8 Answers | Add Yours
A great deal depends on how the law may affect the national deficit. Supporters of the law claim that it will help to bring the deficit under control; opponents of the law argue that it will inevitably add to the deficit. Truly empirical arguments will not be possible until the law actually goes into effect.
A point worth considering, whenever the deficit is being discussed, is the issue of unfunded liabilities, an issue which tends to receive very little attention. The national deficit currently stands at around $14 trillion; unfunded liabilities (that is, unfunded promises that the government has made to pay people in the future) currently stand at well over $50 trillion.
When will we learn that health care is not equal to health insurance??? Tha act that was passed turned out to be a bonanza for the insurance industry and did not address the real issue of health care. We seem to train our health care professionals to be able to fill out reams of paper work, and have no idea of the actual benefits or safety of the medicines that are prescribed. Government does not belong in business.
I agree with #5. This is an important first step in the right direction towards recognising the inequality that exists in health care in the US and the way that something needs to be done about it. Of course, it is not perfect, and there is a considerable way to go, but let us not ignore that this is a good gesture. I just hope work is continued in this area.
I think there is a great potential in it to fill an important gap in our society's well-being. With values and prices on expert services rendered rising ever higher and further out of reach for Americans who earn only enough to live on, assistance in the form of government intervention is critical--as was true for situations that developed as a result of the Industrial Revolution.
It seems to be controversial to be either in favor or against the act. Those of us who oppose it base our opinions mainly in that we do not think that the government should intrude in anyone's business: The President is not responsible for the individual decisions of people. He may be responsible for providing the resources for everyone to have health care, but the whole business of taxing those who do not want or care to get it seems a bit pushy to me.
That, however, is just my opinion. Other than that, it sure seems fair to have the services whether we use them or not. At least it may motivate people to lead a healthier lifestyle just for the sake of not getting sick too often and getting second rate care for second rate prices- which is what we may ultimately get.
Certainly, it is something we need to work on carefully so that it meets the unique needs of the American way of life. There is no way that this act will be as workable as the NHS is in the UK, nor any other Euro country. Obama needs to remember that, well, we are who we are and he needs to get with the program and not try to re-invent the wheel so many times.
I think it's a good and important first step that needs to be expanded and improved upon. The core of the act that has been implemented so far has already made a difference. In addition to the end of preexisting conditions in insurance coverage, it also allowed parents to retain their kids on their insurance until age 26, allowing them to complete college and transition into their own careers without any gaps in coverage. It also made it illegal for insurance companies to place a lifetime cap on coverage. They used to be able to say they would cover claims up until $1 million (for example, sometimes $5 million, etc.) and then they would be exempt from covering any more claims.
The act mandates that everyone have medical insurance by 2014 or they may be fined (taxed) and provided with government-purchased policies. This is the most controversial part, though not without precedent, as it requires citizens to buy a product, health insurance coverage, mostly from private providers. It remains to be seen if this will work, survive court challenges, and actually reduce the number of uninsured in this country, which is currently close to 50 million people.
I don't think the act did much of anything to reduce the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, which to me, are ridiculously overpriced in the US.
It is really hard to know what to think about this law since so little of it has actually been implemented.
I think that some of its provisions are really excellent. I think, for example, that the idea of making it illegal to deny coverage for preexisting conditions is a great one. I think that it is good to try to extend health insurance to all people.
However, I worry that this particular law does not do enough to actually reduce the cost of health care. Our country faces a major problem with the rising cost of health care. These costs make it hard for businesses to afford health insurance for their employees and make it hard for government to afford entitlements like Medicare. I do not think that the law has really done much to address this problem.
We’ve answered 319,635 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question