• 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!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

Boo Radley said:
Found a possible explain for you j:

All these cancellations were prompted by a requirement from Covered California, the state's new insurance exchange. The state didn't want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

Some health insurance gets pricier as Obamacare rolls out - latimes.com


So, it might be actions by your state. As I said, keeping healthy people on the rolls is what keeps the price down. When the state says they can't hold on to them, they panicked. Good to live in Iowa.
Click to expand...

So, because you found a small piece of the article that blamed "some" of the possible excuse for increases on Jerry Brown in CA., I think it interesting that you chose to ignore this on page 1 of your own article....

"Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

On balance, many Americans will benefit from the healthcare expansion. They are guaranteed coverage regardless of their medical history. And lower-income families will gain access to comprehensive coverage at little or no cost.

The federal government picks up much of the tab through an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to people earning up to four times the federal poverty level. That's up to $46,000 for an individual or $94,000 for a family of four.

But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law."


On balance the article is talking about things that the Federal law is mandating, NOT California....But keep reaching for excuses. Cali also doesn't explain Florida, NJ, MI, etc.
 
j-mac said:
So, because you found a small piece of the article that blamed "some" of the possible excuse for increases on Jerry Brown in CA., I think it interesting that you chose to ignore this on page 1 of your own article....

"Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

On balance, many Americans will benefit from the healthcare expansion. They are guaranteed coverage regardless of their medical history. And lower-income families will gain access to comprehensive coverage at little or no cost.

The federal government picks up much of the tab through an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies to people earning up to four times the federal poverty level. That's up to $46,000 for an individual or $94,000 for a family of four.

But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law."


On balance the article is talking about things that the Federal law is mandating, NOT California....But keep reaching for excuses. Cali also doesn't explain Florida, NJ, MI, etc.
Click to expand...

Yes, it gives a rational. I read what you put up there. read it closely. If they had been able to keep well people, there would be less increase, if not not no increase. But she went from a useless coverage to one that actually does the job as well. The issue isn't just about the monthly fee, but what you get, which is why I orignally mentioned increased coverage. But it isn't the mandate itself in the article, but the states poor response to it. As other states, like mine, have the same mandate without going over the edge, you can't logically excuse the state's response.


However, this is the closes thing I can find to explain why things are so different for you than here.

I know you want to bemoan, but do you have another explanation?
 
j-mac said:
With 80% plus actually being shuffled to new medicaid roles, and of those left the sick ones coming in, are they really getting more "customers", or are they gaining more liability?
Click to expand...

I still think there was deception involved going all the way back to its inception. This "urgency" that obama conveyed with regard to how badly this was needed was, in my opinion, false. For obama, the top issue that he placed above all, was this bill that he insisted must be passed before anyone reads it - but it was too long for anyone to read, and obama has the audacity to say "just pass it, and you can read it later". I'm not making this up - I heard him say it myself on national television! It's a law! ...and he says just read it later! *
So, how valid was this "urgency" at a time when everyone but obama was worried about the sequester and being at the brink of financial collapse? Was this the right moment to insist on passing a monstrously expensive bill? Let's look at the purported "urgency". Last I checked, there wasn't just a bunch of americans who died because they were refused medical care. There are free clinics in every major city. It is unlawful to deny treatment at an ER. I had great free medical care. Visits were free, even if you are seeing a specialist, and I was on 6 different heart meds that cost $8 to refill all 6. If anybody reading this did not have access to free medical care, I'd like to know what city and state you live in so I can do some research. I think it's all BS from the beginning.

*This is the kind of system you support? If everybody was like me, none of this stupid sht would ever happen. There would be a new amendment: No law shall be longer than 1000 words, and any that are shall be officially repealed. If you need more words than that to describe a law, then you're getting into areas that government doesn't belong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it gives a rational. I read what you put up there. read it closely. If they had been able to keep well people, there would be less increase, if not not no increase. But she went from a useless coverage to one that actually does the job as well. The issue isn't just about the monthly fee, but what you get, which is why I orignally mentioned increased coverage. But it isn't the mandate itself in the article, but the states poor response to it. As other states, like mine, have the same mandate without going over the edge, you can't logically excuse the state's response.


However, this is the closes thing I can find to explain why things are so different for you than here.

I know you want to bemoan, but do you have another explanation?
Click to expand...

That's not how it's supposed to work Joe. Read the 10th amendment.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it gives a rational. I read what you put up there. read it closely. If they had been able to keep well people, there would be less increase, if not not no increase. But she went from a useless coverage to one that actually does the job as well. The issue isn't just about the monthly fee, but what you get, which is why I orignally mentioned increased coverage. But it isn't the mandate itself in the article, but the states poor response to it. As other states, like mine, have the same mandate without going over the edge, you can't logically excuse the state's response.


However, this is the closes thing I can find to explain why things are so different for you than here.

I know you want to bemoan, but do you have another explanation?
Click to expand...


LOL. What made that lady's coverage "useless"? Is it because she might have had to fork over $9 a month to buy birth control pills?

That lady made clear part of her "issue" was the monthly fee. Where in Obamadon'tcare does it state you get to decide her "issues"?
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. What made that lady's coverage "useless"? Is it because she might have had to fork over $9 a month to buy birth control pills?

That lady made clear part of her "issue" was the monthly fee. Where in Obamadon'tcare does it state you get to decide her "issues"?
Click to expand...

Exactly! And this is what arrogant liberals believe government is for. They see it as a tool of force because the rest of us that are not liberal are just too stupid to make our own decisions.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. What made that lady's coverage "useless"? Is it because she might have had to fork over $9 a month to buy birth control pills?

That lady made clear part of her "issue" was the monthly fee. Where in Obamadon'tcare does it state you get to decide her "issues"?
Click to expand...


It's the new argument by the left and a window into their little tyranical souls. They decide what is "better" for you and that justifies any theft of personal liberty.

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." - Albert Camus
 
j-mac said:
That's not how it's supposed to work Joe. Read the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure either of us know enough to interpret the Constitution. And both of us can find an idiot on the internet to say exactly what we want said. The point is, the courts have looked this law. The process has been followed. You can only bemoan it so long.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. What made that lady's coverage "useless"? Is it because she might have had to fork over $9 a month to buy birth control pills?

That lady made clear part of her "issue" was the monthly fee. Where in Obamadon'tcare does it state you get to decide her "issues"?
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. Nor would that likely raise it much. But if you want, show us he two policies and we'll see.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not sure either of us know enough to interpret the Constitution. And both of us can find an idiot on the internet to say exactly what we want said. The point is, the courts have looked this law. The process has been followed. You can only bemoan it so long.
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a concession on your part. :coffeepap:
 
sKiTzo said:
I still think there was deception involved going all the way back to its inception. This "urgency" that obama conveyed with regard to how badly this was needed was, in my opinion, false. For obama, the top issue that he placed above all, was this bill that he insisted must be passed before anyone reads it - but it was too long for anyone to read, and obama has the audacity to say "just pass it, and you can read it later". I'm not making this up - I heard him say it myself on national television! It's a law! ...and he says just read it later! *
So, how valid was this "urgency" at a time when everyone but obama was worried about the sequester and being at the brink of financial collapse? Was this the right moment to insist on passing a monstrously expensive bill? Let's look at the purported "urgency". Last I checked, there wasn't just a bunch of americans who died because they were refused medical care. There are free clinics in every major city. It is unlawful to deny treatment at an ER. I had great free medical care. Visits were free, even if you are seeing a specialist, and I was on 6 different heart meds that cost $8 to refill all 6. If anybody reading this did not have access to free medical care, I'd like to know what city and state you live in so I can do some research. I think it's all BS from the beginning.

*This is the kind of system you support? If everybody was like me, none of this stupid sht would ever happen. There would be a new amendment: No law shall be longer than 1000 words, and any that are shall be officially repealed. If you need more words than that to describe a law, then you're getting into areas that government doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

Ah, nobody has risen to the challenge, as of yet. I'll wait longer before officially declaring obamacare total BS from the very beginning (almost like his presidency; 3 weeks before he was elected, I had never even heard of him. Suddenly, I turn on the tv, and there he is smiling in front of thousands of hired fans).

The "challenge" was for somebody to come forward saying that they did not have access to free medical care in the state they lived in. I need to know what city and state you live in so that we can verify whether or not this is true.
 
Last edited:
sKiTzo said:
Ah, nobody has risen to the challenge, as of yet. I'll wait longer before officially declaring obamacare total BS from the very beginning (almost like his presidency; 3 weeks before he was elected, I had never even heard of him. Suddenly, I turn on the tv, and there he is smiling in front of thousands of hired fans).

The "challenge" was for somebody to come forward saying that they did not have access to free medical care in the state they lived in. I need to know what city and state you live in so that we can verify whether or not this is true.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it doesn't look like anybody is going to be able to meet the challenge, so let's just move forward with the exposing of obamacare as fraudulent legislation that has been put in place for some as yet unknown purpose to serve their agenda.

We know that if you are indigent, you already had access to free healthcare, and if you have a steady income, coverage was less than what you'll be paying with this fraudulent legislation. If you have a steady income and chose not to have coverage, then that is your own choice. In a free society, the government is forbidden from making these choices for you. So, what this all means, is that obama's vigilant promotion of this ACA, was an act of deception.

For those who are still foolish enough to think that the government cares about our health, one needs only to spend a few hours researching the FDA and its atrocious behaviors and brazen acts. The lengths they go to ensure that cures never see the light of day. Raiding homeopathic vitamin companies and putting them out of business. Their vendetta on raw milk just baffles me (raw milk must have some truly beneficial properties). They still add fluoride to the municipal water. Their chemtrails slowly poison us..

Obamacare is not about them caring about our health, and nobody was without access to adequate health care to begin with. WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR OBAMACARE????? I will now yield the rest of my time for intelligent feedback - The floor is now open......


















Exposing the lies - one movement of obama's lips at a time
 
sKiTzo said:
Okay, so it doesn't look like anybody is going to be able to meet the challenge, so let's just move forward with the exposing of obamacare as fraudulent legislation that has been put in place for some as yet unknown purpose to serve their agenda.

We know that if you are indigent, you already had access to free healthcare, and if you have a steady income, coverage was less than what you'll be paying with this fraudulent legislation. If you have a steady income and chose not to have coverage, then that is your own choice. In a free society, the government is forbidden from making these choices for you. So, what this all means, is that obama's vigilant promotion of this ACA, was an act of deception.

For those who are still foolish enough to think that the government cares about our health, one needs only to spend a few hours researching the FDA and its atrocious behaviors and brazen acts. The lengths they go to ensure that cures never see the light of day. Raiding homeopathic vitamin companies and putting them out of business. Their vendetta on raw milk just baffles me (raw milk must have some truly beneficial properties). They still add fluoride to the municipal water. Their chemtrails slowly poison us..

Obamacare is not about them caring about our health, and nobody was without access to adequate health care to begin with. WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR OBAMACARE????? I will now yield the rest of my time for intelligent feedback - The floor is now open......


















Exposing the lies - one movement of obama's lips at a time
Click to expand...

No care is free. And ER care is quite expensive. It's really nonsense to suggest that because you can go into the ER, or that the most poor can get some care means we don't need reform. The most hard hit are the working poor, many without insurance, who face serious issues with healthcare. You're challenge seems disingenuous to me. Perhaps I missed something and you can explain to me if I'm off at all.
 
How is this even 104 pages? Obviously Carson is dumb as hell. At least discuss ACA in a thread that starts with even the semblance of some reality.
 
sKiTzo said:
Okay, so it doesn't look like anybody is going to be able to meet the challenge, so let's just move forward with the exposing of obamacare as fraudulent legislation that has been put in place for some as yet unknown purpose to serve their agenda.

We know that if you are indigent, you already had access to free healthcare, and if you have a steady income, coverage was less than what you'll be paying with this fraudulent legislation. If you have a steady income and chose not to have coverage, then that is your own choice. In a free society, the government is forbidden from making these choices for you. So, what this all means, is that obama's vigilant promotion of this ACA, was an act of deception.

For those who are still foolish enough to think that the government cares about our health, one needs only to spend a few hours researching the FDA and its atrocious behaviors and brazen acts. The lengths they go to ensure that cures never see the light of day. Raiding homeopathic vitamin companies and putting them out of business. Their vendetta on raw milk just baffles me (raw milk must have some truly beneficial properties). They still add fluoride to the municipal water. Their chemtrails slowly poison us..

Obamacare is not about them caring about our health, and nobody was without access to adequate health care to begin with. WHAT IS THE REAL REASON FOR OBAMACARE????? I will now yield the rest of my time for intelligent feedback - The floor is now open......


















Exposing the lies - one movement of obama's lips at a time
Click to expand...


One word....Control.
 
Boo Radley said:
No care is free. And ER care is quite expensive. It's really nonsense to suggest that because you can go into the ER, or that the most poor can get some care means we don't need reform. The most hard hit are the working poor, many without insurance, who face serious issues with healthcare. You're challenge seems disingenuous to me. Perhaps I missed something and you can explain to me if I'm off at all.
Click to expand...

Your reply seems disengenuous to me but at least you attempted to counter my argument. There are free clinics everywhere, and guess what? They cater to the working poor without insurance. I'm sorry - CORRECTION: There WERE free clinics everywhere, but now they're all being shut down. ER care IS expensive, and always retro-covered, if need be, by the non-profits that were set up everywhere. The average american doesn't know this. That's why when the government makes its next move to tighten its grip on the unsuspecting public, "oh my god we have to make sure everybody is covered" is an easy sell to easily duped people like yourself.
 
sKiTzo said:
Your reply seems disengenuous to me but at least you attempted to counter my argument. There are free clinics everywhere, and guess what? They cater to the working poor without insurance. I'm sorry - CORRECTION: There WERE free clinics everywhere, but now they're all being shut down. ER care IS expensive, and always retro-covered, if need be, by the non-profits that were set up everywhere. The average american doesn't know this. That's why when the government makes its next move to tighten its grip on the unsuspecting public, "oh my god we have to make sure everybody is covered" is an easy sell to easily duped people like yourself.
Click to expand...


If by everywhere you mean every state, maybe. If you mean EVERYWHERE, as in towns, cities, burgs, not that would not be true.

And free clinics are neither free nor effective. Spent some time in one in Chicago and it was a mess. Not something I'd recommend to anyone.

ER visit are also cared for by increased prices. As are other "free" care they give.

So, no, the problem has not been fixed by these things. They have been expensive bandaids with no sense of what has and hasn't been effective. They are too ad hoc and poorly followed.
 
Boo Radley said:
If by everywhere you mean every state, maybe. If you mean EVERYWHERE, as in towns, cities, burgs, not that would not be true.

And free clinics are neither free nor effective. Spent some time in one in Chicago and it was a mess. Not something I'd recommend to anyone.

ER visit are also cared for by increased prices. As are other "free" care they give.

So, no, the problem has not been fixed by these things. They have been expensive bandaids with no sense of what has and hasn't been effective. They are too ad hoc and poorly followed.
Click to expand...

So, your "fix" because you don't like a specific area in what is covered is to change the whole way HC coverage is delivered? That's like saying you don't like the color of your bathroom in your house so you tear the house down and build a new one.....
 
j-mac said:
So, your "fix" because you don't like a specific area in what is covered is to change the whole way HC coverage is delivered? That's like saying you don't like the color of your bathroom in your house so you tear the house down and build a new one.....
Click to expand...

105 pages and my post was a spot on threadstopper. You simply cannot dodge over and over again the issues I raise that clearly show that obamacare is not because they care about health.

The whole basis for this bill was obama feigning some crisis as if thousands were dying because they were denied medical care. This is how he justified making it top priority above the sequester, at a time when america was facing financial collapse. It worked because most americans just believe any lie he promotes. Fact is, there was no such crisis, and to prove it, I asked for anyone who did not have access to free or low cost medical, to give us the city and state they live in, and we could look into it. There was one single response by someone who said the free clinic in Chicago was not to their liking. This doesn't justify a monstrously expensive bill at a time of possible financial collapse. It doesn't justify top priority status. It doesn't justify violating the constitution to pass it. So, AGAIN, what is the real purpose of the bill that is total BS from its inception but HAD to be passed before anybody could read it?
 
sKiTzo said:
105 pages and my post was a spot on threadstopper. You simply cannot dodge over and over again the issues I raise that clearly show that obamacare is not because they care about health.

The whole basis for this bill was obama feigning some crisis as if thousands were dying because they were denied medical care. This is how he justified making it top priority above the sequester, at a time when america was facing financial collapse. It worked because most americans just believe any lie he promotes. Fact is, there was no such crisis, and to prove it, I asked for anyone who did not have access to free or low cost medical, to give us the city and state they live in, and we could look into it. There was one single response by someone who said the free clinic in Chicago was not to their liking. This doesn't justify a monstrously expensive bill at a time of possible financial collapse. It doesn't justify top priority status. It doesn't justify violating the constitution to pass it. So, AGAIN, what is the real purpose of the bill that is total BS from its inception but HAD to be passed before anybody could read it?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more. And I would go one step further that their goals in the rush to pass it were clear, hell, they even came out and stated them....



In fact most of them said similar things leading up to, and upon passage of the ACA....Remember Tom Harkin standing there saying "It was a good start"? This thing was designed to fail and force us into single payer.
 
Boo Radley said:
If by everywhere you mean every state, maybe. If you mean EVERYWHERE, as in towns, cities, burgs, not that would not be true.

And free clinics are neither free nor effective. Spent some time in one in Chicago and it was a mess. Not something I'd recommend to anyone.

ER visit are also cared for by increased prices. As are other "free" care they give.

So, no, the problem has not been fixed by these things. They have been expensive bandaids with no sense of what has and hasn't been effective. They are too ad hoc and poorly followed.
Click to expand...

It seems you could be describing Obamacare. That's always what inevitably happens.
 
j-mac said:
So, your "fix" because you don't like a specific area in what is covered is to change the whole way HC coverage is delivered? That's like saying you don't like the color of your bathroom in your house so you tear the house down and build a new one.....
Click to expand...

That hasn't been done. Doctors treat and deliver as they always have. All that has been done is to have more people insured with better insurance, thus making sure more things get paid. It's actually addressing the problem. More like if I had a leak in the bathroom, costing me tons of money on my water bill, and a found a way to fix the leak.
 
Grant said:
It seems you could be describing Obamacare. That's always what inevitably happens.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're actually saying. But if we really wanted to fix it, we'd go with UHC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom