• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

Specifically, HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said she projects around 9.1 million people will be enrolled in plans sold through the ACA's exchanges by the end of 2015 (Morgan, Reuters, 11/10).
Why the HHS Projection Is Lower Than CBO's
According to the Times, the administration's enrollment estimate could be part of federal officials' attempts to curb expectations about enrollment. Further, officials could recognize it might be difficult to enroll many individuals who remain uninsured while also working to re-enroll those who purchased ACA coverage last year (New York Times, 11/10).

HHS' 2015 ACA Enrollment Estimate Lower Than CBO's Projection - California Healthline

Fascinating. But not what we were discussing. You missed this in the article I was nice enough to post for you:

There are currently 7.1 million Americans enrolled in private health plans through the new state-based marketplaces, and HHS expects about 83 percent of those people to re-enroll when open enrollment begins this Saturday. The rest of the 9.1 million enrollees would be new customers.

and then this:

However, she pointed out that should enrollment reach 9.9 million, that would be a 28 percent increase in the marketplace.

Now stop boring me with your posts begging for me to educate you.
 
No, you miss the point, healthcare is a personal responsibility issue that is a state problem not a federal one. You do not pay for the uninsured in TX, I do. Just like with the minimum wage, liberals/progressives social engineer because it makes them feel good. States have the right to raise the minimum wage and many have so why is this a federal issue? The one size fits all Federal Programs are always failures but the rhetoric sounds good.

I have a BC/BS plan. I pretty much subsidize people everywhere (well, the pool does. It isn't like I feel like I am personally subsidizing every person who is insured with them)
 
I live here and sometimes I don't even understand it.

It is one of those things. Our government has left us behind for the money given by corporate interest, and greed. Their only concern is re election. We seriously need to get corporate money out of the election process and end their influence on what the American people want. Our history is based on freedom, not corporate greed.

All I can say is people outside the US do not really understand the American culture or were we come from. They don't understand why we hold our freedom so dear, built on the blood of patriots, not government.

I am a little ****ed up, but this does not change why we love our freedoms and those who would sell it to the highest bidder need to be shot as traitors.
 
Fascinating. But not what we were discussing. You missed this in the article I was nice enough to post for you:

There are currently 7.1 million Americans enrolled in private health plans through the new state-based marketplaces, and HHS expects about 83 percent of those people to re-enroll when open enrollment begins this Saturday. The rest of the 9.1 million enrollees would be new customers.

and then this:

However, she pointed out that should enrollment reach 9.9 million, that would be a 28 percent increase in the marketplace.

Now stop boring me with your posts begging for me to educate you.
What I was discussing, was that enrollment has increased and is projected to continue to increase....countering MMC's claim that it is not.

You are context free as per usual.

Now is when you make some infantile comment about how gay I am.
 
Right up until you have states that say screw it, we're not doing it. While the way we're doing it now simply isn't working, I don't think that turning it over to the states is a panacea either. Who cares who collects and distributes your taxes, the money is still going away?

Look, if you cannot sell your state on a program that is effective and efficient, how do you expect the Federal Govt. to do it? Further state expenses are different and a one size fits all doesn't work and always costs more than intended. Let the states and local government's who are responsible to the people do what the people wants. As I have stated healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal Govt. Responsibility. You don't pay for my states uninsured nor I pay for yours. That is the way it should be
 
What I was discussing, was that enrollment has increased and is projected to continue to increase....countering MMC's claim that it is not.

You are context free as per usual.

Now is when you make some infantile comment about how gay I am.

Good grief. Your troll posts are boring.
 
The government doesn't pay out for medicaid either, which is a huge problem and why a lot of doctors are simply refusing to take medicare and medicaid patients. The government doesn't pay. Why should we think they're going to pay for Obamacare either?

Wrong, the Federal Govt. does pay for Medicare and Medicaid but indeed doctors are opting out but that doesn't change the fact that those are the only two programs where our Federal Dollars go
 
There are plenty more like him and it's just not understandable. Pride and anger don't appear to be factors. It's just business as usual.

Liberals define truth according to their ideology.

That is truth is always in flux.

They aren't beholden to it and have no problem manipulating the facts to make their policies and or arguments seem more credible than they are.

They ACA architect that called American voters idiots is a good example.

Lying to 300 Million people was justified because they are first and foremost, " idiots " and second, don't know a good piece of legislation when they see it

He's a coward POS, surrounded with like minded ideologues I'm sure.
 
FFS!!!

If you are talking about the ACA....you are not talking about UNINSURED. If they have an ACA policy....THEY ARE INSURED.

Good grief.

Again we are talking about who pays for it, the Federal or state taxpayers? Under ACA the Federal Tax dollars are controlled by a bureaucrat in DC whereas with state programs the state govt. closer to the people control the dollars. You have yet to explain why this is a federal program and why ACA? Why not Romneycare if the state electorate supports it?
 
Good grief. Your troll posts are boring.
Ah, from being "gay" to being a "troll".....and you still can't bring yourself to even begin to fathom the context of the argument.

Further, so many of the projections were based on states cooperating with federal enrollment. If the states decide to hinder or outright block enrollment of the purchase of insurance by those seeking it, is the administration responsible for that?
 
What really is stupid is the liberal rhetoric that this is a federal program vs an individual and state responsibility. Just like minimum wage, states handle their own issues and that is where healthcare belongs. Rhetoric trumps reality in the liberal world and you prove it every day. You do not pay for the uninsured in TX, I do

Then states should step up and handle it. If they don't, as we've seen, the federal government will. And precedence has been set on that.
 
Again we are talking about who pays for it, the Federal or state taxpayers? Under ACA the Federal Tax dollars are controlled by a bureaucrat in DC whereas with state programs the state govt. closer to the people control the dollars. You have yet to explain why this is a federal program and why ACA? Why not Romneycare if the state electorate supports it?
You specifically said:

"You do not pay for the uninsured in TX, I do"

If the topic is THE UNINSURED, you do not fully pay for their care, fed dollars are contributed.

If we leave it up to states, they will have high levels of uninsured children.....like in Texas.

"Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. ... And there are more uninsured children in Texas than in any other state."
— Kathleen Sebelius on Sunday, December 15th, 2013 in an opinion column

Texas has highest uninsured rate and most uninsured children in country | PolitiFact Texas
 
"We" is the state and local governments along with the individual. This isn't a Federal problem even though everything is a federal problem in the liberal world

No, we are the citizens of the community, the city, the state and the country. And Texas above all shows us how bad a state can be. Want to go over their rankings again?
 
It is one of those things. Our government has left us behind for the money given by corporate interest, and greed. Their only concern is re election. We seriously need to get corporate money out of the election process and end their influence on what the American people want. Our history is based on freedom, not corporate greed.

All I can say is people outside the US do not really understand the American culture or were we come from. They don't understand why we hold our freedom so dear, built on the blood of patriots, not government.

I am a little ****ed up, but this does not change why we love our freedoms and those who would sell it to the highest bidder need to be shot as traitors.

The Democrats have had a monopoly on organized funding for Politicians for decades. Thats unfortunately part of our History. .

Now, the Unions have some competition, and everyone and their brother is screaming to get money out of politics.

It was never a issue before Citizens United, even though it led to a massive amount of corruption and chronyism

Corporations have a responsibility to their share holders, to their employees and to their consumers.

Its not " corporate greed " thats the problem. " Corporate Greed " is just a politicized narrate. A talking point.

The problem is the idea that the Government is in any context responsible for protecting us from that " greed ".

Giving the Government the power to first define " greed " arbitrarily and then to act on that definition is foolish beyond comprehension.
 
Then states should step up and handle it. If they don't, as we've seen, the federal government will. And precedence has been set on that.

That isn't the Federal Government's role and the more you allow the Federal Govt. to do the more dependent you get on the Federal Govt
 
No, we are the citizens of the community, the city, the state and the country. And Texas above all shows us how bad a state can be. Want to go over their rankings again?


Texas leads the Nation in Jobs Created across ALL income levels. Even HIGH paying jobs.

We're the destination for MILLIONS of Blue Plague State refugees from Liberal hell holes like California.

Which incidentally has the Nations HIGHEST poverty rates.

We're the destination for HUNDREDS of Bussinesses who've picked up their entire operation and moved out of States like California.

Thank god for Texas !!
 
No, we are the citizens of the community, the city, the state and the country. And Texas above all shows us how bad a state can be. Want to go over their rankings again?

Yep, that is why millions of people are moving to TX so they don't get health insurance, get paid a low wage, and breathe polluted air. That is of course why I moved here. Over half the uninsured in TX are eligible for state programs now but haven't signed up. Guess liberals would assign a nanny to them
 
Look, if you cannot sell your state on a program that is effective and efficient, how do you expect the Federal Govt. to do it? Further state expenses are different and a one size fits all doesn't work and always costs more than intended. Let the states and local government's who are responsible to the people do what the people wants. As I have stated healthcare is a personal responsibility not a Federal Govt. Responsibility. You don't pay for my states uninsured nor I pay for yours. That is the way it should be


I don't. You're no more likely to sell your state on a decent program than the voters of the United States were to sell the entire country on one. Or your county. Or your town. You might be able to do it at your household level. Just because you make the government smaller doesn't make the electorate smarter. People pretend like states are so much better than a federal government but there's no reason to think that. Government suffers the same problems regardless of size and scope. You're arguing that health care is a personal responsibility, which I entirely agree with you on, then you're pushing it off of the individual and onto the state? Since when did it become a state's problem, any more than it's the federal government's problem? You're just shifting the burden to a smaller venue, you're not placing it where we both agree it belongs.
 
You specifically said:

"You do not pay for the uninsured in TX, I do"

If the topic is THE UNINSURED, you do not fully pay for their care, fed dollars are contributed.

If we leave it up to states, they will have high levels of uninsured children.....like in Texas.

"Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. ... And there are more uninsured children in Texas than in any other state."
— Kathleen Sebelius on Sunday, December 15th, 2013 in an opinion column

Texas has highest uninsured rate and most uninsured children in country | PolitiFact Texas

Well then assign a nanny to those people because most are eligible for state programs in place now thus no need for Obamacare

Interesting how millions of people are moving to TX, how TX is among the leaders in creating jobs, has a very low cost of living, high quality of life. Wonder what these people see that you don't?
 
The Democrats have had a monopoly on organized funding for Politicians for decades. Thats unfortunately part of our History. .

Now, the Unions have some competition, and everyone and their brother is screaming to get money out of politics.

It was never a issue before Citizens United, even though it led to a massive amount of corruption and chronyism

Corporations have a responsibility to their share holders, to their employees and to their consumers.

Its not " corporate greed " thats the problem. " Corporate Greed " is just a politicized narrate. A talking point.

The problem is the idea that the Government is in any context responsible for protecting us from that " greed ".

Giving the Government the power to first define " greed " arbitrarily and then to act on that definition is foolish beyond comprehension.

I disagree. It is not just a narrative etc. It is a fact. Our government is bought and paid for. **** that. We need to get that out of our political system. Worse thing they ever did was give corporations personhood. Absolute garbage.
 
I don't. You're no more likely to sell your state on a decent program than the voters of the United States were to sell the entire country on one. Or your county. Or your town. You might be able to do it at your household level. Just because you make the government smaller doesn't make the electorate smarter. People pretend like states are so much better than a federal government but there's no reason to think that. Government suffers the same problems regardless of size and scope. You're arguing that health care is a personal responsibility, which I entirely agree with you on, then you're pushing it off of the individual and onto the state? Since when did it become a state's problem, any more than it's the federal government's problem? You're just shifting the burden to a smaller venue, you're not placing it where we both agree it belongs.

Then that is a local problem that people like you want to pawn off on the Federal Govt. Sorry but that isn't reality nor the country our Founders created
 
Back
Top Bottom