# Political discussion of US healthcare law



## jjroth2 (Mar 30, 2011)

Obamacare has been the law now for about two years now; it was not enacted by the Supreme Court. Yet, to my recollection, there's been no discussion here about its effect on expats, till now.

The polls have been consistent that Americans oppose the Act. So November will decide if it stands. All it will take is a new president and the. Dems losing the Senate and Obamacare will be history.

So I suggest all to hold on to your hats until then.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

jjroth2 said:


> Obamacare has been the law now for about two years now; it was not enacted by the Supreme Court. Yet, to my recollection, there's been no discussion here about its effect on expats, till now.
> 
> The polls have been consistent that Americans oppose the Act. So November will decide if it stands. All it will take is a new president and the. Dems losing the Senate and Obamacare will be history.
> 
> So I suggest all to hold on to your hats until then.


There seems to be a consensus that discussions of US political beliefs are not appropriate for this forum. It's never wise to assume that you are speaking to an audience of fellow believers, whether you are talking politics or religion, anyway.

The only real place for discussion of US POLICY here is in its effects on expats.

:focus:


----------



## jjroth2 (Mar 30, 2011)

Excuse me! What I stated is fact, not political belief. You're the one injecting politcs.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

jjroth2 said:


> Excuse me! What I stated is fact, not political belief. You're the one injecting politcs.


One way to end an argument is for one of the participants to walk away and on a forum that means no further responses to the argument, es verdad?


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

"Obamacare has been the law now for about two years now; it was not enacted by the Supreme Court. Yet, to my recollection, there's been no discussion here about its effect on expats, till now.

The polls have been consistent that Americans oppose the Act. So November will decide if it stands. All it will take is a new president and the. Dems losing the Senate and Obamacare will be history.

So I suggest all to hold on to your hats until then."




jjroth2 said:


> Excuse me! What I stated is fact, not political belief. You're the one injecting politcs.


sorry friend, but you are a bit fuzzy on the definition of 'facts'.
one example would be " So November will decide if it stands. All it will take is a new president and the. Dems losing the Senate and Obamacare will be history."

you are predicting the future, based on hypothesis; risky at best, and usually wrong more than it's right.
it already is history, in a good way. millions of people now have coverage they could not get just 3 years ago. that's a fact.

are you aware of who pays for it when destitute people with no insurance go to the emergency room? taxpayers do. that's a fact.

and it seems you tend to believe what politicians tell you. you might want to rethink that.

lots of polls show dissatisfaction with the health care act, but when asked about the individual elements included in it, they like those a lot. and polls are only polls.

fact: SCOTUS does not enact anything but legal opinions, they rule on legality, and that's all. and interpreting the law is far removed from enforcement. 
(i've heard interpretation also occurs at the local level in Mexico; don't spread this around, but the same is true in the good old USA.)

fact: most of the health care act provisions are not yet in force. the individual mandate starts in 2013 and escalates over time, regarding the cost.

i try like hell to stay out of political discussions, but they pull me in. my fault, my bad.
the universal effort across America to 'get out the vote' is understandable.
and i get why the right to vote is so important, in many ways.
but could someone explain why 'they' never have campaigns urging voters to learn about the issues and what they really mean?

why wait, i'll just put it here.
IMO, 'they' don't want you to know. if the public ever starts to understand that it pays to think first, politicians are doomed. when voters stop being blindly obedient to the party line, they become dangerous, (to the party and/or the individual politicians), and that won't do.

slowly but surely, society will grow weary of being lied to.
'trust me' is already a cliche, and more and more the public is gonna say 'prove it'.
i wish i could live long enough to see it, tho at age 200 i would probably be blind anyway.

but if we have Obamacare, maybe not.


----------



## jjroth2 (Mar 30, 2011)

edgeee said:


> "Obamacare has been the law now for about two years now; it was not enacted by the Supreme Court. Yet, to my recollection, there's been no discussion here about its effect on expats, till now.
> 
> The polls have been consistent that Americans oppose the Act. So November will decide if it stands. All it will take is a new president and the. Dems losing the Senate and Obamacare will be history.
> 
> ...


Too often partisanship blurs one's vision of what is being said. I never intended to comment on acceptability of Obamacare, other than to suggest it will be history if we have a new president. So a couple of partisans found that a hard pill to swallow, accusing me of playing politics (not fit for Forum discussion) and not understanding the meaning of "fact."

So here are the facts:

1). Not one U.S. Senator (including three deemed liberals) voted for passage of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a.Obamacare), and I believe the same is true for Republican House members (I couldn't verify this).

2). The House Speaker has stated Republicans will vote on a bill to repeal Obamacare, and it is safe to say it will pass. The Senate minority leader has stated he will support such a bill, and it is speculated several Democrats might defect to give the bill a majority in the Senate.

3). It has been stated by the Republican Senate leadership that only 51 votes are needed to pass.

While the following is the kind of hypothesis that is "risky business" in predicting outcomes, I will go out on the limb and state the President will veto it

Prediction: If Gov. Romney is elected, at least the mandate will fall. And that, according to the polls, certainly is possible. So why not wait until November before trying to dissect 2500 pages of the ACA.

Now if I stated I supported the Act, I suppose some would brand me a heretic.


----------



## RPBHaas (Dec 21, 2011)

jjroth2 said:


> Too often partisanship blurs one's vision of what is being said. I never intended to comment on acceptability of Obamacare, other than to suggest it will be history if we have a new president. So a couple of partisans found that a hard pill to swallow, accusing me of playing politics (not fit for Forum discussion) and not understanding the meaning of "fact."
> 
> 
> Now if I stated I supported the Act, I suppose some would brand me a heretic.


If it rains for 200 days straight, we will have mass flooding. If, if, if.


----------



## edgeee (Jun 21, 2012)

sorry to disappoint anyone, but i can't make the same 
"_I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat._" claim made famous by Will Rogers
at some time in my twenties i started thinking i was an independent. 
but after i voted for Anderson for president, to help him qualify for matching funds, i gave that up too.
that was the last time i voted for any presidential candidate.
ever since then multitudes have told me how wrong i am by not voting, so don't waste your time.
i see it this way. if my choices are to shoot my left foot or my right foot,
i'd rather skip the whole process, thanks just the same.

(btw, this is what's wrong with the whole picture. 
people love/hate the left/right so much, they just naturally hate the middle too.
so much for compromise, not to mention good old christian compassion.
it has never been about left v. right, it has always been about What's in it For ME?)
just for the record.

jj, if i may, you also use the word 'history' in a funny way.
i guess you mean ACA would be 'gone'. not by half, not even close.
you're ignoring the consequences that remain, AND the consequrnces yet to come.

but i'll skip that so this won't be a huge post.



jjroth2 said:


> Too often partisanship blurs one's vision of what is being said. I never intended to comment on acceptability of Obamacare, other than to suggest it will be history if we have a new president. So a couple of partisans found that a hard pill to swallow, accusing me of playing politics (not fit for Forum discussion) and not understanding the meaning of "fact."
> 
> So here are the facts:
> 
> ...



regarding item 1. Then how did it pass? if you have to add "(I couldn't verify this)", then why include it? as 'facts' go, this one seems to be lacking in some way.

regarding item 2."it is safe to say it will pass" is saying a lot. i wish congress - all of it - would stop acting like 12 kids in a small sand box.

is it anything like all the worthless waste of time and money legislation the republicans have already passed out of pure spite?
(sorry, but if we are going to allow politics into this, facts and opinions should fit as well.)
_(Mod: if this is too strong, i'll gladly edit it out, but please don't delete my post. i spent 2 hours writing it.)_


regarding item 3. this not the place to detail how the filibuster rules _et al_, can be used or abused.

and this is worth repeating: don't beleive everything your politicians tell you. the longer you do, the more it will hurt.

possibilities are like directions, there is no limit to them. probabilities are a whole different thing,
and you have to be a baseball fan to understand how feeble and futile they are.
certainties actually are part of 'history', but it pays to remember that the victors write it.

i AM NOT trying to attack or demean you in any way. i just want to discuss what seems to be an important topic, to you.

and since i'm already off the reservation i might as well quote another hero of mine.
(it's ok, i'm 1/16th cherokee. you'll love that story.)

_In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination._
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

if anyone is still wondering, edgeee means i have a sharp side too.

but i haven't forgotten that this is about the impact on expats. _isn't it?_
tho i am yet to be an expat, by now i do know a little about some of them.
people who write on forums have beliefs and concerns. they express them.
i find that reading is a lot like listening, only better, except when it's worse.
how something is expressed has a lot to do with it.
how receptive the reader is also makes a difference.

from what i've seen so far, expats will do what expats do. they are just people in a situation.
we all are. they talk a lot about Mexico, as they should, and they talk about home, wherever it is.
they talk about experiences, and they talk about the future, which is how 'possibilities' sneaks in.
:focus:
in all honesty, IMO most participants in this forum will be effected minimally by ACA.
it just doen't apply to most expats. their situation precludes it.
(there are exceptions, i know, that's why i used 'most'.)
but is a big deal back home, so it will be an issue of concern.
might as well discuss it here.
that way, maybe it won't bleed into other threads, like "how can narco victims use ACA to get double coverage?"


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

The entire thing is very simple. The Dems like it, the rest don't. Business both large and small are not sure and most Americans don't understand it.

See it's just that simple.:clap2:


----------



## RPBHaas (Dec 21, 2011)

pappabee said:


> The entire thing is very simple. The Dems like it, the rest don't. Business both large and small are not sure and most Americans don't understand it.
> 
> See it's just that simple.:clap2:


Republican Politicians, FOX News and bloggers are quick to note that the majority of Americans view ACA unfavorably. What they don't say (or don't know) is that there is a percentage of those that disapprove of ACA that believe the law did not go far enough. 
One of the most recent polls (can't remeber if it is Kaiser Family or Gallop) states 51% are against. Yes but 13% are against because it does not go far enough. That leaves 38% that want to "repeal". 
(Not my opinion. Just sharing a fact most opponents to the ACA do not admit.)


----------



## jjroth2 (Mar 30, 2011)

pappabee said:


> The entire thing is very simple. The Dems like it, the rest don't. Business both large and small are not sure and most Americans don't understand it.
> 
> See it's just that simple.:clap2:


Touché, papabee. You summed it up in just a few words.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

edgeee said:


> the universal effort across America to 'get out the vote' is understandable. and i get why the right to vote is so important, in many ways.
> but could someone explain why 'they' never have campaigns urging voters to learn about the issues and what they really mean?













:boxing:


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm sure it's not a huge shock that I don't think it goes nearly far enough.

But the whole idea that the "conservatives" don't like it is smoke and mirrors. They don't like it because it wasn't them who RE introduced the whole idea. it was theirs in the first place.

They tried to it as an alternative to nationalized healthcare, back in the early 90's. 

If the political memory of the average person (American, in this case, but it's a worldwide issue) was longer than last week, we might actually be able to tell what somebody stands for.

It's pretty much a guarantee, unless they are naive, that any politician "stands for" what they perceive as mattering, at the moment, to the people whose votes they are courting.


----------



## stilltraveling (May 7, 2012)

pappabee said:


> The entire thing is very simple. The Dems like it, the rest don't. Business both large and small are not sure and most Americans don't understand it.
> 
> See it's just that simple.:clap2:


Republicans liked it plenty when they were pushing it as an alternative to Hillarycare. Bob Dole stumped for it relentlessly. Romney certainly liked it when he implemented it in Massachusetts. On his way out of that governorship, he hailed it as the greatest achievement of his administration. 

The fact that most Americans don't understand it is just another testimony to the failure of the Fourth Estate. 

But here's an "on-topic" question (I know, that's silly). 

I haven't lived in the US for over 20 years. I don't have any plans on going back. I have private health insurance here in Mexico and ISSSTE. It does (and has) cover my medical expenses when I fell ill in other countries (occupational hazard), including the US (Thanksgiving food poisoning). Does my policy satisfy the individual mandate? Will I have to purchase a US policy that I will never use?


----------

