also does the ACA address tort reform in any way? it's effectively a giant new set of rules for insurance companies, of which only support it because of the mandate and it's expected 100% saturation of the market (kind of), but wasn't really sure if their was anything in it that addresses the fear of malpractice lawsuits which have gotten out of contol...

The exchange is so regulated. What you can offer then once you're in how much you can change prices. Very annoying and kind of defeats the point of having this free open exchange market.

How will obamacare "force" more doctors if people dont want to be them?

I don't believe Romney would have overturn Obamacare if he were elected.

You can see what a great job the government is doing with FEMA in response to Hurricane Sandy. "Closed due to weather"

You can expect the same with government run healthcare. "Closed due to the flu season"

i don't know. i just know that pre ACA, there was a massive doctor shortage and the ACA will exascerbate this problem. at some point it has to be addressed...

correct me if i'm wrong, but ObamaCare is not "government-run healthcare" other than a whole new set of regulations designed to keep insurance companies from ****ing us over like thay have for the past few decades. so basically, it doesn't take over the system, it just changes the ball game for insurance companies who still run the system but with less power over how much they charge us

whether or not it actually is effective cannot be commented on for at least another several years after it takes full implementation and full effect. history is not on our side, but almost anything is better than what we have now

our pre-ACA system was like the Yankees - way too expensive even if it does buy championships from time to time and is loaded with talent. A-Rod still went to Germany to get surgery and we're still ranked like 37th by the UN...

No one thinks FEMA has done that bad in hurricane Sandy except super-frothy dittoheads. Pull your head out of the right-wing media bubble every now and then.

Well he couldn't have unless the repubs took the senate. It would have been very interesting to see what would have happened in that case. My guess is they wouldn't have done it.

But one thing for sure is that bitching about and sabotaging Obamacare in lots of little ways will be a top republican priority for years. Not winning the presidency or the senate at least limits the damage they can do to mostly the state level.

I think it will become like medicare. Once people get their hands on the goodies, neither party will be able to take them away.

Yeah old people not going bankrupt over health care, and their children not having to make decisions like whether or not to sell their house so their mom can have surgery = "goodies".

Ayn Rand had to take Medicare at the end of her life because according to her publisher "otherwise she could've been wiped out". But you know your average middle-class family is probably a lot better at saving up a couple million dollars in case of cancer than a best-selling author.

Just because this point cannot be hammered home often enough, the people complaining about the cost of medicare are the exact same people who respond to any effort to curb costs as death panels or a wholly unacceptable interference in the doctor/patient relationship.

Republicans are simply not credible on this issue. At all. Nobody should take them remotely seriously.

Well govt dictates what insurance coverage is offered, who gets covered, has laws about what charges are valid, sets reimbursement amounts for doctors, establishes the exchanges. I guess that doesn't amount to govt run though.

/signed

While I disagree with Obamacare on philosophical grounds, I stand to benefit from it as insurers can no longer reject people based on having preexisting conditions. That was the enormous obstacle to face for me as I do have a preexisting condition.

If the politicians wanted to do things right, they'd encourage employers to not offer health insurance and instead make it a separate commodity for people to purchase. Either that or completely make it a right that everybody has. This toeing the line thing to make both parties happy which makes neither happy is nonsense.

I know I'm oversimplifying things, but that is just the way I see it. Go all the way in one direction or the other. This balance act is no good for anybody.

A lot of people want that. But because of a few blue dog Democrats in Congress, that was never going to happen. Many people including myself think the ACA is much better than the status quo, tangibly for you as well. The hope is to get this implemented and then fix it further down Down the line.

The Republican plan was just to stall and do nothing for long as they possibly could. If you have any doubts about this, realize that insurance mandates were the republicans' own idea, which they instantly turned on as soon as it was endorsed by Obama. There is no way based on that that you can make any rational argument the Republicans wanted to actually do anything about the pre-existing condition problem. If Obamacare had failed that might buy them another 20 years of the status quo, which they were perfectly fine with.

can anybody refute or counter this argument?

Yea; adios said it.

lol k rjoe

I agree with his conclusion.

I was LDO joking but to be serious I think the issues with his post are

1) it dictates minimum coverage
2) says everyone is covered (might be nitty on his 'dictates who gets covered)
3) reimbursement rates have been set when government is footing the bill for a long time
4) most importantly imo the government didn't take over anything. It set new guidelines and rules. It's like saying government took over the auto industry when they made seatbelt laws or changed mileage rules.

It doesn't take too long to get through a summary of Obamacare, for those we are really curious as to whether it is a government takeover or what it really changes in general.

Great thread on Reddit: ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?
Wikipedia: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Who cares if you call it "government run" or not? Does the word you use to describe it change what it does?

Riverman's point still stands. Adios HAS NO ****ING IDEA what Obamacare does. It's all like a grab-bag of things he don't like(for reasons that can't be explained). That's true of pretty much everyone who opposes the bill from the right. For Christ's sake, Paul Ryan's VP speech called cutting Medicare the "cruelest cut of all"

I found this on twitter it really needs to be the OP of a new Obamacare thread:

How do you know that?