let pestilence and disease breed in slums, ultimately it affects the rich as well.

Hey Dummy.

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill. But all that is besides the point. The reason you are retard is you can't address the topic of this thread. That topic being Obamacare was written purposely in a way to deceive the american public so it could pass.

Do you have anything to say about that?

[Brian37]

You're an idiot. You're outdated laissez-faire ideology is absolutely pathetic. We already know that whenever a public health issue is provided to a small number of people it has a ripple effect far greater to a much wider number of people. If your poor are healthier and happier, ultimately the wealthy are also healthier and happier. If you let pestilence and disease breed in slums, ultimately it affects the rich as well.

Hey Dummy.

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill. But all that is besides the point. The reason you are retard is you can't address the topic of this thread. That topic being Obamacare was written purposely in a way to deceive the american public so it could pass.

Do you have anything to say about that?

Who did he deceive? Keep in mind that law was not written by him but congress. . It took republicans to pass it as well before he signed it.

FYI don't try to co op the left's argument now that you have been pawned.

[Ryantology]

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill.

I don't. I can't. Nobody can really be that fucking dumb. I want to refuse to believe it. I want to have faith in my species.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey Dummy.

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill. But all that is besides the point. The reason you are retard is you can't address the topic of this thread. That topic being Obamacare was written purposely in a way to deceive the american public so it could pass.

Do you have anything to say about that?

He may or may not have something to say; I'm not sure yet.

I do think if you're going to call someone "dummy" and the reply to him, you'd better use correct grammar. If you'd like, I'll go through your post and blue-pencil (that's an editing term, don't get your panties twisted, kid) your mistakes, so that you might learn to better present yourself in public.

[Aractus]

Hey Dummy.

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill. But all that is besides the point. The reason you are retard is you can't address the topic of this thread. That topic being Obamacare was written purposely in a way to deceive the american public so it could pass.

Do you have anything to say about that?

Yes, and I thought I made it very clear what I had to say about that: if I understand what Obamacare is - and believe me I didn't look it up - then the intent of the bill is obvious.

Also, and perhaps I should have mentioned this before, the other graph that Obama would be very keenly looking at is the one projecting the increased aged care costs over the next 30-40 years as the "baby boomers" age. This is an issue Australia also faces - not every country faces it because not every country had a population boom in the 40's-60's.

Now I'll give you an example of how this affects health spending, this is Australia:



Now I'll explain the graph, briefly - it goes all the way back to the 1960's before we had universal healthcare, then there was a large spike in the cost of healthcare when it was introduced, and it's been rising ever since primarily because the population is aging. It's been disproportionately rising for the federal government. So when Joe Hockey said that we can't afford to keep on going the same way with healthcare, and raising the Medicare levy this is the kind of graph he would have been looking at. The cost to the federal government in the 05-06 financial year was close to 9% of GDP. Around 5% of GDP to the state and territory governments, and private spending was under 3%. Add those all together and it would be about 16-17% of GDP was spent on healthcare in total.

In terms of the federal budget:



As you can see health spending accounts for 22% of the budget itself (that graph above is for 2010-2011). So it should be obvious that the 2% Medicare levy doesn't go anywhere near to paying for it.

You have a very different situation in the USA, but you face exactly the same reality that your health spending is going to increase every year for the next 30-40 years as the baby boomer generation ages.

Obama would have looked at a graph similar to this, but for the USA federal government and said that the best way to try and keep costs down for the federal government is to have the private sector pay more money. The more the private sector contributes, the less the government has to spend. Long term of course that's not going to be enough, but that's a start.

[Heywood]

I'm glad you like the Australian Health Care the Australian system. I'd probably like it too.....depending on the details. We might have been able to get something like it if the democrats hadn't whipped against a public option amendment to the bill.

I don't. I can't. Nobody can really be that fucking dumb. I want to refuse to believe it. I want to have faith in my species.

Your boy Bernie Sanders wanted to attach a public option amendment to the bill and the democratic leadership was whipping against it. They were afraid it would slow down or halt the bill.

I don't remember if his amendment ever got voted on. I think the parliamentarian eventually ruled he could not bring it.

---

He may or may not have something to say; I'm not sure yet.

I do think if you're going to call someone "dummy" and the reply to him, you'd better use correct grammar. If you'd like, I'll go through your post and blue-pencil (that's an editing term, don't get your panties twisted, kid) your mistakes, so that you might learn to better present yourself in public.

If he doesn't like me calling him a dummy all he has to do is stop slinging insults. I give him the same treatment he gives me. But don't get you panties twisted about grammar......this is an internet forum.....its supposed to be informal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But don't get you panties twisted about grammar......this is an internet forum.....its supposed to be informal.

Oh, your grammatical errors don't irk me. I'm just pointing out that your stones are going through your own windows. Calling someone "dummy" while posting sloppy English is not helping your point.

Use that information as you see fit.