Why you should support Obamacare, in 4 sentences.


1)  Hospitals are required to treat people who show up in their emergency rooms whether they are insured or not, and whether they can afford it or not: if the people get treatment, and they cannot afford it, the hospital is paid using my tax dollars.

2)  With Obamacare, poor people will be “forced” to get health insurance; but if they can’t afford it, the cost will be subsidized by the government, so the insurance for poor people will be paid for using my tax dollars.

3)  I’m paying either way: it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for insurance for poor people than to pay for emergency room visits for uninsured poor people.

4)  If you think Obamacare is taking away your “Freedom,” then you don’t realize that you are already paying for hospitals to treat broke people: that means you are already “not free”, and your only choice is to pay more (without Obamacare), or less (with Obamacare).

90 views shared on this article. Join in...

  1. SavaH says:

    I definitely support Obamacare!

  2. kevin says:

    Poor people do not pay federal income taxes. Tax deduction and credits are not to be celebrated for they are why our financial system is so “unfair”.

    Re: health care for the poor, why not look into medicaid which was intented to do what this outright p.o.s. bill was intended for. Unlike many previous implementation of entitlement programs, the poor will suffer disproportionally as the failed welfare state in this country will continue to buckle under obamacare.

    All demagoguery aside, look at how this program is funded. If you are not mathematically deficient or you give a rat’s behind about individual liberties, you will not defend this garbage legislation.

  3. John says:

    Greg, although on paper it seems like your arguments make sense, they do only from a socialists point of view. Redistributing wealth is what you are rationalizing.. Straight up obamacare takes away my rights by forcing people to buy something. Period. Any way you put it your justification is redistributing wealth and responsibility. The constitution states “the pursuit of happiness” not guaranteed government provided happiness. You are an admitted socialist and like all socialists you cannot believe people would rather be anything else. Especially independent or free. If I wanted to be a socialist I would agree with every one of your defenses. But they come at the expense of my freedoms and rights and now the choice to do what I want with my money. Next, The fees paid to pay the ER expenses of the uninsured are built into my insurance. It may be mandated by law but it is not tax money that pays the fees. The current system of insurance is truly messed up but there are many ways to bring down the costs through the free market system. Such as insurance companies being able to offer coverage over state lines or tort reform. You want to insure pre existing conditions? Make a high risk pool like all your car insurance references. Obamacare is about control. As a socialist wait until you feel the unintended consequences of a more socialist healthcare system. The kind you foolishly crave and defend. It’s economics 101. The system will be overloaded. You’ll take out the profit incentive to even want to be a doctor. What, Pay for 8 plus years of school for what? To Be told by Obama what you can charge? Earn? Death panels will have to happen. Simple supply and demand. R&d for new drugs without the profit incentive means less drugs. Less care. When is the last time you bought anything from socialist Europe let alone medical care? Maybe a car from the Germans and wine and fashion. Whoa. So much to say but now it’s wait and see. But history and economics say you are wrong. Btw. The USA is totally broke. Perfect for the dems I know. Shared misery. I can’t wait for the idiots who voted for obama to realize at obamacare is NOT free! It will hit blacks, women and college grads/kids the hardest as they are most likely to not get a job now. Especially if I have to insure them now. And now the first to be let go. Also how thrilled is anyone knowing that there will be a government record of all your illnesses. So that case of herpes /clap in college really doesn’t go ‘away’. How about that abortion. Its on your permanent PUBLIC record. Explain that to your future employer/ mate. No secrets anymore. And who the F wants the IRS to be involved with my health records or private life. But this is all fine with bleeding heart Greg. He has no problem giving the government that control of YOUR private life. And Greg sees no slippery slope. So because Greg wants obamacare and is blind to the bad effects, we all have to just take it right? Sound like a lot of taxation without proper representation to me. Especially since I don’t want to be represented by a socialist. Or democrat. And this isn’t about tea anymore. Greg will go straight to heaven for being so generous with our money and being such a nice, thoughtful, thinking guy… Oh sorry, Greg. You guys don’t believe in heaven. My bad. Elections have consequences and the uninformed masses, yes the takers, think they WON. They didn’t win anything. They just don’t yet realize what they lost.

    • albert says:

      ok john, and all of the other “conservatives” posting opposing views here. are you one of the 1%? because if not, youre espousing opinions against your own self interest just as pretty much everyone with your attitude does, since they are not likely one of the truly pirvaleged 1%. all taxation is redistrubition of wealth. this is one of the main functions of government. we redistribute our “common wealth” so that we can have basic needs of all of us met, defense, infrastructure, so on. so what makes us an “exceptional society”. is it redistrubiting the wealth to make sure that our citizens have basic healthcare or to give millionaire congressman unneeded, undeserved farm subsidies that they themselves are in a position to perpetuate. if youre not one of the 1% why do you sing their song. dont underestimate the power of the 1% and their goal, which is to soak up all the money in the economy and leave the rest of us at the bottom of a two tiered society, the immortal “haves and havenots”. even if youre wealthy, do you really think youre wealthy enough to compete with the 1%. not likely. so dont do their work for them. back to obamacare. it is not health care administered by the government; it is still healthcare administered by private insurance companies, so the records are not the governments but, if you think you really have privacy in this world then you do have your head burried in the sand. privacy has diminished and will continue do so with or without obamacare. it is true that r&d is greatly a profit driven function of our society but not completely. there are still people who are truly interested in bettering mankind for reasons other than money and the rewards will still be great, and so it will not be completely hindered. and as for your comment about believing in heaven; know this; just because we dont try to force our beliefs down the throats of others doesnt mean we progressives dont have any. many if not most of us believe in god we just dont use it in the hippocritical way that conservatives do. the jobs arent going to dry up because they are still an effective mechanism by which the 1% is pulling all the wealth to themselves. if there is a dollar to be made above and beyond that invested, the investment will be made by the greed driven class in this world. but the 1% are not the job creaters. the true job creaters are the larger sections of our society, the class that spends the majority of their income and therefore create the most demand. the 1% only take advantage of the demand and use it to pull more of the wealth to themselves. the odds are stacked against all of the rest of us. unless you are one of the 400+ multi-billionaires in this country, dont fool yourself into believing that the 1% have your interests at heart. maybe you should rethink your positions and take some that wont help to assure that you will continue to get poorer no matter how wealthy you are.

      • John says:

        I didn’t read your whole post- just the first few lines and that was enough. You’re just wrong. Taxes are NOT a redistribution of wealth. Taxes are meant to pay for the needs of the common welfare, without any particular benefit inuring to one group or another. Highways, street lights, police, military – these are the types of things taxes go to support – thing we ALL benefit from.

        • albert says:

          sorry you didnt have the courage to read the whole post because it was quite insightful. in a society that has laws against refusing healthcare to any of its citizens, controlling said healthcare is something we all benefit from. but to put it simply, the way you did, youre just wrong.

  4. jim says:

    ok. i live paycheck to paycheck, i am a 50yo male, decent helth insurance is going to cost me $400 a month. i can’t afford that. my company does not employ enough people to be forced to supply insurance under obamacare. so what am i supposed to do? i am going to be “taxed” because i don’t have insurance. if i cant afford insurance i sure as hell cant afford more taxes. so are you, greg, willing to be taxed more to pay my room and board, medical care in your local prison?

    • Greg Stevens says:

      LOL… well, you throw a little curve ball in there with “prison”, at the end, bud.

      Obamacare subsidizes low-income individuals so that the cost of the health insurance that they are forced to buy will be offset by tax deductions. In other words, if you are really so poor that you CANNOT afford to pay for the insurance that you are forced to buy, then the government will DECREASE your taxes by the same amount … effectively making it free.

      So: MY taxes will go up in order to pay for YOUR insurance, if you really can’t afford it.

      And yes: I’m totally cool with that.

      • James Greenwale says:

        So you are willing to pay for my health insurance?

        • Greg Stevens says:

          If you can’t afford it, sure.

          Or, if you want to use more careful wording: I’m willing to be part of a system where my tax dollars are pooled with the tax dollars of other people who can afford it, in order to collectively pay for the insurance of people who cannot.

          Remember this key point: If you are really so poor that you wouldn’t be able to afford emergency care, then I ALREADY PAY.

          I pay for emergency room visits for people who default on their payments because they are broke. That ALREADY HAPPENS.

          So this is not an “additional charge” for me: it’s shifting my expenses from paying for emergency care for poor people to paying for insurance for poor people.

  5. Amber says:

    My fiance and I have 2 small children. I do not have a job right now, so he is the only one working. His gross income is about $15,600. We have barely enough to get by as it is. With Obamacare will we be forced to pay weekly or monthly insurace, or will they just take all our tax return dollars? I know for certain we cannot afford to pay for it.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      I’m not a lawyer or an accountant, so I can’t promise to tell you exactly what will happen in every detail.

      But from what I’ve heard, what will happen is this: since your family income is so low, you will qualify for a tax credit that covers the cost of getting health insurance.

      Now, how will it actually WORK, in practice? I’m not sure. Maybe you will have to pay a monthly amount, and then your tax refund will be INCREASED to pay you back. Or, maybe the payment for the health insurance will be deducted from your husband’s paycheck automatically, which means that he might be able to change his tax withholdings and will see no difference at all. I don’t know exactly how the details will play out.

      But I do know that with a very low income like your family has, the way it is supposed to work is that any cost of the insurance will be re-imbused to you through tax credits.

      The people who will NOT get reimbursed will be people like me — because I can afford it.

      I hope this helps? I’m sorry that I can’t give you a more definitive answer!

      • LibtardCrusher says:

        Here you see the mind of the ignorant liberal. If I am barely getting by on my current income how can I be expected to I to take on an additional monthly expense? One that could approach 40-60% of that monthly income? Oh that’s right, I’ll get “tax credits” But by the time tax returns come out I will already be homeless by then. You won’t mind if I come over and hang at your house would you Greg? At least until Obamacare rescues the economy. I could go on and on for hours with facts and common sense about how this entire thing is an abysmal failure. But it was never meant to succeed. Only to gain control over the very people it was supposed to help/protect. But facts, common sense and logic are irrelevant to the liberal mind. See folks, Liberalism is very similar to alcoholism, drug addiction and disabling mental disorders. Much like the addict. The Liberal mind cannot comprehend the logic and realities of everyday life, or the effects of their misguided delusions and the hardships that those policies force upon others. Greg conveniently omits the fact the the cost of gas and electricity alone have both more than doubled. Not to mention the rise in my property taxes,home and auto insurance, groceries,clothing,etc. So piling on with another crushing expense is the answer. Greg, There is a reason Stalin called people like you useful idiots. But you will never see it.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          Well, I’ve said this before, but I guess it bears repeating: if you are really only “scraping by”, then you will not pay anything additional under Obamacare.

          As far as some of the other odd little tidbits you threw in there… I really suggest you try watching and listening to something other than conservative propaganda, just now and then.
          “It was never meant to succeed” and “liberalism is like alcoholism” and all of these little catch-phrases are things that you’ve absorbed because it’s what you’ve been told, but… there really isn’t any evidence for any of it. It might be worth you while to just TRY to listen to the other side, from time to time.

          Obama care is not “piling on another crushing expense.” If you are well-off and uninsured, it will force you to pay for insurance. If you are well-off and insured, your taxes will go up a bit. But if you are being “crushed by expenses”, then your costs won’t go up: you will simply be forced to sign on to an insurance plan, and the cost will be picked up by the state.

          This is the whole liberal philosophy that conservatives like you ironically aren’t digesting completely. You will go on and on about how it is “morally wrong” to give poor people stuff and make rich people pay for it …. but in THIS situation, you are claiming to be the poor person. Well, guess what? Obamacare is EXACTLY the “redistribution” thingy you were complaining about: if you REALLY ARE TOO POOR to handle the expense of medical insurance, you won’t have to pay for it, because the cost will be covered by people more well-off than you.

          The idea that there is a “crushing expense” for people in your financial situation is a myth. The reason Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that crowd keep talking about a “crushing expense” is because THEIR taxes will go up…. not YOURS.

    • Steve says:

      The use of birth control would have saved you this trouble.

  6. MidiMagic says:

    How am I supposed to pay for Obamacare? I am on a fixed pension. Half of my pension pays for my mortgage. The rest is necessary for basic life. My health insurance is a small policy for only catastrophic expenses. This will become illegal, requiring me to pay more than I have left after the mortgage payment for health insurance.

    The subsidy had better not be administered like welfare. Once I tried to apply for welfare when I was unemployed. I was not eligible because I own a house. The greedy Democrats in charge wanted me to sell my house to qualify. They would pay larger amounts for rent, but not one cent for a smaller mortgage payment.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      If you are actually too poor to afford Obamacare, then its cost will be subsidized as tax credits. You will end up paying nothing.

      The entire point of Obamacare is to that people like me — who can afford it — will use our taxes to pay for insuring people like you — who cannot.

  7. Todd says:

    This is to Larry Horn’s comments. Are you that dense? Taking away from what? Welfare? The welfare system is already in place. This is new, dumb ass. Tax payers are already paying their fair share of dues in taxes. The healthy single person who is claiming zero, and getting back a thousand dollars in income tax return ,is now going to lose a lot more of that return unless they pay for a health care that they will not use, and it will cost them more to get the insurance. Do you see the scam?Do you understand that? Is that too much for your brain? Most insurance companies are now asking if you smoke, then charging you a higher premium, even if you’re as healthy as a horse. What about the obese? I have not met many elderly obese people over 300 pounds in my life, yet both my grandfathers lived well into their 80’s smoking like chimneys. They don’t ask one other question about healthy lifestyle choices. Do they think that smoking is the only way to get sick and die? Is it not the choice of the obese to eat themselves into diabetes and heart attacks? FUCK insurances companies. If you read all these posts, then you already know my view point. It’s all nothing more than new wave discrimination. I will keep my auto insurance and continue to pay taxes, but they will not force me to sign up for discriminatory insurance like that, no thanks. I’ll pay the tax. It’s only one percent of your annual salary the first year or two, then it’s going up to 2.5%.

  8. Todd says:

    So Obama won, da de da. No offense, but not a surprise, and no sweat off my back considering Romney basically wrote Obamacare anyway,and we all have to realize that part. So, basically you couldn’t do much to stop it, if that was the beef with Obama. My joy came when I found out that Washington and Colorado passed the legalization of Cannabis! This is a great leap in the right direction. The Federal Government are still probably going to be assholes. Mr. Obama has raided farms and dispensaries 3 times more in 4 years, than Bush did in 8. This is terrible considering he promised to stop raids when he was running for office the first time. A nice big promise severely raped over in blood. The extreme hypocrisy with these laws that put innocent people behind bars is sickening. Cannabis is a miracle of nature, not a dangerous illicit drug. These God fearing, hypocritical americans need some common sense, and some real life experience before they make judgements and laws that science doesn’t support. MAYBE now Obama will play a better tune when it comes to cannabis, since he won his re election, but I seriously doubt that. What are your thoughts on this topic?

  9. JMF says:

    One thing for sure, if Obamacare is going to require me to pay, guess what I’m not going to pay a dime. They can penalize me all they want. Not getting a penny from me. There is always ways around, loop holes. Tyranny won’t work on me.

    • Larry Horn says:

      Spoken like a true patriot. How can I get away without paying my fair share? Emergency room welfare is one of the biggest actual entitlement programs out there. The problem with your philosophy is that you are screaming for your “freedom” from “Tyranny” while taking welfare from the rest of us every time you go to the ER. I say there should be a provision in Obamacare that allows those of you who do not want to buy health insurance (even though you will be subsidized by the government if you cannot afford it) out of your love of “freedom” to opt out on the condition that when you do get sick or have an accident we can just let you die!

      • MidiMagic says:

        “Fair” is socialism. I hate socialism, because it destroys economies and takes away rights.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          I don’t think you’re using the term “socialism” correctly here, but I’d rather not bicker about that right now.

          Instead, I’m curious: what rights do you think are taken away from you, if you have to (for example) pay a little money in taxes so that your neighbors can go to school or everyone can ride a bus more cheaply?

          Which specific rights would be gone, as a result of this?

          • Warren says:

            Hi Greg,

            I know this is an old thread, but I’d like to comment on this.

            most people concerned about loss of rights (myself included) are concerned that the mandate opens the door for the government to require Americans to purchase anything it wants or pay an extra tax. This seems to give the government undue control over people’s lives. For instance, could the government perhaps, require people to buy and own a government approved car if someone can convince people that cars are a necessity in today’s world and that somehow mandating car purchases would provide cars for the poor?

            Granted, they would have an uphill battle trying to convince people that cars are that much a necessity, but that’s not the point. Still, to address it, health insurance is also not a necessity to many, so if they’ve managed to convince us that it IS a necessity, then why not cars as well.

            Could they also do this with computers? Phones? Homes? News subscriptions? Bank accounts?

            I’ve heard this argument come up time and time again, but I’ve never heard anyone even try to address it. They usually sidestep it somehow or simply don’t respond. The most common counter-argument campares it to the requirement to buy liability insurance on a car, but that’s different. The liability insurance mandate is a requirement based upon owning a car. If you don’t want to pay for car insurance, don’t drive a car. But the Obamacare mandate is based upon simply existing, which is not something someone chooses to engage in.

            Please comment on this.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            Hi Warren! Thanks for your comment.

            I think part of the reason people react poorly — or don’t know how to react — to the “slippery slope” style of argument, is that it presents a hypothetical situation that doesn’t really have any context to it. You bring up the idea of subsidizing buying cars for the poor using tax money, on the grounds that having a car is needed for having a job. Before I can really react to that hypothetical, I would need to know more about the hypothetical world you are describing. What are the arguments? How many people really think this should be a priority? What has happened in our culture to make this seem like even a debatable issue?

            All of these things are important, because society is changing all the time. If someone proposed RIGHT NOW to give cars to the poor with tax money, the idea would go no where because our culture doesn’t have those priorities. If, in the future, our culture’s priorities change, then the question has to be considered in the context of THOSE cultural priorities.

            There are a lot of gray areas that we — as a society, as a whole — are always making semi-arbitrary decisions on, based on how we feel as a group. Right? As “We the People”, we take a lot of ambiguous “slopes” and turn them into “steps”. We think 12 year olds shouldn’t vote and 25 years olds should, and the line has to go somewhere, so we put it at 18. We think 12 year olds shouldn’t see movies with graphic sex but it’s ok for 25 year olds, and the line has to go somewhere, so we put it at …. I don’t even know. I don’t have children. Is it 17? Or 18?

            Anyway, hopefully you see my point. We as a culture exercise a lot of moral judgements that involve drawing YES-NO lines based on no logic better than the fact that we, overall as a culture, have decided that it is what we are comfortable with.

            And: as our comforts change, our laws change. But when people try to change laws faster than the culture, the culture LASHES OUT and pushes back. That’s part of the beauty of our political system, in my opinion. If I were to try to re-write “The Rules” with my own liberal ideology, I’d be stopped in my tracks… because that’s not where the COUNTRY is. This is a GOOD thing… I’m glad our country works this way. It’s a system of checks and balances, and I think more than anything else I’m not scared of the slippery slope because I trust those checks and balances.

            Culture is always fluid. Sometimes there are slopes, and our culture and legal system has a way of putting the brakes on things and slowing things down, and making sure that things don’t change too fast or go to far.

            Trust that process. For now, our system has concluded that universal health care IS a priority, and universal Car Ownership is NOT a priority. That’s just the way it is right now. It might change. It could go further, or it could swing back in the opposite direction. Whichever way it goes, our political system is built so that it will be guided by our culture and our people.

            I hope that makes sense! Let me know your thoughts.

          • Warren says:


            Thanks for that reply, but I think this argument sidesteps the issue at hand. The issue is not a matter of whether or not cars are really as important to our time as healthcare. It’s a matter of a person’s individual right to decide what they will or will not purchase, and what activities they will engage in.

            In that regard, I think the checks and balances have failed us in this particular chapter, in that we have now lost that right. Too many people, who should be involved in the process of checking and balancing to ensure that our rights are not eroded, failed to notice that this critical right is no longer protected by the Constitution thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning Obamacare.

            Also, I think we as a people have become too content to pass laws based on the culture of the time. Cultural conditions come and go, but once a law is passed, it stays on the books and is very difficult to remove. Laws should be more based on principle than culture. While cultures might affect our understanding of principle at any given time, we should still do our best to remember that what is right should continue to be so in all cases.

            On principle, I don’t think that people have a right to health insurance. I do conversely think they should have the right to NOT own health insurance, even if someone offers to buy it for them.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            You say: “On principle, I don’t think that people have a right to health insurance. I do conversely think they should have the right to NOT own health insurance, even if someone offers to buy it for them.”

            I understand that idea; but I’d like to dig more in to what it MEANS to have a “right” to not have insurance.

            We live in a society where people who show up at a hospital in need of care get care. No matter what it costs, they are treated AT LEAST enough to stabilize them. Then, they are billed. They may or may not be able to pay that bill.

            That is a foundational principle in our current system: the costs for certain types care are going to happen, whether the person being cared for can pay or not.

            Now, given THAT, someone has to pay for those costs. This is the CORE of the argument I made in the original article. The costs come out of something. Currently, they come out of YOU: the taxpayer. If the person getting the care is uninsured, that means that YOU, the taxpayer, are being FORCED to pay for the care of an uninsured person, which is higher than the care of an insured person.

            Now let’s talk about rights. Why does this person, who showed up in the hospital, have the “right” to say: “I can’t pay for the hospital visit after I get hit by a bus. So I have the RIGHT to FORCE my fellow citizens to pay the maximum, uninsured rate for MY care!”

            I don’t really understand how you can believe that.

            Remember, and this is the most important key to the argument: in our society, you cannot simply say: “I’m choosing to take the risk, please do not treat me if I show up in the hospital.” Therefore, if you end up in urgent care, you ARE A BURDEN ON THE SYSTEM whether you want to be or not (assuming you can’t pay for it out-of-pocket).

            Therefore, asserting your “right” to not have insurance is basically asserting your “right” to say “screw you, everybody else, I’m going to GET my urgent care but I have a RIGHT to not offset your costs by having insurance!”

            Does that sound like a “right” to you?

      • Warren says:


        I hear this argument a lot, and I can see how people think this way, but again it sidesteps the argument and is a bit of a double-standard and I’ll explain why.

        this argument stems on the idea that a person has a right to be treated if they can’t afford it in the first place. It’s a complex and inconclusive debate and we have no perfect answers, but most people, myself and, I assume, yourself included agree that to some extent we should treat these people on the imperfect assumption that they do have that right. Subsequently, we’ve decided to take that cost onto ourselves because, as far as we could discern, it was the right thing to do. We can see from this that some rights come at a cost, but that doesn’t make it any less a right. So why would you make the case that a person’s doesn’t have the right to refuse to purchase insurance simply because it costs the system more?

        With this in mind, yes, I think this does sound like a right, and perhaps even a more clear-cut right than a person’s right to receive treatment they can’t afford.

        Additionally, I have to question whether or not the cost of treating an uninsured person really does cost more than an insured person. Granted, the cost to the hospital is higher, that much is obvious. I assume the cost to the government is higher as well. I don’t say the cost to the taxpayer is higher, though, because the taxpayers are the people, and, while their taxes might be higher, they have more financial obligations than just taxes. They also pay insurance premiums.

        Ultimately, wouldn’t the cost of care come out to be the same or higher for an insured person than for an uninsured person? I mean, wherever the buck gets passed It’s still works out the same on the whole; Except that insurance companies have their own admin costs and profit needs. Aren’t they just one more middleman in the grand system? If it’s a question of using tax revenues to pay for a poor man’s bed in the hospital, or using tax revenues combined with increased insurance premium revenues to pay for his insurance so that his insurance company can pay for his bed in a hospital, the end payor, the American people, still pay the same or more. I don’t see how any cost savings are possible here.