Last modified on December 13, 2017, at 21:38


Return to "ObamaCare" page.

The caption is humorous, but somewhat frivolous for an encyclopedia. Good message, nontheless. TheHeroExcelsior 09:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

I deleted the reference in the "treatment of the elderly" section. It linked to an Onion article. --Whizkid 16:13, 10 February 2010 (EST)

      • I feel that while being a humorous depiction of "Obamacare," people may think that the picture used in this article is infact the symbol used for the bill. What do you think?

ObamaCare just kicked in. Health care prices increased across the board for me - directly due to Obama's "affordable" health care plan, and my employer said to "expect worse to come." She wouldn't even go into the details for how bad it will get under socialism, but it looked like she was going to start crying. I guess small businesses are already learning of the bad news before the storm actually hits. ...Oh, and now I'm also limited in the amount of doctor visits that I can take per year. I guess I have to make room for 30,000,000 people who will be receiving free health care, paid for by people like myself. Prescription costs increased for me, too. I wonder who I am now paying for to get free health care? Perhaps the unemployed who are already sucking taxpayer dollars out of the system - and probably have been doing so for the last two years. Or, maybe I'm paying the cost for a Public Union member, who is of course also seeking more bailouts for their pension. ...So, I guess this is what it's like to go from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy. We are witnessing the fundamental transformation of the United States, and it's truly one of the most tragic moments of our lives. How did we let this happen? DerekE 00:29, 25 August 2010 (EDT)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

It might be more appropriate to change to title of the page from "ObamaCare" to "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" since it is now actual law instead of a series of health care proposals by the president. The first line of the page could be changed to reflect this. --Marqmike2 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Hmmm. The move makes sense to me, but maybe we should get a little more discussion. After all, conservatives (and maybe even everyone in general, I don't know) use ObamaCare more often, so even though "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" may be more accurate, "ObamaCare" is more familiar. --StoryMaker 21:49, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
I disagree with Marqmike2. Calling it "Obamacare" seems to fit more with the bias of this site. The real wikipedia says "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), informally referred to as Obamacare" and we say the opposite, "ObamaCare, more formally known as "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". I think if we change it to be less obviously biased, people will think we've gone liberal. Also, the first sentence should mention how Obamacare forces citizens to "pay for sex offenders to use Viagra", right now this outlandish strawman is buried all the way in the fourth paragraph. --Romneycare
Well, I have no problem with the change. Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation. I think it's best to go with the name of the law and just redirect Obamacare to the page (which Wikipedia also does). Wikipedia is very obviously biased on the Obama page though, so imitating so biased a site as Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. You have a good point about the Viagra comment too - if that's to stay in the article it should be very well-sourced. I checked the page history and apparently it was added in April 2010 by a now-blocked user.[1] It should be fine to remove that I'd think. Good catch! --Joshua Zambrano 11:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)
"Obamacare comes off a bit cavalier and informal, and could harm the site's reputation". With all due respect, that ship has sailed.
Rarely do ships sail without returning. --Joshua Zambrano 11:35, 3 September 2012 (EDT)

New Material

As a sidenote, a lot of this research I actually did back in 2010 for an eBook I wrote for the elections that year.[2] Many of the sources are re-used from Chapter 3, pages 87-114. I actually have even more sources provided there relating to ObamaCare that I could use if I needed to, about 90 all together (and dozens more if counting the cases where multiple sources are given for a single footnote). Anyway, this is less detailed than what I wrote there. --Joshua Zambrano 14:22, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

"Obamacare fines to be seized from bank accounts?" article is false

Of course, I can't prove that it is false (as proving a negative is near impossible), but the claims about Obamacare made by the otherwise-unknown user in Facebook postings and reported in the article are highly unlikely to be true. PolitiFact gives the statement a "Pants on Fire" rating. Snopes says that the claims are "mostly false". The links I gave are good reading as to why the claims made (especially about liens and driver's license suspensions) are highly unlikely to be true (and therefore would need better sources to appear in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia). GregG 22:50, 8 October 2013 (EDT)

Did you sign up for Obamacare in the official website? Karajou 22:57, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
I have been to the official website, but I have not signed up since I am under 26 and therefore on my parents' plan. GregG 23:23, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
Well, you made a decisive claim as to the information I posted, and you cannot back up your opinion on it. Nice try. Karajou 23:45, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
The Trustworthy Encyclopedia should not be citing an unverified, uncorroborated posting by an heretofore-unknown party that contradicts all known information about Obamacare, as well as common sense, as a source, even in the highly unlikely chance that it may be true. One would expect that if this were the case, there would be far more reports of the purported message about fines, driver's license suspensions, and liens having been sent. GregG 23:51, 8 October 2013 (EDT)
And again it is you, and you alone, who is saying this story is false without coming up with the contradictory evidence. Karajou 00:29, 9 October 2013 (EDT)
Really? As I mentioned above, Politifact rated the story "Pants on Fire" (their rating for statements that are not only false, but ridiculously so), and Snopes rated the story "Mostly false". Hardly the sort of story that should be quoted as truth on the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. (I note that Mr. Beck has still not proven that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990, yet I think such a statement should not belong in the article Glenn Beck.) GregG 08:15, 9 October 2013 (EDT)

I think Greg is right here - ultimately some sources are more reliable than others - we can't ignore that. Politifact is a reputable fact-checking organization; they seems to have pretty thoroughly debunked the chain email. Will we next have an article about a Nigerian prince needing $500?--IDuan 12:19, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

Is he right? Are you right? More news similar to this is coming out. [3] Karajou 12:24, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
I'm not saying we can't report the news - there's a lot of bad press out there about how incredibly screwed up these exchanges are - but an email chain isn't a reliable source - politifact and snopes are. The Fox source is certainly reliable.--IDuan 12:48, 13 October 2013 (EDT)
The point I made here is that premiums and deductibles shot up dramatically under Obamacare; the first news item is the frustration of one individual, taken out on Facebook. I'm going to defer to Greg in that it does not represent a legitimate news item, but the fact is that not only can it not be proven wrong, there are others similar to it coming out. To hide it from our readers is a disservice. Which is also a point totally in agreement with Tony's line below. Karajou 17:59, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

An encyclopedia has an overriding responsibility to avoid spreading dangerous falsehoods. Proceeding by slapping daft rumours and nonsensical claims into this and other articles will do nothing to improve the already abysmal reputation of Conservapedia. As I've occasionally suggested in the past, recruiting from a broader pool of potential editors and implementing procedures similar to those evolved by Wikipedia would improve quality of content. --TonySidaway 12:47, 13 October 2013 (EDT)

ObamaCare vs. Obamacare

More and more, I am seeing the word without the capital "C". CP should be consistent. One approach is to move the article to lower-case C and keep all spelling in the article consistent. It is interesting how the Administration has embraced the term as a device for taking credit for the law. Wschact 07:13, 17 April 2014 (EDT)

I think Obama was forced to do this as the name ObamaCare caught on. With Obama's underwater job approval ratings that are below 50%, I don't think the name ObamaCare is helping his efforts to get the law accepted by Americans. Conservative 07:54, 17 April 2014 (EDT)

Adding Anti Second Amendment, Gun Control and Taxation Categories deleted by Wschact

I re-added the Category:Anti Second Amendment and Category:Gun control categories that User:Wschact deleted since there are provisions in ObamaCare and Obama Executive Orders that are Anti-Second Amendment and gun control related. The Supreme Court declared ObamaCare constitutional since it is a "tax" hence, Category:Taxation. TheAmericanRedoubt 13:45, 22 January 2015 (EST)

I can see Taxation, but the ACA is not available to undocumented people. Indeed, it provides incentive to people who are documented and file tax returns. How can a person without a social security number get onto a health care exchange to purchase a policy? I do not see anything on CP or in any news articles about gun rights/gun control provisions in the ACA. Did Andy leave something out? Thanks, Wschact 23:40, 6 February 2015 (EST)