Obamacare is a complete train wreck and this article only scratches the surface. There is only one solution: complete repeal and replacement with common sense solutions (such as the ability to buy across state lines). The goal should be to get the government out of our health care, not to get the government into our health care as is happening with Obamacare. The fact that the young must pay more in order to fund the old’s ability to have cheaper plans also emphasizes the primary purpose of Obamacare: redistribution of wealth—the money from the young is redistributed to the old.
Under Andrew's definition of redistribution of wealth, Social Security would also be in the same category as Obamacare yet not many people today are flipping tables about paying for Social Security. The major point I would like to make is that Obamacare is supposed to increase the accessibility and quality of health care. To think that this could happen with no cost would be juvenile. Some people think that it is worth the cost, others not so much. Obviously the people who receive the short end of the stick will be outraged, and understandably so. I believe Obamacare can work, but it needs reform. Canada's health care system, in my opinion, is better than Obamacare, but then again Canada has much higher taxes. It's all a matter of how much people are willingly to spend to get the services they want.
Logically speaking, health insurance would probably rise in the next decade, even if the Affordable Care Act wasn't implemented. As the Baby Boomers grow older and retire, our population's age distribution shifts. The Baby Bust generation is left to pay higher taxes and insurance rates in order to pay for the disproportional number of old people. Either way, small buisnesses would have to expect rising prices. Personally, though I know young employees will find it unfair, I also believe that old people should get reasonable priced healthcare.
I agree with Olivia. Andrew's argument is essentially against what is already happening with social security. Personally, I'm okay with it. If it means that when I'm older the younger generation will help cover my health insurance, then that's just the way the world turns. In addition, while I don't know all ins and outs of the Affordable Care Act, I believe the means justify the ends of affordable and accessible health care.
This issue, as everyone else has said, is basically a matter of charging younger people more for health insurance, and charging older people less. I disagree, though, that it constitutes "redistribution of wealth." People age over time, and those younger people who might get the short of the stick now will be glad that their businesses will be able to pay for health insurance later, when they will be older, less healthy, and less able to keep up in general. It's important for us to limit the difficulties of working into our 60s and even 70s, since the retirement age is rising. Old age is not a good time to face the choice between good healthcare and good finances.
Obamacare is supposed to provide Americans with better, more accessible healthcare, but it hasn't seemed to be a benefit to many people. If people want Obamacare to be successful they will have to be willing to put more money into it. It's understandable why some people are unhappy with how the system works, but if paying more for health insurance when I'm young means that it will be cheaper when I'm older, I don't have a problem with it.
I think the Obama administration needs to step back and refine the Affordable Care Act. Too many problems and too many issues. However, I believe it might be too late for President Obama to implement an effective healthcare act because his days in office are ending fast.
In my mind Ethan’s comments make sense. Although younger people end up paying more than before, they will be grateful the policy is in place once they get older. That being said many Americans will only look at how it affects them in the present. Like the article said “Joe the Plumber” will be very upset with the Obama administration. We will wait and see if this policy sticks or is adjusted.
The ends really justify the means. Personally, I would like the government involved in health care (unlike Andrew). I believe in paying more to have affordable accessible health care as an adult. I also appreciate being able to stay on my parents' plans until 26 because it's ridiculous to expect these freshly made "adults" being thrown into a world of making dinner and doing laundry and (most likely) college to manage their health insurance.
I think the Affordable Care Act will stick around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it changed in the next few years. I think it's good that the government is helping people with health care, though as the article states, not everyone is being helped and some are being hurt. In the long run, I think future generations will appreciate universal health care.
Obamacare is a complete train wreck and this article only scratches the surface. There is only one solution: complete repeal and replacement with common sense solutions (such as the ability to buy across state lines). The goal should be to get the government out of our health care, not to get the government into our health care as is happening with Obamacare. The fact that the young must pay more in order to fund the old’s ability to have cheaper plans also emphasizes the primary purpose of Obamacare: redistribution of wealth—the money from the young is redistributed to the old.
ReplyDeleteUnder Andrew's definition of redistribution of wealth, Social Security would also be in the same category as Obamacare yet not many people today are flipping tables about paying for Social Security. The major point I would like to make is that Obamacare is supposed to increase the accessibility and quality of health care. To think that this could happen with no cost would be juvenile. Some people think that it is worth the cost, others not so much. Obviously the people who receive the short end of the stick will be outraged, and understandably so. I believe Obamacare can work, but it needs reform. Canada's health care system, in my opinion, is better than Obamacare, but then again Canada has much higher taxes. It's all a matter of how much people are willingly to spend to get the services they want.
ReplyDeleteLogically speaking, health insurance would probably rise in the next decade, even if the Affordable Care Act wasn't implemented. As the Baby Boomers grow older and retire, our population's age distribution shifts. The Baby Bust generation is left to pay higher taxes and insurance rates in order to pay for the disproportional number of old people. Either way, small buisnesses would have to expect rising prices. Personally, though I know young employees will find it unfair, I also believe that old people should get reasonable priced healthcare.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia. Andrew's argument is essentially against what is already happening with social security. Personally, I'm okay with it. If it means that when I'm older the younger generation will help cover my health insurance, then that's just the way the world turns. In addition, while I don't know all ins and outs of the Affordable Care Act, I believe the means justify the ends of affordable and accessible health care.
ReplyDeleteThis issue, as everyone else has said, is basically a matter of charging younger people more for health insurance, and charging older people less. I disagree, though, that it constitutes "redistribution of wealth." People age over time, and those younger people who might get the short of the stick now will be glad that their businesses will be able to pay for health insurance later, when they will be older, less healthy, and less able to keep up in general. It's important for us to limit the difficulties of working into our 60s and even 70s, since the retirement age is rising. Old age is not a good time to face the choice between good healthcare and good finances.
ReplyDeleteObamacare is supposed to provide Americans with better, more accessible healthcare, but it hasn't seemed to be a benefit to many people. If people want Obamacare to be successful they will have to be willing to put more money into it. It's understandable why some people are unhappy with how the system works, but if paying more for health insurance when I'm young means that it will be cheaper when I'm older, I don't have a problem with it.
ReplyDeleteI think the Obama administration needs to step back and refine the Affordable Care Act. Too many problems and too many issues. However, I believe it might be too late for President Obama to implement an effective healthcare act because his days in office are ending fast.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind Ethan’s comments make sense. Although younger people end up paying more than before, they will be grateful the policy is in place once they get older. That being said many Americans will only look at how it affects them in the present. Like the article said “Joe the Plumber” will be very upset with the Obama administration. We will wait and see if this policy sticks or is adjusted.
ReplyDeleteThe ends really justify the means. Personally, I would like the government involved in health care (unlike Andrew). I believe in paying more to have affordable accessible health care as an adult. I also appreciate being able to stay on my parents' plans until 26 because it's ridiculous to expect these freshly made "adults" being thrown into a world of making dinner and doing laundry and (most likely) college to manage their health insurance.
ReplyDeleteI think the Affordable Care Act will stick around, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it changed in the next few years. I think it's good that the government is helping people with health care, though as the article states, not everyone is being helped and some are being hurt. In the long run, I think future generations will appreciate universal health care.
ReplyDelete