• Gary Ghost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Obama care and aca is the same thing. Maybe it confuses people but how does calling it Obama care make it sound bad? For me Obama care sounds like a compliment to Obama, like he tried to do something good even though it was gutted by Republicans. That $500-1000 fine for not having insurance really pissed me off though. I worked overtime to make 30k annually and wasn’t offered health care but also did not qualify for affordable insurance

    • boaratio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Remember when Obama wore a tan suit and Republicans were ready to burn the white house down? That’s why. For a minority of Americans they think Obama was the anti-Christ. That’s why.

      Leave aside how flawed the bill was, but call it what is is: the affordable care act.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Do you have any idea how ‘Obama care’ started? Because it wasn’t his idea, it was Romney-care first. Kicker here is that Romney-care was spawned by the Heritage Foundation. The ones responsible for Project 2025.

      You draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

      • Gary Ghost@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I didn’t know that. I don’t remember specifics anymore, I remember the aca was revised over and over before it was approved. Should have been called the pos act

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Ya the penalty was such a slap in the face. Health tax for being healthy. Helped to pay for these fat MAGAs who probably would have succumbed to diabetes by now.

      • EffortlessEffluvium@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        No, it was meant to feed the fund like safe drivers do for liability insurance. Leaving only sick/older adults in (like only bad drivers) means that pay outs for claims would have to drain the fund. But you go on thinking you’ll be healthy for the rest of your life.

        The social contract means something.

          • EffortlessEffluvium@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Yeah, we should have gotten a single-payer or government-administered system that no one could have (except maybe the Amish) opted out of. That way, middle-man costs could have been accounted for and the millionaire CEOs shut out more easily. Congress sold us out to serve the UHC and other masters.