Obamacare Explained Like You're Five
-
Hey everyone, ran into this excellent post that simplifies the bill for everyone's understanding. It's a bit lengthy, yet concise.
Source:
Here's an excerpt where the author address misconceptions of the bill. I encourage everyone to read EVERYTHING the guy wrote in the link, not just what I quoted, as it's very informative.
Of course, because so many people are arguing about it, and some of the people arguing about it don't really care whether or not what they're saying is true, there are a lot of things people think the bill does that just aren't true. Here's a few of them:
Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money without reducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( Citation: Page 426, sec. 3403 )
Obamacare gives free insurance to illegal immigrants!: Actually, there are multiple parts of the bill that specifically state that the recipient of tax credits and other good stuff must be a legal resident of the United States. And while the bill doesn't specifically forbid illegals from buying insurance or getting treated at hospitals, neither did the laws in the US before the PPACA. So even at worst, illegals still have just as much trouble getting medical care as they used to. ( Citations: Page 141, sec. 1402, Page 142, sec. 1411, Page 144, sec. 1411, Page 151, sec. 1412 )
Obamacare uses taxpayer money for abortions!: One part of the bill says, essentially, that the folks who wrote this bill aren't touching that issue with a ten foot pole. It basically passes the buck on to the states, who can choose to allow insurance plans that cover abortions, or they can choose to not allow them. Obama may be pro-choice, but that is not reflected in the PPACA. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 1303 )
Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!: The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. ( Citation: Page 74, sec. 1251 )
Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( Citation: Page 184, sec. 1554 )
Obamacare has a public option! That makes it bad!: The public option (which would give people the option of getting insurance from a government-run insurer, thus the name), whether you like it or not, was taken out of the bill before it was passed. You can still see where it used to be, though. ( Citation: Page 111, sec. 1323 (the first one) )
Obamacare will cost trillions and put us in massive debt!: The PPACA will cost a lot of money... at first. $1.7 Trillion. Yikes, right? But that's just to get the ball rolling. You see, amongst the things built into the bill are new taxes - on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, tanning salons, and a slight increase in taxes on people who make over $200K (an increase of less than 1%). Additionally, the bill cuts some stuff from Medicare that's not really working, and generally tries to make everything work more efficiently. Also, the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost.
Obamacare is twice as long as War and Peace!: War and Peace is 587,287 words long. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on which version you're referring to, is between 300,000-400,000 words long. Don't get me wrong, it's still very long, but it's not as long as War and Peace. Also, it bears mention that bills are often long. In 2005, Republicans passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005, which was almost as long as the PPACA, and no one raised a stink about it.
The people who passed Obamacare didn't even read it!: Are you kidding? They had been reading it over and over for a half a year. This thing was being tossed around in debates for ages. And it went through numerous revisions, but every time it was revised, it was just adding, removing, or changing small parts of it, not rewriting the whole thing. And every time it was revised, the new version of the bill was published online for everyone to see. The final time it was edited, there may not have been time to re-read the entire thing before voting on it, but there wasn't a need to, because everyone had already read it all. The only thing people needed to read was the revision, which there was plenty of time to do.
Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", and she's talking about all the lies and false rumors that were spreading about it. Things had gotten so absurd that by this point many had given up on trying to have an honest dialogue about it, since people kept worrying about things that had no basis in reality. Pelosi was simply trying to say that once the bill is finalized and passed, then everyone can look at it and see, without question, what is actually in the thing (as opposed to some new amendment you heard on the radio that they were going to put in).
-
An MD's rather balanced summary of how it will affect physicians.
This seems like the biggest issue in the bill to me (but maybe that's cuz I plan on going into medicine), but they need to find a fair and objective way to measure physician-effectiveness. It seems like quite the task since two people could receive identical treatment and have completely different outcomes.
-
I understand what the defenses are. But really, the article ignores how things really work - in real life.
Like Canada and Britain.
Basically, being forced to buy something, or pay the FINE/Tax, sets a dangerous precedent for all of us.
And, there is no way the bill can be afforded.
It needs to be repealed, and the problem solved properly.
And yes, when the money goes way too far into the red....
death panels/refusal of costly treatments for age/condition etc/...
too much power in the hands of a corrupt administration.
-
quibbling over definitions, and all...
doesn't make this go away:
“Fathom the Hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured….. but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen in order to vote.”
-
Okay, there's the peanut gallery. Anyone have real insight on what's said here?
-
It's a big waste of time. Partisan haggling over points he can or can't refute, but pretends to.
His arguments nonsense. I mean, he postures that "this is what they say" and then attacks it.
Big deal. Libs do that on this board all the time.
But then again, libs dwell in nonsense-land. This Obamaodoesn'tcare bill sets a dangerous precedent
for far too much gov control, to the negative affects on those who already have insurance.
And when a bill does the opposite of what it alleges?
Not good. And libs "intentions" do that all the time, anytime they get into authority.
Seriously? Quibbling over Pelosi's actual quote makes the bill a good bill? LOL.
It's bit lengthy, but full of baloney.
-
I expected that from Cal.
Misinformation us the real information in his mind if he agrees with it.
It's honestly right there in front of him, cited and everything, but that doesn't matter. All that shit he heard on Fox is still true
-
Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is
"we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", Nasty Pelosi
********************************
They shut the Republcans completely out of the process.
And, it was controvsersial, because they wouldn't release it.
Hell, they wouldn't even release to to those that voted until they didn't have time to read it.
That only happens when you have an ulterior motive.
And that's what has been found out. I do not like the mandate.
It opens up the gov to demand all Americans buy a gun. Or an exercize machine. Or pay a tax.
Dangerous precedent.
The bill sucks. Even Dems are backing off it.
-
commented from Caspianx2
My link
"Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased: "
so you think this will change our minds? I found the whole explanation (above) laughable....... actually sad if this doesnt get repealed .....
I agree with Cal, the HC bill is way too big and overreaches into our personal lives where we cannot make decisions for our own. Why cant you libs
understand that? This is about our liberties given to us by the founding fathers!
-
so you think this will change our minds?
Not at all. You feel the way you feel about it, and there's little that's likely to change that. I just want to see what kind of discussion it can generate.
I found the whole explanation (above) laughable
Can you explain what made it laughable?
-
Fair is correct.
It is very laughable. On just one point, his dumb denial that abortion.
"Not touching it with a ten foot pole? How about this article is just baloney?
On the abortion issue:
http://www.pop.org/content/does-obamacare-fund-abortion-let-us-count-ways
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/11/obamacare-abortion-mandate-withers/
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/
-
so you think this will change our minds?
Not at all. You feel the way you feel about it, and there's little that's likely to change that. I just want to see what kind of discussion it can generate.
I found the whole explanation (above) laughable
Can you explain what made it laughable?
so you think this will change our minds?
Not at all. You feel the way you feel about it, and there's little that's likely to change that. I just want to see what kind of discussion it can generate.
I found the whole explanation (above) laughable
Can you explain what made it laughable?
basically because it is the polar opposite of what us dissenters believe to be the outcome. it is so biased towards the success of what is clearly not even known -such as the costs,
the so called "affordability" of the govt. run program, and the tax penalty. And with all that Cal cited, add to this the uproar on the abortion and birth control issue involving those religious groups,
and many doctors, nurses who choose to not participate? The whole show this last spring from the woman (Fluck)? from Georgetown Univ, who cried about not being able to afford her birth control, and how the
mandate from the HC bill said that the catholic institution ( GTU) had to provide them regardless of thier beliefs/liberties? Its mostly about the govt taking away my / our right to make our own choices!
But the most laughable statement remains Pelosi's. How can you believe that the 2000 page plus document was clearly understood by the signers when it wasnt even read?
There will no doubt be so much disagreement on this that is going to be laugh til you cry time. I hope it gets repealed!
-
That second source, from the pro life website, didn't cite the bill and had an unnamed legal source. Very convincing
-
Either way, you want to complain about possibly funding abortion bevause it is against your beliefs, why should I have to indirectly fund the church when it goes against my beliefs ? I don't want to subsidize religious groups so they can build new, extravagant building for their magic man. How about the church pays taxes instead of using my money?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I'm not saying this article is without merit, just keep in mind the fact that it is really a sales pitch for obamacare.
It should be taken with the same size and grain of salt as something onemight find on the drudge report.
I spotted a couple of inconsistencies, well fibs and misdirection actually, but I will go into them what I have a keyboard.
WSS
-
Either way, you want to complain about possibly funding abortion bevause it is against your beliefs, why should I have to indirectly fund the church when it goes against my beliefs ? I don't want to subsidize religious groups so they can build new, extravagant building for their magic man. How about the church pays taxes instead of using my money?
Either way, you want to complain about possibly funding abortion bevause it is against your beliefs, why should I have to indirectly fund the church when it goes against my beliefs ? I don't want to subsidize religious groups so they can build new, extravagant building for their magic man. How about the church pays taxes instead of using my money?
Why so anti religion Woody? Maybe you were not brought up to believe in god. That's too bad. There WILL be a time in your life where you will wish you were, count on it.
-
Either way, you want to complain about possibly funding abortion bevause it is against your beliefs, why should I have to indirectly fund the church when it goes against my beliefs ? I don't want to subsidize religious groups so they can build new, extravagant building for their magic man. How about the church pays taxes instead of using my money?
Why so anti religion Woody? Maybe you were not brought up to believe in god. That's too bad. There WILL be a time in your life where you will wish you were, count on it.
Why so anti religion Woody? Maybe you were not brought up to believe in god. That's too bad. There WILL be a time in your life where you will wish you were, count on it.
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
Why so anti religion Woody? Maybe you were not brought up to believe in god. That's too bad. There WILL be a time in your life where you will wish you were, count on it.
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
Ha, well see.
-
Why so anti religion Woody? Maybe you were not brought up to believe in god. That's too bad. There WILL be a time in your life where you will wish you were, count on it.
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
It's not the same thing woody. I used to support abortion too. Life changes you. God forbid you go ten years and get married and decide to have a kid and lose five pregnancies in a row like we did. It's funny, during that time I grew to abhor the people that killed the child they were carrying because they simply could not be bothered to use birth control. Make no mistake, they are killing children with abortions. When their little hearts beat at six weeks they ARE alive.
You don't need a fairy story to know that dismembering a child, snuffing out its little beating heart and sucking it out with a vacuum because it might inconveinence you is fucked up. If you don't want one pull out. Or better yet use a condom. It's really as simple as that.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I was brought up where I originally had to go to PSR and stuff, but then I was given a choice as to what I wanted to do (more or less, no one really cares). I realized I don't need to believe in made up fairy tales from a story book.
But, if religious people can complain for possibly indirectly funding abortions, can't non-religious people complain for indirectly funding religion?
I don't think that time in my life will come where instead of choosing to try to figure out why something happened or happens I'll just chalk it up to god.
It's not the same thing woody. I used to support abortion too. Life changes you. God forbid you go ten years and get married and decide to have a kid and lose five pregnancies in a row like we did. It's funny, during that time I grew to abhor the people that killed the child they were carrying because they simply could not be bothered to use birth control. Make no mistake, they are killing children with abortions. When their little hearts beat at six weeks they ARE alive.
You don't need a fairy story to know that dismembering a child, snuffing out its little beating heart and sucking it out with a vacuum because it might inconveinence you is fucked up. If you don't want one pull out. Or better yet use a condom. It's really as simple as that.
It's not the same thing woody. I used to support abortion too. Life changes you. God forbid you go ten years and get married and decide to have a kid and lose five pregnancies in a row like we did. It's funny, during that time I grew to abhor the people that killed the child they were carrying because they simply could not be bothered to use birth control. Make no mistake, they are killing children with abortions. When their little hearts beat at six weeks they ARE alive.
Sorry, I think I'd rather trust the AMA over you.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login