• 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!

Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263:617]

re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
Translation: You don't know, you accused me of lying, and now you're caught running away from the fail. Thank you for reiterating why I ignore your posts.
Click to expand...

Don't ignore his posts. They're too good to miss. I enjoy them. I constantly catch him making things up and all other sorts of malfeasants.

Last week he posted a link to something that he said backs up his claim that MA has the 22nd highest cost of healthcare in the country. That he posted in response to me saying MA had the highest cost of any state in the country. I opened his link, saw that it was exactly as I said it was, and then went to post on his post, and it was gone. Poof. When I asked him about it, he said he removed the post because he read it wrong, says he didn't want anyone to respond to it, then tried to say he "admits" when he's wrong. Poor fellow doesn't understand that deleting a post isn't an admission of anything - it's an attempt to save face. Too bad for him I caught him in the act.

My first experience with him was catching him declaring that NH was "decidedly right wing and has been for years". I had to educate the poor guy on the truth. That, coupled with me busting him on his hypocrisy on the use of Politifact, all make him one of my favorite posters to trip up. He makes it so easy.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
Translation: You don't know, you accused me of lying, and now you're caught running away from the fail. Thank you for reiterating why I ignore your posts.
Click to expand...

You lied

Ockham said:
Probably. The ACA was predicated on three primary things: 1.) Covering 48 million uninsured 2.) Reducing the cost of health insurance 3.) The individual mandate
Minor selling points were: Creation of jobs, reduction in family cost for insurance, no refusal for pre-existing conditions

If 48 million needed insurance, a plan to cover them should have been put together and funded. Instead, the ACA created a plan where those who didn't need health insurance and who primarily wouldn't use it much or at all, would pay for those who did need it.
Click to expand...

Ockham said:
No where have I stated 100% was the expected coverage. You assume that - however, enough people have to sign up and pay, to cover those who do not or cannot pay. Do you deny this was how the ACA was financially structured?
Click to expand...
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
Like your "fact" that he thinks there's only 12 states, right? :roll:
Click to expand...

Yes, sangha, the word "maybe" means "fact". Or does it?

You may want to take a break. Is your face red?
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
I never said anyone has been cancelled for non-payment.
Click to expand...

No, you never said anything about people being cancelled for non-payment :roll:
tres borrachos said:
Except of course the dozens of millions who remain uninsured, the ones whose policies they bought on the Exchange get cancelled because they can't afford or don't pay the premiums, and the ones who can't afford the out of pocket expenses they have to pony up.
Click to expand...
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
Those who have to pay up to $12,700 out of pocket expenses don't get those expenses paid for them.
Click to expand...

Those who pay that much probably have a family. Anyone who chooses to have kids should be able to afford them, right?
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
No, you never said anything about people being cancelled for non-payment :roll:
Click to expand...

Hi sangha.

"Get cancelled" indicates something that happens in the future.

"Got cancelled" means it's already happened.

Please give me the name of your 2nd grade teacher. She did a very poor job of teaching you and needs to be reported to the school board.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Moot said:
Those who pay that much probably have a family. Anyone who chooses to have kids should be able to afford them, right?
Click to expand...

It isn't my limit. It's the ACA's limit.

But for most people, it's a lot of money.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
Hi sangha.

"Get cancelled" indicates something that happens in the future.

"Got cancelled" means it's already happened.
Click to expand...

As I stated, you'll reject #"s that have data to back them up because they're "partisan", but your "hypothesizing" about things that have absolutely nothing to back them up is fine.

How is it partisan to use the data that 12 states have reported and how is it not partisan to "hypothesize" with no data?

tres borrachos said:
It isn't my limit. It's the ACA's limit.

But for most people, it's a lot of money.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer her question:
Anyone who chooses to have kids should be able to afford them, right?
Click to expand...

BTW, what was the OOP maximum before ACA?
 
Last edited:
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
As I stated, you'll reject #"s that have data to back them up because they're "partisan", but your "hypothesizing" about things that have absolutely nothing to back them up is fine.

How is it partisan to use the data that 12 states have reported and how is it not partisan to "hypothesize" with no data?
Click to expand...

Hi again sangha,

It's "you're" hypothesizing, and not "your".

The guy who made that site is partisan.

I hope you're having a great Friday!
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
Hi again sangha,

It's "you're" hypothesizing, and not "your".

The guy who made that site is partisan.

I hope you're having a great Friday!
Click to expand...

Umm, no. "your hypothesizing" is grammatically correct

So are you going to explain how your hypothesizing is not partisan, or should we just dismiss it the way you dismiss anything you perceive as partisan?
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
Umm, no. "your hypothesizing" is grammatically correct

So are you going to explain how your hypothesizing is not partisan, or should we just dismiss it the way you dismiss anything you perceive as partisan?
Click to expand...

Hi again sangha,

You are really fascinated by my every word, aren't you? I already told you I was married. I won't go out with you.

Yes, I dismiss everything I see as partisan. From either side. And yes, that guy is a staffer with The Daily Kos, so no, his site isn't any more credible than Sean Hannity's or Breitbart.

Have we covered this yet, or are you going to continue to beg for my attention? I can only indulge you for another hour or so. My husband and kids come home soon and I haven't seen them in a few days.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
Hi again sangha,

You are really fascinated by my every word, aren't you? I already told you I was married. I won't go out with you.

Yes, I dismiss everything I see as partisan. From either side.
Click to expand...

Including your own opinions?
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
Including your own opinions?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll keep giving you my attention, since you want it so badly.

I have my opinions, as do you.

I don't read partisan sites, I don't believe partisan sites. I do watch MSNBC because I enjoy laughing at Al Sharpton and Mika the Bouncer.

I don't link to partisan sites when I am trying to make a point on here.

Are we done, or will you feel incomplete if I don't keep paying attention to you?

By the way, you're derailing the thread. It's about the ACA signups, not about me.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
Okay, I'll keep giving you my attention, since you want it so badly.

I have my opinions, as do you.

I don't read partisan sites, I don't believe partisan sites. I do watch MSNBC because I enjoy laughing at Al Sharpton and Mika the Bouncer.

I don't link to partisan sites when I am trying to make a point on here.

Are we done, or will you feel incomplete if I don't keep paying attention to you?

By the way, you're derailing the thread. It's about the ACA signups, not about me.
Click to expand...

Do you dismiss your own opinions as being biased?
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
You lied
Click to expand...

And yet you still fail at showing everyone what the real number is. The lie is all on you. Back to the cellar with ya. :2wave:
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
And yet you still fail at showing everyone what the real number is. The lie is all on you. Back to the cellar with ya. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I made no claim about the #. You however, made a claim about how ACA was supposed to cover 48 million uninsured, and then denied saying that.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
You want yet MORE bad ideas from politicians? Not me... less the better.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we have no other way to change healthcare, except by free markets and that hasn't been working well for average people.


The ACA affected every citizen of the U.S., there were 2000+ pages of requirements in the law, for hospitals, insurance providers.... you were unaware of this?
Click to expand...

If you make a few adjustments to something as complicated as the medical insurance system, they'll do end runs around it. The ACA is far from the plan it still needs to be. All I see are Republican obstructionists and doom sayers for purely political reasons.


They wanted to amend the bill before it passed yes - amending a bill is easier than amending a law. You can't be new to the political process at the federal level so I must assume your post is either obtuse or just kidding.
Click to expand...

Why is amending a bill easier? It's almost impossible to foresee all the problems that might occur with a large bill. I seriously think the conservatives would rather see the system collapse than have the ACA be a success and help people.

If Obamacare is so bad, you should be ecstatic for the Republican party, if that's who you support? They'll sweep the House, Senate and Presidency, when people see how bad the Dems have treated them.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

grip said:
Unfortunately, we have no other way to change healthcare, except by free markets and that hasn't been working well for average people.




If you make a few adjustments to something as complicated as the medical insurance system, they'll do end runs around it. The ACA is far from the plan it still needs to be. All I see are Republican obstructionists and doom sayers for purely political reasons.




Why is amending a bill easier? It's almost impossible to foresee all the problems that might occur with a large bill. I seriously think the conservatives would rather see the system collapse than have the ACA be a success and help people.

If Obamacare is so bad, you should be ecstatic for the Republican party, if that's who you support? They'll sweep the House, Senate and Presidency, when people see how bad the Dems have treated them.
Click to expand...

I'm a conservative and I'd love to see people get helped. But all people, not just the poor. Healthcare costs are way too high for most of us and it's eating up a substantial portions of our incomes. This bill didn't fix that problem.

The GOP isn't going to sweep anything. They will retain control of the House and probably pick up a few seats in the Senate. POTUS is too far away to consider.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

tres borrachos said:
I'm a conservative and I'd love to see people get helped. But all people, not just the poor. Healthcare costs are way too high for most of us and it's eating up a substantial portions of our incomes. This bill didn't fix that problem.

The GOP isn't going to sweep anything. They will retain control of the House and probably pick up a few seats in the Senate. POTUS is too far away to consider.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that there are provisions that are not fair to those who make more. And I don't agree with it but the less fortunate, literally, can't pay more. It's not just healthcare that's too high, it's the insurance paid for coverage. This bill addressed certain aspects of insurance companies denying preexisting conditions, capping limits and dropping coverage, so it's not all bad.

I seriously don't think it matters if the GOP or Dems control the gov, because it's the same bunch of malfunctioning idealism and bureaucracy.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

sangha said:
1) They're not available

2) No, that's not true because the #'s in the chart are not all "as of" now. And I don't know where or how you came up with 5.1 million
Click to expand...

So your argument is that we shouldn't take your evidence as evidence because it is incomplete and not representative of what you wanted to represent?

Glad we had this talk.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

grip said:
Unfortunately, we have no other way to change healthcare, except by free markets and that hasn't been working well for average people.
Click to expand...
Yet, suggestions like HSA's, removing barriers to buying insurance across state lines would help free markets and those suggestions were available by Republicans before the bill was passed by only Democrats in the House and Senate. I'm not so sure there are no other options available to us and that we've tried absolutely everything.

grip said:
If you make a few adjustments to something as complicated as the medical insurance system, they'll do end runs around it.
Click to expand...
That's an assumption. It's too bad they didn't at least try before passing it.

grip said:
The ACA is far from the plan it still needs to be. All I see are Republican obstructionists and doom sayers for purely political reasons.
Click to expand...
Economic and practical reasons as well. Changing an entire industry making up 1/6 of the economy should have been done together. The obstructionists were Democrats who didn't let Republicans even discuss the bill initially. Once the financials and economics of this failed plan becomes apparent, I'm sure those who defend it will continue to do so for purely political reasons as well

grip said:
Why is amending a bill easier? It's almost impossible to foresee all the problems that might occur with a large bill. I seriously think the conservatives would rather see the system collapse than have the ACA be a success and help people.
Click to expand...
First because it is not yet law, second because ideas and methods are still fluid and third because it's done via committee. Once the law is passed, the only way to change the law is to amend the law which always takes another vote. Changes before the bill is passed to law doesn't require House and Senate votes.

grip said:
If Obamacare is so bad, you should be ecstatic for the Republican party, if that's who you support? They'll sweep the House, Senate and Presidency, when people see how bad the Dems have treated them.
Click to expand...

It is bad, and yes it's going to help Republicans politically but I'm not running for office, I don't benefit at all by this law but I see a country who was lied to multiple times about multiple things while government gets bigger. I'm not in support of that.
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
Yet, suggestions like HSA's, removing barriers to buying insurance across state lines would help free markets and those suggestions were available by Republicans before the bill was passed by only Democrats in the House and Senate. I'm not so sure there are no other options available to us and that we've tried absolutely everything.
Click to expand...

selling across state lines has its skeptics.

The Debate Over Selling Insurance Across State Lines - Kaiser Health News

Why is there skepticism about the concept?

"It always sounds appealing to offer more choice," said Kenneth Thorpe, an Emory University health policy expert and a health official in the Clinton administration. "But if you do look at it more closely, it does raise issues of regulation."

If insurers can sell beyond state lines, the concern is that consumers would be attracted to the least comprehensive policies because they'd be cheapest. For example, someone could buy a policy in a state that doesn't mandate coverage of diabetic supplies. "You get what you pay for in these policies (and) consumers won't realize it until they are sick and it's too late," said Jerry Flanagan, health care policy analyst for Consumer Watchdog, a California consumer health group.

There are also fears that consumers dealing with out-of-state companies would have difficulties resolving disputes, and that insurers selling across state lines would market policies to younger, healthier individuals. Older and sicker individuals would face ever-rising rates - or face being turned down - because their insurers would have fewer healthy people to spread risk. And, since health costs vary geographically, insurance purchased in one state might not cover as much of the cost of care in a more expensive state.

Finally, critics say that selling insurance across state lines might not save much money, and point to a 2005 CBO report that says: "if only those benefit mandates imposed by the states with the lowest-cost mandates were in effect in all states, the price of individual health insurance would be reduced by about 5 percent, on average."
Click to expand...
 
re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Ockham said:
Yet, suggestions like HSA's, removing barriers to buying insurance across state lines would help free markets and those suggestions were available by Republicans before the bill was passed by only Democrats in the House and Senate. I'm not so sure there are no other options available to us and that we've tried absolutely everything.

That's an assumption. It's too bad they didn't at least try before passing it.

Economic and practical reasons as well. Changing an entire industry making up 1/6 of the economy should have been done together. The obstructionists were Democrats who didn't let Republicans even discuss the bill initially. Once the financials and economics of this failed plan becomes apparent, I'm sure those who defend it will continue to do so for purely political reasons as well

First because it is not yet law, second because ideas and methods are still fluid and third because it's done via committee. Once the law is passed, the only way to change the law is to amend the law which always takes another vote. Changes before the bill is passed to law doesn't require House and Senate votes.



It is bad, and yes it's going to help Republicans politically but I'm not running for office, I don't benefit at all by this law but I see a country who was lied to multiple times about multiple things while government gets bigger. I'm not in support of that.
Click to expand...

I'll admit the Dems didn't discuss some suggested options that were potentially beneficial. They're not above partisan crappery. But just because the Dems were obstructionists doesn't justify the GOP for doing it.

I bet the Republicans better hope it's a flop, the way they've continually damned it. I'll use Fox News as my gauge of how poorly it's doing, since they rail day and night about it, but if they suddenly drop coverage....oooops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom