Question about obamacare

I see this accelerating ER for many (including me).
Health care costs are the single largest source of concern for our retirement, especially due to the difference in our ages. If ACA can establish a firmer footing for us to make plans (and perhaps even help ensure affordability, too), that would be great. I fear though that these subsidies will end up needs-based on assets rather than on income, which would work against folks trying to keep their withdrawal rates in check during the first two-thirds of their retirement, and then throwing them into poverty toward the end.

Of course anything may become a pejorative term if used with an inappropriate tone.
I remember a scene from the comedy series Designing Women, regarding the use of the term "That's nice," by Southern women, as a "polite" way of saying the exact opposite.
 
Last edited:
Do you really believe that the term "obamacare" was not created as and still intended to be a pejorative?
Whatever meaning Obamacare had when it was first used, it has clearly morphed into a term used to describe the PPACA. This is common in the US to describe major legislative acts. As such, there is no harm in using that term here, as long as we do so in our usual, friendly and respectful manner.
 
So our unearned income and tax free income will bump up the cost of whatever kind of care it is we can get through the exchanges come 2014? Once again, being conservative and frugal doesn't seem to be rewarded under whatever we can safely call the new health care law. Oh well.
 
If this percentage of the population are happy with their present insurance (i.e. from work, private coverage, etc), no one obliges them to buy a new one.
The coverage that many people now get from their employers will be prohibited under PPACA/Obamacare/the "new legislation." In other cases, employers have already disclosed that they intend to drop insurance coverage for workers once the PPACA goes into effect. So, the idea that "if you like your present coverage, you can keep it" is proving to be a less-than-accurate portrayal of options.

And the law does "oblige them to buy a new one", or pay a tax/penalty. That's another thing that changed under the new law.
 
If you believe that any government originated "plan" (expand this term to include any department,organization,program,etc.) will not end up costing the taxpayer more than expected in the long run, you haven't been paying attention the last....oh.... 100 years or so !
 
Last edited:
Do you really believe that the term "obamacare" was not created as and still intended to be a pejorative?

IMO, the term is like a Rorschach test.

Some see the term and view it negatively while others view it positively. All in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless, I'm just biding my time until around the fall when the dust settles more and we get a firmer picture as to how all the pieces fit together.
 
Last edited:
Do you really believe that the term "obamacare" was not created as and still intended to be a pejorative?
You are correct that it's detractors used it that way but the Administration has embraced it under the view that eventually the program will evolve and improve and people will view it as a lasting legacy to Obama. I used the term from day one for the same reason - I like it. Lets face it, negativists often have their negativity backfire.
 
Social Security was criticized when first introduced, and just like ACA, from the left and from the right. As a matter of fact, Social Security benefits were actually completely redefined before the first check went out, so by that measure the ACA has fared better than Social Security.
 
I think we had this discussion a year or two ago and the mods*, after some research, agreed the term "Obamacare" may have started out as a pejorative term but had transcended to become mainstream.
(mod hat on)

Correct, as far as I recall. Some people used the term "Bush tax cuts" pejoratively, too, but that's what they became known as because it was something that everyone understood and was a lot easier to say than the actual name of the bill which introduced them.

The term "Obamacare" may have originally been used derisively, but it has come into widespread use now, and not just by critics of the president or the plan. In other words, the term has become more "politically neutral" than it originally was. For that reason we decided to allow using the term.

(mod hat off)
 
a realistic perspective

In 2009 I was diagnosed with throat cancer. I was eligible for pension but not full medical benefits, I had 27 yrs. and 29 years were needed to guarantee medical benefits. My survival chances from the cancer were 50/50. Time was not on my side. I was 51 yrs. old. I chose to leave two years early as my future was a crap shoot. I may lose all medical benefits in June of this year. That would be tragic, but I welcome Obama care. There is a need for it. I have never understood the animosity from almost all sides. There are plenty of people who are not Medicare eligible based on age and not insurable for a variety of reasons. I agree with an earlier point that Obamacare will make early retirement more accessible and reduce the risks of having a life savings wiped out by the inability to pay for catastrophic illness. We cannot afford to be uninsured as the unexpected can one day arrive at your doorstep. Pre-existing conditions can be imposed on such simple ailments as obesity, cholesterol, high blood pressure, smoking etc. Lets not give insurance companies that much control. Obamacare will provide some measure of oversight to an out of control medical empire. Why is an uninsured rate so much more than a contracted rate. I fully expect to pay for it but at least am grateful for the opportunity to be able to purchase insurance on a level field or at least an equitable rate.
 
nice to be remembered

Thanks guys, great to be alive and great to be back. Forgot what an informative and friendly place this is.
 
I have an old HS buddy who is about 8 months into stage 4 cancer (55 y.o.). He decided years ago that he was healthy enough that he didn't need health insurance. He RE about 10 years ago and lives frugally off of a modest dotcom windfall. When the current diagnosis came up he successfully applied for county aid, and has had maybe $500K of treatment so far...all at county expense. He is doing okay so far, but the prognosis from the start has been that he has 1 yr +- to live.

This story illustrates one of the reasons I support (non-pejorative) Obamacare. Turns out my friend did have health insurance...he just didn't have to pay for it...we did with our county taxes. Same with the people who have their kids' colds treated (non-pejoratively, they may have no other option) at the ER. Let's figure a way for us all to have appropriate medical care options (ER for emergencies, clinics for colds, etc) and a way to equitably share the cost of that care. Obamacare certainly hasn't gotten it "just right," but it is a start and we can see how it works and make improvements from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom