• 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!

'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House

Although they are stopping short of delaying the individual mandate, it is clear now that the WH is severely nervous about the roll out, and what their tantrum over the shut down, and their refusal to even negotiate the delay is now going to cost them politically.

This may have turned out to be the most brilliant strategy of the TEA Party to date...Think about it...Cruz, and the rest, have solidly established the republican party as the party against Obamacare, and the individual mandate. Now, it is failing right out of the gate, and those in the know, are saying that there are worse problems as it continues to go into effect. Setting up the antics of demo's, of refusing to talk, name calling, and the whole gambit of basic Alinsky tactics that demo's today employ as reasons NOT to vote for them any time in the future.

Obama's Job Approval Declines to 44.5% in 19th Quarter

Poll: Nearly half say replace everyone in Congress

I think demo's are in for a rough 2014, and 2016...It is possible to see the house majority strengthen, and the loss of the Senate to repub control in 2014, regardless of the MSM running cover for demo's as expected.

What say you?

Well, since this was not meant to work from the start, anything to delay the inevitable (except the tax portion of this "free" healthcare, I bet).

Of course, in typical tradition of socialists through time, the failures will be blamed on opposition, as opposed to their own actual ineptitude...

Oh wait...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaNPMi7Vb14&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
No, they took similar parts to an op ed of a proposed plan that never would have worked, and placed it in as a trojan horse, to single payer...Why are liberals so dishonest?

I sincerely wish I could believe that our elected Democrats were that intelligent. The last place person to demonstrate that level of forward thinking was the villain in the last James Bond movie.
 
There is another 'sore thumb' difference...Medicare part D DID get several votes from Democrats especially in the Senate...PPACA Republican votes - 0

It did, but you are skirting both issues I brought up and basically talking around the 'Q'..

1) Once again I stress that NO Democrat advocated or threatened to shut down the government over it either, although the vast majority of Democrats were opposed to the bill.

2) And, once again, despite a LOT of computer glitches that marred the Republican rollout of Part D, it eventually started working smoothly, and provided seniors a better deal than they were getting.

Despite the spin and lies (yes, lies) from the Democrats, it became part of health care in America. Today, just the reverse is happening. What is called Obamacare is the plan originally put forward by the conservative think tank "The Heritage Foundation", and endorsed by many mainstream Republicans. Had Republicans passed this, and a Republican president signed it, the GOP wouldn't be raising such a stink over it. The Tea Partiers would probably be raising hell over it, though, but now that sensible people are taking the party back, the Tea Party is losing major support, and will be dead within a couple of years.
 
Ninety percent of the people that voted for Obama wouldn't understand a word you just wrote. They don't watch gubment on TV. That's the problem with your point. They'll vote for the "D" like they always do, because that stands for "Da free stuff!"

talk about rich irony
 
It did, but you are skirting both issues I brought up and basically talking around the 'Q'..

1) Once again I stress that NO Democrat advocated or threatened to shut down the government over it either, although the vast majority of Democrats were opposed to the bill.

2) And, once again, despite a LOT of computer glitches that marred the Republican rollout of Part D, it eventually started working smoothly, and provided seniors a better deal than they were getting.

Despite the spin and lies (yes, lies) from the Democrats, it became part of health care in America. Today, just the reverse is happening. What is called Obamacare is the plan originally put forward by the conservative think tank "The Heritage Foundation", and endorsed by many mainstream Republicans. Had Republicans passed this, and a Republican president signed it, the GOP wouldn't be raising such a stink over it. The Tea Partiers would probably be raising hell over it, though, but now that sensible people are taking the party back, the Tea Party is losing major support, and will be dead within a couple of years.

Yours is also spin... It was written by the insurance companies that intend to benefit from Obamacare... Which was virtually identical to the plan given by Romney.

When will Americans realize that they are run by an equivalent of a mafia that shares power over election cycles. And just like a mafia card game, sure they all hate each other, and every so often they kill (politically in this case) each other... But if someone outside threatens the game (tea party) they will both step up to defend the game in their own ways.

Oh and btw, the sentiment of the tea parties is growing... Tangibly. It's not about the tea party, even if / when it does it will come back in a stronger incarnation...
 
Single payer modeled after Medicare is exactly what should have happened.

Indeed. The ACA was the worst possible solution to a very real problem. Though there was lots of irony in seeing democrats so vigorously push ****ty center-right policy, just because party leadership adopted it. Not to mention, after spending the better part of two years justly vilifying the insurance industry.

This whole debaclke has been one giant eye opening exercise in blind partisanship
 
I remember when Bush rammed through his Medicare drug plan. The rollout was a disaster, and the Democrats wanted it done away with. Computer glitches made it so that senior citizens were unable to do the cost comparisons and choose the best price, and so that part of the program was delayed. In addition, some seniors were unable to get their prescriptions filled, due to computer glitches. Finally, it resulted in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the infamous donut hole. However, after some tweaking, things were much better than before the Bush plan, and seniors ended up saving a lot of money. I suspect that it will be the same here.

But there is one difference between Bush's plan and Obama's plan, and that difference sticks out like a sore thumb. Although Democrats wanted the Bush plan killed, they didn't advocate shutting down the government or defaulting on the nation's bills.
Did the democrats control the house? Was the legislation pushed off til the last minute? Did Bush stomp his feet and act like a child and refuse to talk to democrats or negotiate differences? Did Bushs Medicare reform force people onto plans they didnt want with threats of fines if they didnt comply? Oh...and then there is the fact that unlike Bush, Obama himself delayed implementation fo the business mandate because how bad IT is. So...across the board, its not exactly a valid comparison.
 
Indeed. The ACA was the worst possible solution to a very real problem. Though there was lots of irony in seeing democrats so vigorously push ****ty center-right policy, just because party leadership adopted it. Not to mention, after spending the better part of two years justly vilifying the insurance industry.

This whole debaclke has been one giant eye opening exercise in blind partisanship

I still have a hard time imagining Republicans getting behind UHC, though. Creating large government programs that favor poor people isn't really their strong suit.
 
My political leanings in this particular case is irrelevant. Just because I agree with repubs more than I agree with liberals shouldn't be a particularly surprising thing to you.

And you are correct, the "throw the bums out!" attitude could very well strike at repubs in the house and senate as well, but IMHO, this relatively minor flap is NOTHING compared to the anger that is going to steadily build this next year as the elections come up, with Obamacare being felt more and more, and failing, coupled with the arrogance of the administration that has always been there, with NO accountability for their foul ups...

Remember, it isn't just this....It's

Obamacare
Benghazi
IRS scandal
NSA spying on American's
etc.

How long can the corruption of this administration, and its useful tools out there continue to ignore these things before people just say, 'it's too much!'????

It's true that much of Obama's reputation is riding on the ACA but there's still plenty of time for things to get ironed out by January when the programs actually open.
The rest of that list are non-entities that only a handful of haters keep trying to get noticed.
How much did we put up with in the last administration? The list is endless.
As far as 2014, the Republicans have a huge hole to climb out of when 75% of the people don't want Republicans in charge of Congress.
It looks to me like we are witnessing the last gasp of conservatism and it isn't pretty.
 
Ironic that Republicans have been striving to make this happen.

Why do you think that? Insurance companies are the Dems soul mates. They both want to get paid to do nothing and it's always the other party's fault...
 
I still have a hard time imagining Republicans getting behind UHC, though. Creating large government programs that favor poor people isn't really their strong suit.

republicans weren't exactly behind the ACA, either. So I am a little lost here
 
republicans weren't exactly behind the ACA, either. So I am a little lost here

Thank you. I only just got cable and an internet connection, as well as learned English and spoke to other human beings for the first time ever yesterday, so I did not know that.

My point was that the faults that Republicans find with the current and upcoming healthcare systems would be greatly addressed by a single payer system, but Republicans are unlikely to back this. In fact, the only solution I've ever heard from them is usually along the lines of "make it harder to sue doctors."
 
Thank you. I only just got cable and an internet connection, as well as learned English and spoke to other human beings for the first time ever yesterday, so I did not know that.

I'm not the one who wrote something so stupid it required such a response

My point was that the faults that Republicans find with the current and upcoming healthcare systems would be greatly addressed by a single payer system

Obama was pretty adamant that he was against a single payer system

but Republicans are unlikely to back this

The DNC leadership isn't either. Did you even follow the healthcare debate? They pretty much used the public option as a bargaining chip that had no real teeth.

In fact, the only solution I've ever heard from them is usually along the lines of "make it harder to sue doctors."

Ok? I really don't understand your argument, but it pretty much comes off as partisan finger pointing, as opposed to a willingness to look at the failures of the DNC here. And assume you might be one of those overly reactive and partisan individuals that are arguing against my political lean, as opposed to what I wrote.
 
I'm not the one who wrote something so stupid it required such a response



Obama was pretty adamant that he was against a single payer system



The DNC leadership isn't either. Did you even follow the healthcare debate? They pretty much used the public option as a bargaining chip that had no real teeth.



Ok? I really don't understand your argument, but it pretty much comes off as partisan finger pointing, as opposed to a willingness to look at the failures of the DNC here. And assume you might be one of those overly reactive and partisan individuals that are arguing against my political lean, as opposed to what I wrote.


The Demcrats' idea, half-assed as it is, is still the only plan offered up that solves anything at all. Do the Republicans have a plan that solves more problems than anything at all, or do they just want to dismantle the PPACA, wash their hands of health care reform and pretend this was all just some bad dream? Because the significant lack of pro-UHC rhetoric is making me lean a lot more towards the latter than the former.
 
The Demcrats' idea, half-assed as it is, is still the only plan offered up that solves anything at all.


It was ****ty policy that caters to current market interests and the democratic leadership never pushed anything more comprehensive. I'm not sure why you want to ignore that and constantly shift focus to the republicans. Yeah, they had no plan besides resistence to democratic interests. SO the **** what? The DNC still got the plan THEY WERE PUSHING.

If they were pushing something more comprehensive then citing them might carry some relevancy, but it doesn't


Do the Republicans have a plan that solves more problems than anything at all


How does that change the validfity of the statement: the DNC pushed ****ty, center-right policy from the beginning and democrats vigorously supported it? FYI: it doesn't, you're litterally so lost in partisanship that you have no idea how to address that fact in any meaningful way. So you simply try to deflect, based on nothing more than the fact that I describe myself as "slightly conservative".

It would be funny, except for the fact people like you vote and make-up a majority

or do they just want to dismantle the PPACA, wash their hands of health care reform and pretend this was all just some bad dream? Because the significant lack of pro-UHC rhetoric is making me lean a lot more towards the latter than the former.

lol, which brings up the same question I asked in the beginning: how is that meaningful when the ACA was similarly targeted and the dems never came out in support for UHC? Seriously, this is hilariously sad
 
It was ****ty policy that caters to current market interests and the democratic leadership never pushed anything more comprehensive. I'm not sure why you want to ignore that and constantly shift focus to the republicans. Yeah, they had no plan besides resistence to democratic interests. SO the **** what? The DNC still got the plan THEY WERE PUSHING.

If they were pushing something more comprehensive then citing them might carry some relevancy, but it doesn't




How does that change the validfity of the statement: the DNC pushed ****ty, center-right policy from the beginning and democrats vigorously supported it? FYI: it doesn't, you're litterally so lost in partisanship that you have no idea how to address that fact in any meaningful way. So you simply try to deflect, based on nothing more than the fact that I describe myself as "slightly conservative".

It would be funny, except for the fact people like you vote and make-up a majority



lol, which brings up the same question I asked in the beginning: how is that meaningful when the ACA was similarly targeted and the dems never came out in support for UHC? Seriously, this is hilariously sad

I can promise you that if Republicans had proposed UHC as an alternative to the PPACA people would be lining up around the block to support them. So what do you suppose the odds are of that happening? If the odds are low, why is that?

The question is not, why did the Democrats fight for a bill that only solved a small handful of problems, but why didn't the Republicans fight for something better? Before you accuse me of passing the buck again, keep in mind that I'm already unhappy with the PPACA, but like it or not it is better than what was before, and the Republicans have offered nothing better for me to flock to.
 
I can promise you that if Republicans had proposed UHC as an alternative to the PPACA people would be lining up around the block to support them. So what do you suppose the odds are of that happening? If the odds are low, why is that?

LOL~!!! What part of this are you having the most trouble with? Is it A) that I'm not a republican supporter B) That I am very open about the fact republicans lacked anything even resembling a viable health plan C) That such is irrelevant to the points we are discussing, due to the fact the democrats never had an interest in pushing UHC and that THEY GOT THE PLAN THEY WERE PUSHING?

You should be honestly ashamed of the fact that you can't even manage discussing the topic


The question is not, why did the Democrats fight for a bill that only solved a small handful of problems, but why didn't the Republicans fight for something better?

So your argument is that the dems should only fight for policy that is better than what the republicans are pushing, and not actual meaningful reforms that work? See, that is the problem, becayuse that outlines a mentality of putting party interest before those of the country


Before you accuse me of passing the buck again

I keep accusing you of passing the buck because you keep passing the buck


keep in mind that I'm already unhappy with the PPACA, but like it or not it is better than what was before, and the Republicans have offered nothing better for me to flock to.

1) No, if you were actually unhappy with it you would push for something better, as opposed to agreeing with it out of party interests. 2) actually supporting effective policy, regardless of political affiliation, requires something akin to independent thought. A skill you seem wholly incapable of at this point
 
I remember when Bush rammed through his Medicare drug plan. The rollout was a disaster, and the Democrats wanted it done away with. Computer glitches made it so that senior citizens were unable to do the cost comparisons and choose the best price, and so that part of the program was delayed. In addition, some seniors were unable to get their prescriptions filled, due to computer glitches. Finally, it resulted in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the infamous donut hole. However, after some tweaking, things were much better than before the Bush plan, and seniors ended up saving a lot of money. I suspect that it will be the same here.

But there is one difference between Bush's plan and Obama's plan, and that difference sticks out like a sore thumb. Although Democrats wanted the Bush plan killed, they didn't advocate shutting down the government or defaulting on the nation's bills.

When dealing with dishonest bullies, sometimes you have to punch them right in the nose....But, no one would have defaulted anything...Once again you adopt the language of the far left moonbats...Not surprising.
 
I can promise you that if Republicans had proposed UHC as an alternative to the PPACA people would be lining up around the block to support them. So what do you suppose the odds are of that happening? If the odds are low, why is that?

The question is not, why did the Democrats fight for a bill that only solved a small handful of problems, but why didn't the Republicans fight for something better? Before you accuse me of passing the buck again, keep in mind that I'm already unhappy with the PPACA, but like it or not it is better than what was before, and the Republicans have offered nothing better for me to flock to.

So, republicans have to become liberals to be supported? So, you are in favor of a one party system....Well, McCain, and Graham are good starts, but hint for ya....Graham may not be there for long.....heh, heh....
 
...In fact, the only solution I've ever heard from them is usually along the lines of "make it harder to sue doctors."

...[/I]Do the Republicans have a plan ...

...and the Republicans have offered nothing better for me to flock to.

Actually they have ('better' is certainly questionable), perhaps you just weren't listening...GWB in 2007 advanced a plan to address these SAME issues in a different way:
Bush's health plan: Who will pay less, who will pay more - Jan. 23, 2007
Here's several other RECENT GOP plans:
Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes

And the common theme from Nancy/Democrats was 'dead on arrival'...sound familiar?
 
Then why is there such a big business for Medicare supplemental insurance?

I don't understand why the fact that there's supplemental insurance available is somehow perceived by you as an indictment against Medicare. ??
 
Then why is there such a big business for Medicare supplemental insurance?

The two are completely compatible. People get the insurance they want and can afford.
 
I don't understand why the fact that there's supplemental insurance available is somehow perceived by you as an indictment against Medicare. ??

If, as you suggested, we should model a UHC plan off of Medicare, you first need to explain why Medicare is a good option. Specifically, if its that good, then why do people buy more insurance when they already have insurance?
 
Back
Top Bottom