Truth about Obamacare

These are the stories of what people suffered under Obamacare (and also, since the new Republican “repeal” bill (AKA RINOCare) is just continuing it, we are going to show why that bill must be defeated too.)

Here is one post from the Conservative Hammer Facebook  page:

Believe it or not I have 4 terrible diseases. I am literally sitting and watching people everyday go to the doctor and get pain relief and help with their illness that I’m paying for and I’m also paying for my family’s health care. I can’t go to the doctor because our deductible is so high and it cost my family so much of our income to go. So I sit every day and suffer. My family and I voted for Trump and the establishment Republicans in Washington DC so that they could get rid of this law and hopefully allow people to be able to afford health insurance again. By the way, I have corporate-sponsored health insurance. This is such a disappointment! I hope people wake up and realize that we are being lied to from our own side!


Here is a post from an anti-Obamacare group on FB:

My first experience with ‘insurance’ after Obama Care was enacted.
In a meeting with a pt.’s ‘insurance company’ .. concerning the pre qualifying and okey dokey for payment for an operation .. the ‘insurance’ happened to be Medicare.
The person was in their late 60’s. We were told:
“No, Medicare will not pay for that operation. Place them on medication to control their symptoms. Simply put, this person will not be a viable person afterward.”

We, the Dr.’s who had determined that the operation was needed to save that person’s life (It was a heart surgery) and I were confused .. I asked what the Medicare rep. was talking about!?
His reply:
“There is No way that person will be able to go back into the workforce and be able to earn enough to pay back the government, in taxes paid in, to even come close to covering the cost of this surgery.”
My reply:
“But, they will be able to live comfortably for another 10 to, maybe, 20 years. On the medication they may not live another two years, if they live that long from what the Dr. said!”
His response:
“Yes, and that’s one of the main problems. Social Security cannot afford to keep paying out massive amounts to all the elderly in this country for years and years to come. Try to understand, you just need to keep elderly pt.’s comfortable until their time comes. It will reduce the overall healthcare cost in the long run, and Social Security will only have to pay out money every month to that person for about 2 to 5 years, instead of 10 to 20 more years.”

I Told him I refused to be a part of their geriatric genocide plan and did so very loudly. Told the other hospital employee’s there that my two weeks notice would be turned in by that afternoon .. and I did so.
I’ve not been actively nursing since then. Though I do my continuing education units that are required and keep my license up to date.

This is No joke folks.
Each time I read, or hear, of a Washington D.C. bureaucrat voting for or trying to uphold socialistic healthcare programs, I see Red and can barely keep a civil attitude toward them!!!
Murderers! That’s what they are! Flat out Murdering the elderly people who Built our country up, the men and women who worked so hard .. those that went to war and fought for Our rights so many years ago!

Obama Care Must Be Fully Repealed!
And No socialistic Trump Care to take it’s place!!

For those of you who read this .. Please work the missions, add your voice to let the politicians know that We Are Not A Socialist Country and do not want socialist programs such as this!!


Here is a post from Facebook of someone commenting on the so-called Affordable Health Care Act:

Last week the Senate released a discussion draft of a bill that was supposedly designed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Their draft did neither. What it did was amend Obamacare and continue it under a different name.

So, we have gone from:
• Seven years of promises to fully repeal Obamacare, when they knew Obama would veto any repeal effort,

• To Oh boy, this is complicated! Let’s not repeal until we come up with a replace bill because now Trump will actually sign the repeal legislation, and our K-Street donors really like Obamacare.

• To finally neither repealing nor replacing Obamacare, but instead amending and continuing it.

So now we know that words don’t mean the same in Washington D.C. as they do outside the beltway. Rip it out, root and branch; lock, stock, and barrel, and full repeal really mean amend and keep. Silly voters! All those elections during all those years, and we really thought you meant what you said, congress, when you said full repeal. Well, I guess the joke was on us this time. You really got us good. Wait until the next election though because I think the joke may be on you then.

The main difference in the Republican and the Democrat plans is that Democrats want to keep Obamacare and pay for it with high taxes. Establishment Republicans want to rename and keep Obamacare and pay for it with deficit spending. No matter how big government advocates try to finesse this, both parties now fully support keeping a huge, unconstitutional Federal Government entitlement program, that we cannot afford and do not want.

The Senate bill proposes welfare for all for as far as the eye can see. Their bill would prop up Obamacare exchanges by allocating $15 billion per year in 2018 and 2019 to those exchanges, and then $10 billion in 2020 and 2021.

Their bill would also continue corporate welfare for big insurance companies, by continuing Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction subsidies through 2019, even though a court has ruled these corporate subsidies to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The Senate bill would preserve Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to those making up to 138% of the poverty level for the next seven years. Then in 2025, it will continue the Obamacare funding for Medicaid but slow down the growth by matching it to the rate of inflation. All this is assuming that the Republicans keep the White House and both branches of Congress. This sounds like another one of those good jokes Congress likes to play on voters.

But don’t think that all of this future welfare spending is limited to corporations and Medicaid recipients. Oh, no, not at all. The Senate bill also incorporates the Obamacare tax credits for earners with families with incomes of almost $100,000 per year but in 2020, they cut those subsidies back to only cover people who are making up to $86,000 per year, and they call that repeal. Looking at the Senate bill, you would think we had a $20 trillion surplus with money to blow rather than a $20 trillion debt.

This all comes with a very high price tag for Americans who pay for insurance because this bill would keep costly Title I regulations, like community rating, that have caused health insurance cost to spike since Obamacare was passed. Under this bill, premium costs will remain unaffordable and Congress did not do one thing to return those costs to even pre-Obama era amounts.

This pretend repeal bill will cement the basic architecture of Obamacare in place for good. Obviously Congress and most of the rest of America have very different goals and interests here. For congress, this is all primarily an exercise in trying to get re-elected. They have to figure how they can deliver to K-Street donors, while simultaneously double-crossing voters without voters knowing they are being flimflammed. It is not an overstatement to say that this is the fraud of the century and will go down in history as perhaps the greatest betrayal of voters by Congress in the history of this nation.

For many of us though the death of the repeal effort means the death of many small businesses who have been counting on full repeal. The Lion and Rose is one of these casualties of this Congressional betrayal. We had been holding out in hopes that Congress would deliver, but at this point we see that Congress is not going to do anything to really lower premiums and that they will fight to preserve Obamacare under a new Republican name. So this weekend, we closed our Lion and rose Restaurant located in the Forum Shopping Center because Obamacare has consumed all of the profits. More closures may be coming soon.


Here is a post that I found on an anti-Obamacare video:

I don’t know how much REAL experience healthcare-for-all you have. I do because I’m living in Germany, I am German. And I can tell you that our healthcare system is rapidly deteriorating, costs are skyrocketing, and the average wait time for an appointment is — and that’s the truth — about 3 to 4 months for patients on government healthcare. The vast majority of Germans is not allowed to decide if they want healthcare or not, and if so, what exactly they want to have covered. They’re pressed into the system without the chance to decide. Government takes that money (as well as taxes) right out of our pockets BEFORE our salary is even transferred onto our bank accounts. The cost for medication (which is supposed to be paid for by that glorious public healthcare system) has gone through the roof, it’s not uncommon patients have to pay additional hundreds of Euros for their “free medication”. I have no clue, really no clue whatsoever, how you can say this model is best.


And another comment on said video:

Government healthcare doesn’t work. They are forced to ration care. Look at Quebec. So many people needed care, they rationed it and people died. Then, a law was passed that forced Quebec’s government to allow private health service, and boom, the deaths lowered and more people got healthcare. The government can’t do shit right.
And here is someone’s counterargument:
I literally just discussed rationing. The lies spread about the faults of medicare-for-all are easily dispelled by the facts. Thousands of people die from a lack of health insurance in the U.S. every year because people go without screenings, pay more, and don’t have access to higher level care overall. That is true rationing, where only those who have the necessary resources live while others die. In Canada there is rationing on need – a patient with a more serious illness is treated before a patient who has a cold. The government would supply the right to healthcare effectively if only they were given the ability to, and sometimes if management meets complications, then solutions can always be devised. By the way, I looked up your statement about Quebec, and I found this.
And here is a counterargument to the one above:
Who determines what the common good is? To what extent can you control who lives and who dies? Chemotherapy was developed by testing poisons on children. how does your “right to be treated and not die or go bankrupt as a result of a medical procedure” measure up to an untested method to defeat cancer? Who will these doctors be exactly? Who is going to go to a decade of schooling just to get paid the same as someone who went to 4 years? Will there be enough of these people? Healthcare is not a right; no one has the right to go to a doctor and put them in jail if they do not treat you for free. Healthcare is a service provided by one citizen to another, it is not an idea like liberty or happiness and you have no right to make other people do what you want. Normally I’m nicer, but you’ve caught me in a bad mood. This idea you have is garbage. Total, reckless, stupid garbage. Your rose-colored view of humanity, that we can all just get along and take care of each other is self-refuting because after all if we all could just get along you wouldn’t have to make the argument. Do you believe in evolution? If so, how can you possibly deny capitalism which is economic natural selection? The computer you’re using came from capitalism! People are selfish and if they are not, they lose to the guy that is. Conservatives accept that people are motivated by their own self-interests. We get that capitalism pits those people against each other, which means that everyone gets better lives. Your view of humanity and healthcare will just lead to more deaths, more disease, more pain and suffering just so you don’t have to think you’re just as selfish as everyone else. You are worse than everyone else. You’re so selfish you’d let everyone else suffer just so you feel good about you.
And another anti-Obamacare argument:
I don’t know where to start. Any freshman entering Econ101 would tell you that socialist healthcare (or anything free) is based almost entirely on deception. Patients usually pay nothing at the point of service; thereby forming the false impression that healthcare is “free.” Because it is “free,” consumer demand skyrockets; doctors prescribe hordes of often unnecessary tests, because they are “free” to the patient. Anything “free” wastes resources, and lacks conservation, therefore shortening supply. The costs of providing healthcare, including everything from nursing to ambulance services, inevitable go through the roof. To cover up these costs, the government imposes price ceilings on everything from doctors’ visits and salaries to hospital room rates and technology. A price ceiling is a government-imposed price that is below the existing price, or a price control. The effect of price control stimulates the demand for healthcare services even more. Supply never catches up, generating shortages in everything from doctors to MRI machines. Government respond to the shortages that their policies created by imposing rations. That is why Canada has an average 20 week wait period. That is why 867,000 Canadians are waiting per day for medical treatment. Before pointing out millions of Americans don’t have health insurance, there is simply nothing “free market” about the American healthcare system. The U.S. “health care cost crisis” did not start until 1965. The government increased demand with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals. Health care prices responded at twice the rate of inflation. Supply of hospitals, doctors, and healthcare professionals has been kept down through government regulations like reduction of medical school class sizes (thanks to lobbying by the American Medical Association in 1910), legalizing drug patents in 1925, requiring federal “certificate of need” to construct any medical facilities. Plus thousands of lobbying for drug subsidies were passed by Democrat AND Republican presidents. Medicaid and Medicare themselves are highly flawed socialist programs. Indeed the United States also “rations” in its “single-payer” system. One example are that “free” colonoscopies provided by Medicaid lead to shortages in the United States. Why not have a second New Deal? Because it did not end the Great Depression. It was in fact the worst possible “solution” to the depression. New Deal = Bad Economics, Good Politics Of course, no one has the “right” to live at someone else’s expense. Governments exists because its purpose is to protect natural rights from infringement. No God or person has the authority to provide natural rights, since one already has them. What is unique about the United States is that it was founded on the idea that government should protect natural rights. Whether it was 10 or 200 years ago, nobody is ought to change the fact that our government’s purpose is to protect natural rights. With that, healthcare is therefore a privilege.
And here is an argument in favor of Big Government health-care:
If you look at any data as for what poverty rates for ordinary citizens and seniors were before the ratification of Medicaid, the findings are astounding. As I just said, a large percentage of seniors either had no health coverage or lived beneath the federal poverty line. I don’t really understand what you are even trying to say when you’re arguing to back to that, saying that private philanthropies would help those in need more effectively… private philanthropies would help those who were able to pay! That’s what was already happening, and to no avail for those without the ability to pay. A private healthcare firm is above all a business. It is not a just entity. It is not devoted to helping people. It’s devoted to gaining a profit, and one of the ways these firms achieve that objective is denying care to patients. But going back to your previous point, I find it interesting that you present the lobbying made by the industries to restrict supply, but do not go into how the same firms lobby to extend patents for a life-saving drug or publicly defend their action to raise the price of the drug tenfold. Clearly, it is acting as a business, and in such a sensitive field such as dealing with the medical well-being of human beings, we cannot allow such behavior as a society. It is detrimental to the objective of a collective welfare and stifles innovation. And don’t even try bringing up the possibility of another pharmaceutical firm rising up to provide competition, because the big pharmaceutical companies have already bought out the competition. No matter what, you cannot twist that to fit the kind of free-market utopia you’d desire. I call it a utopia, yes, because even though the way you describe it is great, it simply does not exist. I concluded this through facts and precedent. For instance, every single other modern country on Earth has successfully implemented an adaptation of medicare-for-all. Therefore, I believe that we should do the same and end the healthcare crisis we’re facing. So many modern nations also effectively regulate the prices of pharmaceutical drugs. For instance, Canada established a board to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and reach that objective to place its own citizen’s lives above the profit margins of the company. Therefore, we should allow Medicare to lower drug prices through negotiation. I also don’t follow your claim that the New Deal was detrimental to the agenda of my ideology. The New Deal established a social safety net, and provided aid to the less fortunate in society. It effectively regulated larger financial institutions such as banks, and prohibited risky practices such as buying on margin with stocks. My agenda is to renew the American dream – to level the playing field, to guarantee the rights of the American people, to protect them and to set the standard for a benevolent society. The New Deal set the base for my agenda! We can preserve the market economy for objects such as automobiles, but on the issue of health there is far too much to lose to gamble with a non-existent free market. It’s time to have a second New Deal to achieve these objectives, and solve so many of the economic, political, and social issues America faces as a civilization. And I can assure you, we will not achieve that through listening to right-wing ideologues and their pandering to a flawed and dis-factual free market.
And here is an anti-Obamacare argument:
You’re disregarding the fact that the VA is already a single-payer system, second biggest department next to the DoD and it’s a complete and utter failure with only a fraction of the population of relatively healthy ex-soldiers. I get it though, once the rest of the country falls down to that same level then you’ll have your utopia, I get it bro. Just trust you, I know, I get it.
And another anti-Obamacare argument:
I was more concerned of the periods between 1959 to the mid 1960s. From both charts (since they point out the same thing), poverty shrank by approximately 7 or 8 percent in 6 years. Since then, poverty continued to shrink but at a slower rate, then it went up and down for the next few decades. It’s even more worrying that the poverty rate does not include latent poverty, meaning poverty before the benefits given by the government. In the most recent data that I could find, approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in government assistance programs each month in 2012. If we were to strip away these programs in a day, we would find that the real poverty rate is much higher. It only concludes that the welfare state only prevents people from getting out of poverty, because it’s a tool to discourage poor people to work. If a family member starts working full-time and brings more income, the end result would be less benefits for them.
Being charitable means that one must voluntarily help someone through volunteering and charitable donations. It does not mean use one’s tax dollars and let the government do it for me. I’m not familiar with the privatization of homeless shelters, but I can point out that the private shelters are taking homeless people in because the government pays them more than $3,000 per unit in city funds. Simply because all modern nations have universal healthcare does not mean they can run it more effectively than the private sector. We must compare the activities the private sector does versus the ones in public, and from what we’ve seen in every country, is that private businesses are more effective at providing goods and services to consumers. (Now if we want to privatize roads and courts, I don’t think it’s a good idea.)
Here is a pro-Obamacare argument:
The assumption that reducing the welfare state would lift people out of poverty is factually incorrect. I’d like to offer a statistic to counter that claim: 73% of people receiving public benefits work, and public benefits are what lead them to some degree of self-sufficiency. Moreover, no, welfare does not keep people in poverty, but helps them out. As for your final claim, if the private sector were to more effectively distribute healthcare than the government, why is no modern country doing it? Do you believe that governments everywhere do not pursue effective policy? Besides, from the way you frame it, such a efficient policy should be everywhere! But it’s not, because it is not an efficient policy. The private sector undoubtedly offers better quality goods to consumers than the government when it comes to cars or whatnot. But the facts show that in the issue of healthcare, the private sector does not provide as good results as the public sector. Healthcare isn’t about profits. It’s about helping people who are sick, and when it comes down to it it’s all about human lives – something the private sector cannot barter over.
And yet another anti-Obamacare argument:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the wait time crisis in Canada is real, and Canadians are the ones spreading that information.
And here is a pro-Obamacare argument:
I live in Michigan near Detroit and talk to Canadians in person daily. My GF’s step-dad is Canadian and not exactly politically entrenched in anything, and all the stories I hear directly from peoples’ mouths are overall positive or more accurately “no major complaints”. Of course there are some horror stories, as with any system, but overall socialized medicine across the developed world works quite well. I can’t believe you retards are still brainwashed on that narrative.
And here is an anti-Obamacare argument:
How do you know it works great? Where are you getting this information from? I didn’t know waiting 2 years for a hip replacement was considered “great”. Delaying hip replacement is associated with adverse outcomes and severe pain. In 2010, Canada’s median wait for hip replacement was 20.4 weeks. Despite government’s “guarantee” of timely treatment, 60% of Swedes wait more than three months. In England, the median wait after referral for hip replacement in 2011 was 91 days. In contrast, nearly 90% of American patients (almost half are under 65) received hip replacement in less than three weeks; no patients waited six months or more. I can go on and on with these if you want, here have another: Despite worse outcomes and high risk for death, governments set extremely long “targets” for heart surgery. Wales targets up to eight months; England targets 18 weeks after referral; Canada benchmarks up to 26 weeks for bypass. Defined as acceptable by governments who set them, such targets propagate the illusion of meeting quality standards despite serious under-performance, endangering their (fully insured) citizens. Do you want another one or are we done? England’s 2010 “NHS Constitution” declared that no patient should wait beyond 18 weeks for treatment (after GP referral). Even given this long leash, the number of patients not being treated within that time soared by 43% to almost 30,000 in January. BBC subsequently discovered that many patients initially assessed as needing surgery were later re-categorized by the hospital trust and removed from waiting lists. Royal College of Surgeons President Norman Williams, calling this “outrageous,” charged that hospitals are cutting their waiting lists by simply raising thresholds. I can keep on going with this if you’d like.
 Here is a post from the anti-Obamacare group:
I’m new to this group: thank you for letting me join. I have been reading through some of the posts: one of my biggest concerns right now, as it is for many, is healthcare. I have a child with an autoimmune disease and we spent over $30,000 last heat out of pocket on medical. It requires both my husband and I to work two jobs. One alternative: single payer (socialist medicine) is not even remotely an option as far as I’m concerned. Changes need to be made, Obamacare has nearly destroyed our family financially. I would rather continue to work two jobs than go to a single payer system. I’m baffled at those that think it’s a right. I have been pushing our local reps here in Arizona to do the right thing. It scares me though how out of touch with real life some of them are.
Here is a post from an anti-Obamacare FB group:

I just spoke with Senator Tim Scott’s staffer and told him we want a full repeal of Obamacare, which Republicans have been promising for 7 years. He said the Senator is in favor of repeal and replace. I said it is no good, if the replacement is just another version of government-controlled health care. Republicans should allow free market solutions. He said the Senator likes full repeal and free market solutions, “but there wouldn’t be enough votes to pass it.”

 Here is a post from a Mississippi anti-Big Government group:

Everyone is talking about the republicans failing to repeal Obamacare. The ones that voted against repeal, said too many people would be without insurance. Really. Because everyone has good insurance now? Like my mom, who has had a stroke and a couple of mini strokes. She can’t get work, can’t get insurance through Obamacare and can’t get disability. Or a really good friend of mine and [name withheld]’s who is having some pretty severe medical issues, and because she doesn’t have a job (she can’t work due to these issues) she’s told she can’t get any coverage either? So exactly who did Obamacare help? Who are these millions of people who only got coverage after Obamacare passed? I can honestly say I don’t know a single person Obamacare helped, all I know Is when my insurance premiums doubled, Obamacare was the reason. So tell me again how repealing this monstrosity is such a bad thing? We need to clean Washington out.

This post is my opinion from my observation,

[Name Withheld]


And here are some replies to said post:

Before Obamacare, we had decent insurance coverage for a fair price. Now, high priced and little coverage thus you are still without medical care.


As soon as Ocare went into effect, my monthly premium doubled, and my out of pocket and deductibles doubled


We lost ours… $1200 a month with a $10,000 deductible… then the insurance provider left MS


Congress and their staff got the good deal. That’s why they won’t repeal it. They don’t care about those that are insured or would become uninsured. They are all into “me” syndrome.


The ones who won’t buy it unless you make them


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s