I'm a Terrible American

lordmomofenixed's picture

I have to say I'm really not into politics as much as I should. I know very little about them, and that's pretty sad. I'm always saying I support Obama, because I feel you should support your president. But I'm starting to wonder what exactly he is doing. This morning, I happened to become a part of two conversations that involved Obamacare. To make this short, one guy says that if Obama care is passed, he will be denied his lung transplant, which means he could die at any moment.

This hasn't been the only story I've heard though. I keep hearing how it will deny people from getting the care they need. Or how, it's going to ruin lives. Honestly, I have no idea what obamacare is. I just keep saying I support Obama. But now, I'm going to finding research and see for myself if I support this obamacare.

Comments

radiosilence95's picture

Honestly, I don't fully

Honestly, I don't fully understand Obamacare either. The one disadvantage of it that I keep hearing is that because it requires small businesses to provide healthcare for their employees, it costs a lot of money for that business to comply, and to compensate some companies have cut wages.

During the elections I was all for Obama. But now he's just kind of there. He supports gay rights and that was my main reason for supporting him, but he hasn't really accomplished that much. The NSA scandal and the Syria drama have made me lose a lot of respect for him. I just don't think he's a super effective leader. Education, economy, infrastructure...it all needs attention.

jeff's picture

Well...

They only *speculate* this, since it hasn't even started yet. There was a certain sized business that was unfairly targeted financially because of how the law was written, and they were given an extra year off from having to comply so lawmakers could address that issue. In California, the costs came in lower than expected since that is a state trying to succeed with Obamacare, whereas people trying to make it look bad will not work as hard to implement it effectively.

I think Obama did great on Syria. Instead of the Bush era "we're going to war, and here's some shit we made up to prove it," he went to Congress for authorization in advance, to get everyone on the hook for it, while also building up tension in the press that the U.S. was strategizing to attack Syria. And, in the end, Syria joins the chemical weapons ban, and the UN is in there collecting their stockpiles. He didn't want a war, but he pushed them hard enough to get what he wanted. He got them to do what he wanted and didn't launch one missile/drone/bomb/etc., so how is that a failure?

The NSA thing isn't really anything new, so that scandal could have happened at any time. But I don't follow that enough to care, since it is hard to see the "I'm in line to have McNuggets" on Twitter generation complain they want privacy, heh. I fall more into the Snowden camp on that stuff.

There really isn't much chance for him to address other issues with Congress filibustering everything he tries to do. They still haven't even approved some of his staff appointments yet, which is ridiculous. So, I'm not sure what you think he can do that he hasn't...

He has stopped the appearance of doing more that other Presidents have, by signing less referendums and executive orders, since they don't last, and the next president can just be like, "Forget all that noise Obama said was OK, I'm signing my own executive orders..."

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

radiosilence95's picture

From what I gathered on the

From what I gathered on the whole Syria thing, Obama was pushing for a military strike before there was any solid evidence pointing to which entity in Syria used chemical warfare, the government or rebel groups, or even if there was any chemical weapons at all. I was under the impression that he was trying to jump the gun before the facts presented were scrutinized carefully and the facts missing were brought to light.

I honestly have given up on staying super informed on politics. I went through a phase my junior and senior year in high school (it started around election time) in which I would subscribe to political magazines and absorb every article just to feel like I was informed, but I realized that every media outlet is so ridiculously biased, so many facts and numbers are misrepresented, so many half-truths are conceived, that no matter which side you pay attention to, liberal or conservative, they're both empty rhetoric.

There are so many facets of truth when it comes to politics that anyone with an agenda can put a spin on it all to make their opinion seem squeaky clean and the opposing opinion seem like shit.

jeff's picture

Well...

He could order a strike without going to Congress or the UN if he wanted to... so I think he was doing all of that stuff to buy time to not attack them. Of course, it can't be a bluff... if you get authorization, and everyone on board, and they still are using chemical weapons, then he'd have to do something.

But he has to publicly talk as though he's ready to bomb them. I mean, he can't say "I'm saying this to buy them time to change their minds..." So, there is some strategy behind it...

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

jeff's picture

Well...

It is hard to talk about Obamacare, really, since we no longer in a world with agreed-upon facts. This is intentional, since some people think they will retain power in a world of confusion instead of answers.

So, depending where you end up online, you may love, hate, or not understand Obamacare. I would start here, since at least then you are at a bare minimum understanding what the president passed: http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview

Both of your examples sound wrong, though. The law forbids people from being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, which is how things work now. Another misinformation is that people won't get the care they need, or the government will be making the decisions, are also wrong, since those things are not currently decided not by the individual people, but by their insurance companies. So, if you run out of money, your insurance company can stop helping you. That can no longer happen under Obamacare.

Some businesses were unfairly being targeted the way the costs broke down, and their costs would have gone up, but the government is delaying them from having to pay until they can fix that in the law. Usually, when you hear anything against Obamacare, is that it is going to affect business owners, and they will hire less people because of how much more coverage is going to cost.

The best response (rather than following this ongoing pissing match in the news) is usually just to say that Obama is trying to do something to improve people's lives, and the opposition party usually just opposes him without providing any meaningful alternatives.

Keep in mind, a lot of people against Obamacare also say they don't want the government sticking its nose in their Medicare (which is a government program), so I wouldn't worry too much that you don't know anything about this. From your example, it sounds like three of you don't know about it, you're just not pretending you do, which ultimately is a better position...

---
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles

Bosemaster42's picture

I don't know,

I didn't vote for Obama and couldn't bring myself to vote for Romney either, so I voted Libertarian. Still, I'm suspicious of Obamacare. I don't know all the details of the plan. My health insurance hasn't changed, but I do know the costs have gone way up. I'm lucky in that I have a single plan, but I feel for anyone who has to pay for the family plans, the costs of which are kind of scary. The costs of healthcare are ridiculous and I honestly believe the pharmaceutical industry has compounded this fact. No one should be denied health care, especially for serious shit, but you see examples of this from coast to coast every day. So, while you may get treated for a condition, you can expect to pay for this treatment the rest of your life.
The Syrian conflict is essentially an internal civil war. As it turns out, Obama did finally make the right decision not to use the military option, however, I do believe negotiations should have taken place and investigations done sooner. Our government was privy to what was taking place over there. Assad should have been confronted sooner, with Russia's help, because Assad has no love for the United States. I think Obama should have kept his mouth shut with regard to 'The red line in the sand' comment. Did anyone read the op-ed article in the N.Y. Times from Russian president Putin? Granted, Putin's no angel, but he verbally dope-slapped Obama, ie., at the end of the article regarding his address to the American public. He also was chastising our former government for our actions in Iraq, but he made Obama look foolish.