3 ms·

Why does it seem like a step in the right direction, specifically?

GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
One reason is that it represents the first acknowledgement that health care is something that every man, woman and child should have. That's not to say there aren't horrible things about Obamacare (i.e. terrible business model) but yes, it's a start.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- JackFr 14y ago
  Everyone requires food, clothing and shelter, and yet we use other mechanisms to insure that our citizens don't go hungry. While not necessary for survival, education is guaranteed by the states, and we use a different model for its delivery. Neither of those is to say that necessarily Obamacare is the wrong solution but its certainly not the only path.
  - NateDad 14y ago
    6.7 million households went hungry in 2012. How are those "other mechanisms" working out? Source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
    - JackFr 14y ago
      Food insecurity is not the same thing as going hungry. Changing your food buying patterns, ie foregoing a purchase you might have otherwise made, to buy food is not pleasant, but it is not hunger.
abstractbill 14y ago
For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price, for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to people. I'd prefer single-payer, but like I said, it's a step.
- marknutter 14y ago
  Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Yes, but health insurance is not insurance at all. It's really a gross misnomer, and outside of a niche market, no one seriously sells health insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the policy holder from an unlikely, catastrophic event they cannot afford otherwise - coverage of everyday costs is not insurance. Notice your insurance company doesn't pay to rotate your tires or change your oil. Health care, no matter which country you go to, is more of the latter than the former. They aren't primarily insuring against unlikely catastrophic events - that's only a small part of their purpose - they are very obvious ways to spread costs around. You can't treat health insurance like real insurance, even if they share a name.
    - marknutter 14y ago
      Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but otherwise we would all pay for the level of basic service (maintenance) we prefer to pay for.
      - potatolicious 14y ago

One reason is that it represents the first acknowledgement that health care is something that every man, woman and child should have. That's not to say there aren't horrible things about Obamacare (i.e. terrible business model) but yes, it's a start.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JackFr 14y ago
Everyone requires food, clothing and shelter, and yet we use other mechanisms to insure that our citizens don't go hungry. While not necessary for survival, education is guaranteed by the states, and we use a different model for its delivery. Neither of those is to say that necessarily Obamacare is the wrong solution but its certainly not the only path.
- NateDad 14y ago
  6.7 million households went hungry in 2012. How are those "other mechanisms" working out? Source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...
  - JackFr 14y ago
    Food insecurity is not the same thing as going hungry. Changing your food buying patterns, ie foregoing a purchase you might have otherwise made, to buy food is not pleasant, but it is not hunger.

abstractbill 14y ago

For me there's a very specific, personal, reason. At the end of 2011 I got randomly unlucky and suffered from pneumonia, a stomach ulcer, and a norovirus all in the space of three months. I was hospitalized for the norovirus. After that I was told by more than one insurance agent that I wouldn't be able to purchase insurance at any price, for about 18 months. Obamacare does at least stop that from happening to people. I'd prefer single-payer, but like I said, it's a step.

marknutter 14y ago
Well, buying insurance to treat a pre-existing condition would be a little like trying to get a car accident covered by insurance after the fact, wouldn't it?
- potatolicious 14y ago
  Yes, but health insurance is not insurance at all. It's really a gross misnomer, and outside of a niche market, no one seriously sells health insurance. Insurance is designed to protect the policy holder from an unlikely, catastrophic event they cannot afford otherwise - coverage of everyday costs is not insurance. Notice your insurance company doesn't pay to rotate your tires or change your oil. Health care, no matter which country you go to, is more of the latter than the former. They aren't primarily insuring against unlikely catastrophic events - that's only a small part of their purpose - they are very obvious ways to spread costs around. You can't treat health insurance like real insurance, even if they share a name.
  - marknutter 14y ago
    Well then what's wrong with people simply paying out of pocket for basic services? Insurance would be there to cover the truly catastrophic health issues, but otherwise we would all pay for the level of basic service (maintenance) we prefer to pay for.
    - potatolicious 14y ago