• 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!

U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

We already had the free market system, and it did not work at all. Insurance companies dropped people when they got sick, people with pre-existing conditions could not obtain insurance, and plenty of junk insurance was available, in which people paid monthly for the privilege of not being covered if they had a catastrophic illness. So I say no to the free market system. It had it's chance, and it blew it.

I also say no to single payer, because that is going too far.

What would be the ideal health care system? Honestly, I don't know, but if we are to be a civilized society, and not a bunch of savages, then we certainly need something.

Healthcare, health insurance are highly regulated, we did NOT have the free market. Policies could not be purchased across state lines, etc.
 
No, the 70's was when the heavy regulation began. The free market was working just fine before. Costs were contained, pharmaceuticals and Dr's offices were competitive for business, and a room fee in the hospital was about 100 dollars per day.

You are dead wrong. Insurance company deregulation was part of the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal protections. In 1999, as a result of Gramm-Bliley, 13 states deregulated their insurance industry, and it picked up steam from there. Here is an article, written in 2000, from the perspective of those who favored deregulaton.
 
You are dead wrong. Insurance company deregulation was part of the Gramm-Bliley Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagal protections. In 1999, as a result of Gramm-Bliley, 13 states deregulated their insurance industry, and it picked up steam from there. Here is an article, written in 2000, from the perspective of those who favored deregulaton.

No, the rates started rising in the 70's, with mandates that health insurance would be comprehensive, and cover meds and office visits. Those requirements never dropped, except in rare cases of temporary policies issued.
 
Well for starters;
The Heritage plan does not assume Student Loans
The Heritage plan does not mandate specified minimal coverage
The Heritage plan does not force your existing policy to cancel because it doesnt meet government standards.
The Heritage plan does not call for the hiring of 15,000 new IRS agents
The Heritage plan does not give the HHS unheralded, unabated powers.
The Heritage plan does not create a national data base of your personal medical information.

should I go on?

Romneycare wouldn't even have been a good comparison because even it isnt as overbearing and intrusive as the ACA.

Thank you for reminding us that burgundy is not scarlet.
 
So this is the sole dichotomy that exists under the current scenario? God forbid people actually pay for their own recreation which is actually quite cheap.

Look I don't agree with it being in the mandate, but it really is in the best interest of the insurance agencies ECONOMICALLY to allow birth control to be covered. Again, I have to restate because some will not bother to read, I am not for it being mandatory, but ECONOMICALLY it is better for birth control to be covered. What costs more, Birth control pills or kids to be covered under the insurance for the next 26 years? I would think even the Vatican can do math.
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.

Obamacare is just corporate giveaway. Presents for the insurance companies, forced full consumerism.
 
Obamacare is just corporate giveaway. Presents for the insurance companies, forced full consumerism.

Most laws are. If it isn't for the corporate giveaway it is for the government giveaway. What would happen if there was no more DEA, lots of Americans out of work. The government doesn't want that so the drug war continues. So does many social programs in the form that it is in now.
 
I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation.

I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.
 
I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.

your posts demonstrate the forest/trees phenomenon
the heritage foundation/conservative think tanks espoused a system based on mandated insurance coverage, rather than a single payer system as used by other industrialized nations
the connection is obvious to anyone who chooses to see it
 
Do you consider abortion to be murder? Because then a lot.

.

Is abortion considered 'birth control?' I thought birth control prevented pregnancy. Could just be semantics.

And abortion is a procedure. There are a couple of bc methods that require minor procedures to insert them but those would be out of necessity because other methods didnt work for that woman and the doctor would prescribe it.

Besides, the LAST thing I want discouraged is vasectomies.
 
On the birth control issue, sounds like it's the individual physician's fault. If a drug is necessary to treat an illness and it's the same drug that is also used for birth control (as in The Pill), only an idiot doctor, or one who doesn't like you, will prescribe it as birth control.
 
Might I add that Romneycare was intended for liberal massachusetts. In that specific context, it would have been more acceptable. But a top down, one size fits all program is destined to upset a lot of people.

Exactly. The People of Mass. wanted to have a HC system and they got what they wanted.

To add upon what you did say....Its a state by state issue NOT a Federal issue. Thats where I have the biggest issue with Obamacare.
 
We haven't had a free market since at least the 70's. Health insurance worked just fine before that (when it was actual insurance), and it wasn't breaking families financially.

So what changed?
 
your posts demonstrate the forest/trees phenomenon

No, my post demonstrates the "Responding to what people actually say" phenomenon. you should try it sometimes.

Dana did not claim that the Mandate was concieved by Heritage (Which is also a questionable comment in and of itself, since they weren't hte first to suggest such).

He claimed THE LAW, ie the entiretity of ACA, was "concieved" by Heritage. This isn't just false, it's absurd to a staggering degree.

If he meant something else he should've said something else. You shuffling in to try and clean up the mess and failing to actually respond to any of the legitimate, factual, accurate points I made doesn't magically change that.
 
Health insurance worked just fine before that(when it was actual insurance), and it wasn't breaking families financially.

Historically, the free market system has been based on upfront payment. Meaning, no money, no doctor. If that is the standard for fine, okay - let's go back to pre-1960s. See how many people can afford treatment at the exorbitant prices demanded by doctors which have historically been a luxury of the rich.
 
No, my post demonstrates the "Responding to what people actually say" phenomenon. you should try it sometimes.

Dana did not claim that the Mandate was concieved by Heritage (Which is also a questionable comment in and of itself, since they weren't hte first to suggest such).

He claimed THE LAW, ie the entiretity of ACA, was "concieved" by Heritage. This isn't just false, it's absurd to a staggering degree.

If he meant something else he should've said something else. You shuffling in to try and clean up the mess and failing to actually respond to any of the legitimate, factual, accurate points I made doesn't magically change that.

you want to quibble about the differences
yep, there are differences between the ACA and what heritage/conservative think tanks proposed
but as was presented in my earlier post, the basic outline of Obamacare was extracted from the heritage foundation proposals
there is no legitimate argument to indicate otherwise
 
I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.

How else can something supported by (all?) demorats and no republicants be blamed on someone else?
 
you want to quibble about the differences

No, I want to accurately and factually point out that the VAST MAJORITY of the PPACA is wholey different than what Heritage suggested.

There was one significant similarlity in regards to a mandate. Now you're correct, I could quibble about the differences between their mandate and the ACA's mandate....but I specifically stated in multiple posts that even ignoring those quibbles and accepting the mandate being the same in both....they're still MASSIVELY different in their entirety. And Dana did not state anything about the "mandate", he stated The law which is all encompassing.

Quibbling about the mandates being different is like Vanilla Ice trying to say he put an extra "Da" in the hook in "Ice Ice Baby"

Stating that the ACA as an entire law was "conceived" by the Heritage Foundation is like suggesting David Bowie created "Ice Ice Baby" (Word to your mother).

Again, you keep wanting to create a move the goal posts because you're pissy that I'm actually FACTUALLY and ACCURATELY countering what the poster actually said instead of what you WANT the conversation to be about. You stomping your feet, refusing to put forward an argument of any kind, and desperately trying to change the topic isn't magically going to change it. Temper Tantrums don't tend to be successful debate tactics, so move on to a new one.
 
you want to quibble about the differences
yep, there are differences between the ACA and what heritage/conservative think tanks proposed
but as was presented in my earlier post, the basic outline of Obamacare was extracted from the heritage foundation proposals
there is no legitimate argument to indicate otherwise
Unless the people (we all know who they are) who actually crafted the ACA are actually going to credit the same to a wholly dissimilar twenty year plus old proposal by the Heritage Foundation that was rejected by republicans, there is no legitimate argument otherwise. Period. Of course internet nutters and boobs will continue to try to spin otherwise. But then that is why the only place that kind of lunacy has any traction is on the internet. From nutters and boobs who are not wise enough to care about inconvenient facts that make them look like utter booobs. I guess becasue just ignoring inconvenient facts that debunk them makes the nutters and boobs on the internet think it all makes them look sharp and really thoughtful.:doh
 
Last edited:
No, I want to accurately and factually point out that the VAST MAJORITY of the PPACA is wholey different than what Heritage suggested.

There was one significant similarlity in regards to a mandate. Now you're correct, I could quibble about the differences between their mandate and the ACA's mandate....but I specifically stated in multiple posts that even ignoring those quibbles and accepting the mandate being the same in both....they're still MASSIVELY different in their entirety. And Dana did not state anything about the "mandate", he stated The law which is all encompassing.

Quibbling about the mandates being different is like Vanilla Ice trying to say he put an extra "Da" in the hook in "Ice Ice Baby"

Stating that the ACA as an entire law was "conceived" by the Heritage Foundation is like suggesting David Bowie created "Ice Ice Baby" (Word to your mother).

Again, you keep wanting to create a move the goal posts because you're pissy that I'm actually FACTUALLY and ACCURATELY countering what the poster actually said instead of what you WANT the conversation to be about. You stomping your feet, refusing to put forward an argument of any kind, and desperately trying to change the topic isn't magically going to change it. Temper Tantrums don't tend to be successful debate tactics, so move on to a new one.

besides the mandate being extracted from heritage's proposal was also the expectation that insurers be involved rather than the single payer program used in other industrialized nations
those are the fundamentals of the Obamacare program
ACA expanded upon and improved what the heritage foundation had earlier proposed
no need to get all defensive when it is pointed out that something you posted was in error
you do both quite a bit
 
The sad part about the whole ACA is once again the court did not protect the people from government. it handed the government a massive power grab is what it did.
now as long as the government can come up with a tax they can force you to buy or subscribe to whatever service or product they want you to with that ruling.

the ACA is just a tip of the iceberg. without that ruling there is no way that they get pass a single payer system now they can.

I am against any form of government run health plan or government involvment in peoples health.
government has proven that it cannot operate efficiently.

as i said i am for an all cash system with the only real insurance is catastrophic coverage. even then that is not needed. this system works very well in other places.
 
Historically, the free market system has been based on upfront payment. Meaning, no money, no doctor. If that is the standard for fine, okay - let's go back to pre-1960s. See how many people can afford treatment at the exorbitant prices demanded by doctors which have historically been a luxury of the rich.

Well now, pre-1960s doctors in my hometown took in chickens, livestock, gold and local geodes as payment. The doctor who delivered me, my Dad painted his house.
 
Well now, pre-1960s doctors in my hometown took in chickens, livestock, gold and local geodes as payment. The doctor who delivered me, my Dad painted his house.

Yeah, that system still would have made healthcare unaffordable to most people in the 1950s as the majority of the population had already moved into cities. Actually, your argument assumes that the way people exchanged services 200 years ago (I honestly doubt your story from pre-1960s) would work today. Failing to consider 1) the modern cost of a doctor and 2) medical advances. Do you think doctors today would perform a double by-pass for an iPod? What about a stereo? What about a car? What would a doctor perform these services for? You can't even go to the dentist without spending a minimum of $50. What would a dentist perform his services for? Laptops? Maybe some bras from Victoria's Secret?
 
Last edited:
besides the mandate being extracted from heritage's proposal was also the expectation that insurers be involved rather than the single payer program used in other industrialized nations
those are the fundamentals of the Obamacare program
ACA expanded upon and improved what the heritage foundation had earlier proposed
no need to get all defensive when it is pointed out that something you posted was in error
you do both quite a bit
And wallah, rather than admit that you are regurgitating an already debunked talking point that originated with a well known that strives to compete with Rush Limbaugh for hyperbolic sophistry, you just cling to the ridiculous claim like a lost sailor to a life raft in a sea storm. We already know who at Heritage authored the proposal that contained the idea that shared one thing with the ACA, a individual mandate, was. And we also know that the republican party rejected the proposed plan. So of course here you and others are, on the internet arguing the ACA was authored by the republican party and proving there is no fact that nutters and boobs can't dismiss and ignore as they repeat bunkum that already failed to pass the sniff test of more thoughtful and honest people in the real world.

Seriously, let's say that the ACA was literally and wholly crafted and created by the republican party twenty something years ago, via a dupe they convinced to take credit for it at Heritage. Why and how would this assist the democrats that passed the ACA today? The pundit that dreamed this all up never really thought much further along the path of excuse making as to what this was all supposed to mean or accomplish per se. So why not tell us what you think it is? So far at DP all we have seen is volunteer after volunteer regurgitate the ridiculous talking point, without thought for what it was supposed to accomplish in the end. Aside from the obviously trite, it (ACA) is the republicans fault not the democrats. So This should be pretty good. Or more likely, crickets.;)
 
Back
Top Bottom