Devil's Advocate: What is wrong with the ACA?

[00tec]

It is a blatant example of socialism. I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

[Ridge]

It is a blatant example of socialism. I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

There is a ton of socialism in this country that we all benefit from. Fire departments, police services, schools, roads.

[Great-Kazoo]

I already covered congress. All of a sudden, you support labor unions? And we're only discussing the individual mandate.

Why is using an existing agency to run this bad? It's more fiscally responsible than creating yet another.

And I'm forced to support you through social security, just like you did with previous generations.

THE IRS??? Why not HHS, a dept geared towards HEALTH vs. one who uses capricious and arbitrary laws to steal property.

I don't support unions, just curious why what they term THE REASON OBAMA was REELECTED comes out and says ACA will destroy the unions .

[vossman]

Jerrymrc, can I share some of your popcorn?

[merl]

My big issue with it is the mandate to buy something from a private corp. I would rather have seen "Don't have insurance, here is your medicare card, you owe us $X." I think that would have been more legal (yes I know the SC said it was legal as is) and would have provided a better baseline. We'll see how it plays out but I expect many stories where people didn't read the fine print about what is covered.

Forcing action in the name of public health is both disingenuous and a slippery slope. The slippery slope depends on your level of paranoia so I'll focus on the first half of that statement. When doing something for the public health are we doing things to create the maximum healthy years for the most people or are we doing things to reduce health care costs?
Maximizing healthy years is noble but it cuts into individual choice and freedom. This is where the slippery slope comes in. Reduction of choice is a very tough sell so any improvement in healthy years is sold as a cost reduction and this is where the lies come in. Most of us are going to get sick and die at some point. It will be an expensive taper no matter if you lived a healthy life or your idea of exercise is walking to the car. The big difference is when it happens, not how expensive it is. The healthier ones will have more years at end of life where they are supported by their savings or the dole or both. They have more time for other injuries or non-fatal sicknesses. The longer you live, especially after you stop working, the higher the costs.

I see the role of govt in this situation as only reducing costs with no permission to reduce personal choice. Setting policies that specifically reduce cost without reducing choice could have some strange effects though: Do seat belt and helmet laws increase or decrease overall cost? Maximizing the healthy years should only be done though education, not through reduction of choice and not through fines (which are a reduction in the choice in how one spends their money.)

aside: I'm guessing this topic is partially due to the budget fiasco that is ongoing in DC? The R side in the house needs to put out a solid budget with painful cuts all over (including our beloved market distorting tax deductions). The equivalent of another sequester, everyone gets hit.
Stop with the grandstanding of de-funding ACA, that is a dead horse. Now that we are seeing what the ACA actually entails, tweak it. It is not going away with the current government so address the bad parts.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

[Ridge]

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

Those polls also show more than 50% of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The people are ignorant, and polls can be worded to skew the results.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Those polls also show more than 50% of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The people are ignorant, and polls can be worded to skew the results.

Doesn't matter what the polls say about gun rights. That's why we have the constitution.

Ps it's not my responsibility through tax money to pay for someone else's health care.

Wake up from your pony dreams and join the real adult world.

[Ridge]

Doesn't matter what the polls say about gun rights. That's why we have the constitution.

Ps it's not my responsibility through tax money to pay for someone else's health care.

Wake up from your pony dreams and join the real adult world.

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

[<MADDOG>]

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

IMO, that argument is not tangible; almost 50% want "the sale of firearms more strict" (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm). Do we concur with that statement?

The government started down this Progressive road quite some time ago with the implementation of SS, Medicare, food-stamps, etc, and this is just a continuation.