|
|
 Originally Posted by Sprayed
I hear ya and I understand that those approaches will never win in a serious discussion. I'm spouting off on FTR, not directly saying these things to them. I quickly shut up when my in-laws started raising their voices and saying random shit. I know I started it by saying that they shouldn't have signed the petition. That's my fault. Keep mouth shut at all times around in-laws is good advice. Also, I thought I knew enough to argue the point and clearly I wasn't prepared.
woot, I can approach from the other side now. There is such a thing as knowing the subject so well that you needn't apologize to your inlaws or random gorillas on internet forums. And that such a thing is knowing what Obamacare is all about. The good, the bad, and the other.
I did send these questions to factcheck.org and here is what they said:
Everybody is entitled to an opinion, of course.
But as for wait times -- 85% of Americans have health insurance of some sort now. Do you think it is likely that adding 15% more, enabling them to pay for doctor visits, will somehow swamp doctor's offices? There's certainly no government rules in the law that would restrict anybody's ability to see a doctor -- quite the contrary. So what's the problem? Perhaps your friend can explain.
A good point but not a super good point. Knowing nothing this could be brushed aside because yes, you could say that "85% of Americans have health insurance of some kind, burdening a robust system such as this will force leaks in the foundation of the very healthcare system (etc etc or some such)"
As for the self-employed, the law sets up state-run insurance "exchanges" where private insurance companies are supposed to compete for the business of individuals who buy their own insurance, or small businesses. So in theory, as least, the law should drive down prices in the individual market for policies that cover the same things. There are a lot of cheap policies (that don't really cover much) that will no longer be allowed, because all policies must meet minimum gov't standards. So if your in-laws have a cheap policy now (doesn't sound like it) they could end up paying more, but they also would have a policy that would pay for more stuff.
I want to hear all about this. On its surface, I like it. It's still kind of blunt. Bows to my lack of appreciation for economics...
|
Reply With Quote
