• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One man's ObamaCare nightmare[W:51]

Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Ready? Define ready. Mostly that claim you make is merely empty rhetoric by those merely seeking to delay. Yes, it's not perfect. Few things ever are. But you will see better what is working and what isn't once you move forward. So, congress should stop the silly political tactics and start going to work.

Yeah? How they supposed to do that when Reid says he will not appoint negotiators, and Obama says that he shouldn't have to offer anything? This mess is totally the demo's fault.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

You do realize that this country is populated by more than 300 MILLION people right? Millions, even tens of millions more people are going to have health care when this law is fully implemented, and for most people, including subsidies, it will be reasonably priced.

The "tens of millions" had health care before this disaster called Obamacare was passed.

Where are all these "tens of millions" going to find doctors that accept whatever health insurance they are supposedly now to have?

if it's such a good deal, why does it require taxpayer subsidies? Just what does "reasonably priced" mean? And for who? How come this "reasonably priced" situation is causing people to lose, cancel or not be able to afford health insurance?

How come getting health insurance wasn't a top priority for these "tens of millions" before now?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

I haven't been able to get into the new ACA system to assess the damage, but what I am seeing from others on the internet is absolutely horrifying.

Coverage for a family of 4 on "silver" is just shy of $1000/month with high deductible. The penalty costs .. oh.. $10,000 less.

Yep. And those that pay the penalty will still have access to health care. They just won't be paying for health insurance.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

The "tens of millions" had health care before this disaster called Obamacare was passed.

Where are all these "tens of millions" going to find doctors that accept whatever health insurance they are supposedly now to have?

if it's such a good deal, why does it require taxpayer subsidies? Just what does "reasonably priced" mean? And for who? How come this "reasonably priced" situation is causing people to lose, cancel or not be able to afford health insurance?

How come getting health insurance wasn't a top priority for these "tens of millions" before now?

"Reasonably priced" obviously to demo's, means going from a family of four paying about $250 per month, to that same family of four paying over $850 per month....Ah, but that is a $2500 savings right? (*scratches head*)


Nope.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Ready? Define ready. Mostly that claim you make is merely empty rhetoric by those merely seeking to delay. Yes, it's not perfect. Few things ever are. But you will see better what is working and what isn't once you move forward. So, congress should stop the silly political tactics and start going to work.

Here's a thought ... delay the individual mandate a year to let all the Liberals like you who are confident in its' success work out the kinks and report back about the wonders of Ocare.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

The "tens of millions" had health care before this disaster called Obamacare was passed.

Where are all these "tens of millions" going to find doctors that accept whatever health insurance they are supposedly now to have?

if it's such a good deal, why does it require taxpayer subsidies? Just what does "reasonably priced" mean? And for who? How come this "reasonably priced" situation is causing people to lose, cancel or not be able to afford health insurance?

How come getting health insurance wasn't a top priority for these "tens of millions" before now?


We're not entitled to reasonably priced health insurance here in the middle class.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

We're not entitled to reasonably priced health insurance here in the middle class.

Correct. And it was deliberately designed that way. What the -ists wanted along was a single payer system and they are willing to do any uncaring, unethical, dishonest deed to get more people willing to try a complete -ist form of government.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Hey there finebead, it's been a while :2wave:

I thought we had put this comparison to rest long ago...

1. It is a privilege to own and drive a car, not a right.

2. If auto insurance covered oil changes, and wiper blades, you'd have a closer analogy, not equal but closer.

3. There is NO federal mandate that you must have auto insurance, this is left to the states.

The two are different requirements all together.

Hi j-mac, yes it has been a while.

You pointed out the differences, and I pointed out the similarities.

You are right, a car is a privilege, and that makes health insurance much more important, it is a moral imperative. We know this because it is about the life and death of living humans. Much more important to have health ins. than car insurance when it is a moral imperative. We know it is a moral imperative, because if a seriously injured person from an auto accident comes in, the LAW says the ER MUST treat him and save his life if possible. They don't inquire if you have health ins. But if you don't, why stick your fellow citizens with your bill if you are too irresponsible to carry the health insurance that you should. But, without supervision, people will do that. And when it is not right, the govt. passes laws to compel people to do the right thing. The states compel you to carry car ins. and now the federal govt. will compel you to do the right thing and carry health ins. That's the way it should be. If society compels the hospital to save your life, you should be compelled to be prepared to pay for it.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Hi j-mac, yes it has been a while.

You pointed out the differences, and I pointed out the similarities.

You are right, a car is a privilege, and that makes health insurance much more important, it is a moral imperative. We know this because it is about the life and death of living humans. Much more important to have health ins. than car insurance when it is a moral imperative. We know it is a moral imperative, because if a seriously injured person from an auto accident comes in, the LAW says the ER MUST treat him and save his life if possible. They don't inquire if you have health ins. But if you don't, why stick your fellow citizens with your bill if you are too irresponsible to carry the health insurance that you should. But, without supervision, people will do that. And when it is not right, the govt. passes laws to compel people to do the right thing. The states compel you to carry car ins. and now the federal govt. will compel you to do the right thing and carry health ins. That's the way it should be. If society compels the hospital to save your life, you should be compelled to be prepared to pay for it.

Our fundamental disagreement seems to be who's purview this falls under? See, I believe that powers not specifically enumerated under Article 1, Section 8 are delegated to the states to figure out for themselves. That simple understanding is whether or not one wants an all powerful federal system making decisions for the entirety of the American population, and dictating from on high, or whether the people have more accountability at a more local level. You seem to want a more centralized government, I don't.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Yeah? How they supposed to do that when Reid says he will not appoint negotiators, and Obama says that he shouldn't have to offer anything? This mess is totally the demo's fault.

How about actually bring forth a negotable item?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

How about actually bring forth a negotable item?

LOL. So the law Obamacare is non-negotiable? LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

Tell that to Obama then as he signs wavier after wavier and grants exemption after exemption to that very same law.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Here's a thought ... delay the individual mandate a year to let all the Liberals like you who are confident in its' success work out the kinks and report back about the wonders of Ocare.

You should check out Jimmy Kimmel's man on the street interviews last night. ;)
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

You should check out Jimmy Kimmel's man on the street interviews last night. ;)

I know you tend to put stock in comedian's take on current affairs politically, but personally I don't think these times are a game.

Whawwwwwww! Is not a valid proposal.

Do you support the Medical device tax? Do you support congress exempting themselves from this law?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

LOL. So the law Obamacare is non-negotiable? LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.

Tell that to Obama then as he signs wavier after wavier and grants exemption after exemption to that very same law.

The law is the law. Yes, you have to start with that. Consider this from Jon Stewart:

He likened the shutdown to a football team rebelling against the NFL over a score: “Did you see the Giants game on Sunday? Okay, they lost 31-7. And you know what the Giants didn’t say after that game? ‘If you don’t give us 25 more points by midnight on Monday, we will shut down the [bleep] NFL,’” said Stewart.

Must-see morning clip: Jon Stewart skewers Republicans over government shutdown - Salon.com


The proposal has to be how to improve what is existing.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

I know you tend to put stock in comedian's take on current affairs politically, but personally I don't think these times are a game.



Do you support the Medical device tax? Do you support congress exempting themselves from this law?

But you do think that way. You ignore what polls really say. People like nearly everything in the bill, but oppose it. This is not logical. His work last night showed that rather well.

Everyone with enough money is exempt. But your question shows a serious lack of understanding. I suggest you read more articles like this one:

Back in the early horse-trading days over the legislation that became the Affordable Care Act, lobbyists for the device industry made what looks more and more like a "strategic error," as The Wall Street Journal .

While the legislation was taking shape, the White House looked to health-related industries to cut deals that would help pay for the law. The Journal reported that the administration went so far as to ask for pledges.

When it came time for the device makers to pony up, they demurred, suggesting instead that the government get money elsewhere, such as from the groups that buy in bulk for hospitals. It didn't work.

"You either come to the table early, or you end up part of the dinner," a person close to the negotiations told the Journal.

How A Tax On Medical Devices United Political Rivals : Shots - Health News : NPR

But this is one of those that can be dealt with as we move forward. It is not the hammer you need. Sorry.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

The law is the law. Yes, you have to start with that. Consider this from Jon Stewart:

He likened the shutdown to a football team rebelling against the NFL over a score: “Did you see the Giants game on Sunday? Okay, they lost 31-7. And you know what the Giants didn’t say after that game? ‘If you don’t give us 25 more points by midnight on Monday, we will shut down the [bleep] NFL,’” said Stewart.

Must-see morning clip: Jon Stewart skewers Republicans over government shutdown - Salon.com


The proposal has to be how to improve what is existing.

Thing is you should fix the disaster before allowing it to happen...Isn't that the reasoning behind Obama extending a delay to his crony business people? Why is it good enough in one situation, and not another?
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Thing is you should fix the disaster before allowing it to happen...Isn't that the reasoning behind Obama extending a delay to his crony business people? Why is it good enough in one situation, and not another?

It's no where near the disaster your hyperbolic side makes it out to be. It simply doesn't require this extreme behavior. You're side is exaggerating to the nth degree.

Work on it, fine. But come back down to reality.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

But you do think that way. You ignore what polls really say. People like nearly everything in the bill, but oppose it. This is not logical. His work last night showed that rather well.

Everyone with enough money is exempt. But your question shows a serious lack of understanding. I suggest you read more articles like this one:

Back in the early horse-trading days over the legislation that became the Affordable Care Act, lobbyists for the device industry made what looks more and more like a "strategic error," as The Wall Street Journal .

While the legislation was taking shape, the White House looked to health-related industries to cut deals that would help pay for the law. The Journal reported that the administration went so far as to ask for pledges.

When it came time for the device makers to pony up, they demurred, suggesting instead that the government get money elsewhere, such as from the groups that buy in bulk for hospitals. It didn't work.

"You either come to the table early, or you end up part of the dinner," a person close to the negotiations told the Journal.

How A Tax On Medical Devices United Political Rivals : Shots - Health News : NPR

But this is one of those that can be dealt with as we move forward. It is not the hammer you need. Sorry.

Oh goody, let's trade articles....

"In December, 18 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Reid requesting a delay in the implementation of Obamacare’s 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers, many of which do business in Democratic senators’ home states.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million high-skilled manufacturing jobs. Additionally, this industry is also one of the few that enjoys a net trade surplus, significantly boosting U.S. exports around the globe,” the letter stated.

“In an environment focused on increasing exports, promoting small businesses, and growing high-tech manufacturing jobs for the future, we must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home,” the letter continued.

“With this year quickly drawing to a close, the medical device industry has received little guidance about how to comply with the tax — causing significant uncertainty and confusion for businesses. We urge you to support delaying enactment of this provision in a fiscally responsible manner,” the letter added.

The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Al Franken of Minnesota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Chuck Schumer of New York, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Patty Murray of Washington, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and then-Senator elect Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, among others.


The Obamacare provision’s 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers has sparked panic within the medical devices industry. Indiana-based Zimmer Holdings, which manufactures hip replacement implants, laid off 450 workers in 2012 in anticipation of $60 million in taxes. Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which also produces hip implants, laid off 5 percent of its workers in a bid to compensate for the $100 million it will pay in taxes in 2013."



Read more: Senate Democrats oppose tax that GOP plan would repeal | The Daily Caller

I misunderstand? No sir, what is clear is that you have now exposed yourself directly opposed to a bi partisan segment of the house and senate that believes this tax needs be repealed....So, you are for the Med. device tax.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

Oh goody, let's trade articles....

"In December, 18 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Reid requesting a delay in the implementation of Obamacare’s 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers, many of which do business in Democratic senators’ home states.

“The medical technology industry directly employs over 400,000 people in the United States and is responsible for a total of two million high-skilled manufacturing jobs. Additionally, this industry is also one of the few that enjoys a net trade surplus, significantly boosting U.S. exports around the globe,” the letter stated.

“In an environment focused on increasing exports, promoting small businesses, and growing high-tech manufacturing jobs for the future, we must do all we can to ensure that our country maintains its global leadership position in the medical technology industry and keeps good jobs here at home,” the letter continued.

“With this year quickly drawing to a close, the medical device industry has received little guidance about how to comply with the tax — causing significant uncertainty and confusion for businesses. We urge you to support delaying enactment of this provision in a fiscally responsible manner,” the letter added.

The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Al Franken of Minnesota, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Chuck Schumer of New York, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Patty Murray of Washington, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and then-Senator elect Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, among others.


The Obamacare provision’s 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers has sparked panic within the medical devices industry. Indiana-based Zimmer Holdings, which manufactures hip replacement implants, laid off 450 workers in 2012 in anticipation of $60 million in taxes. Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which also produces hip implants, laid off 5 percent of its workers in a bid to compensate for the $100 million it will pay in taxes in 2013."



Read more: Senate Democrats oppose tax that GOP plan would repeal | The Daily Caller

I misunderstand? No sir, what is clear is that you have now exposed yourself directly opposed to a bi partisan segment of the house and senate that believes this tax needs be repealed....So, you are for the Med. device tax.

PBS is better than the daily caller, but you miss the point. You can work on this and still move forward. The industry really won't dry up and die. that's simply exaggeration on everyone's part. And you can fix it while it's law as easily as you could have months ago. So, stop whining, and work on the law already passed. It's already law, so you can't stop it from being law now. You have to move forward.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

PBS is better than the daily caller, but you miss the point. You can work on this and still move forward. The industry really won't dry up and die. that's simply exaggeration on everyone's part. And you can fix it while it's law as easily as you could have months ago. So, stop whining, and work on the law already passed. It's already law, so you can't stop it from being law now. You have to move forward.

:doh Says the person giving us Jon Stewart, and Jimmy Kimmel as news sourcing....You're building strawmen, and not addressing what I asked directly. Again!
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

But this is one of those that can be dealt with as we move forward. It is not the hammer you need. Sorry.

According to Obama that is impossible as non-negotiable means non-negotiable. Unless of course he plans to violate his law by himself, again. Then that would just make him a liar, again.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

According to Obama that is impossible as non-negotiable means non-negotiable. Unless of course he plans to violate his law by himself, again. Then that would just make him a liar, again.
King Obama has violated the ACA many times. He has made changes in it that he can not do.
 
Re: One man's ObamaCare nightmare

:doh Says the person giving us Jon Stewart, and Jimmy Kimmel as news sourcing....You're building strawmen, and not addressing what I asked directly. Again!

You have a lot to learn about sourcing. For sourcing I gave you PBS. You miss a lot J.

Your question misses the point. It doesn't matter if I or you are for or against. Say I'm against it. So what. It doesn't change the position. I don't as a matter of fact support everything, which would be rare for any law. Disagreeing with an aspect is as common as the common cold. The point here is one of process. By all means, fix an aspect. But do it as it is, a law already passed. Stop whining. Stop holding up progress.
 
Back
Top Bottom