• 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!

Ted Cruz going on Obamacare

Dovkan said:
The 'punishment' is minimal and has exemptions.
Click to expand...

So basically people are forced to buy healthcare and punished if they don't. :lol:
 
Dovkan said:
It looks at many countries, I suppose welfare isn't the "causation" for any of them. Absurdity.
Click to expand...

It doesn't prove causation. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
So basically people are forced to buy healthcare. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not at all, you clearly don't understand.
Quick List of Common ObamaCare Exemptions
Here are common ObamaCare exemptions from the fee claimed on the 8965 exemptions form:

You got covered during open enrollment either inside or outside the Marketplace
You went less than three months without coverage
You don’t have to file taxes because your income is below the tax filing threshold
Coverage would cost more than 8% of household income per person
You got denied Medicaid or CHIP
Click to expand...
- Just some exemptions.

Also, the fee is minimal, that's like saying we're 'forced' to pay taxes
 
Dovkan said:
Not at all, you clearly don't understand.
- Just some exemptions.

Also, the fee is minimal, that's like saying we're 'forced' to pay taxes
Click to expand...

So the $1,700 fine my sister got THIS year for not buying insurance didn't happen.

Sure, I will tell her to ignore the almost $2,000 dollar fine. :lamo
 
Henrin said:
So the $1,700 fine my sister got THIS year for not buying insurance didn't happen.

Sure, I will tell her to ignore the almost $2,000 dollar fine. :lamo
Click to expand...

Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan


Read more: How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider

Again, I digress, the fine is for those who don't have health care, at all, so your sister doesn't? She makes between 75-and 100 thousand and doesn't have health insurance? Hm.
 
It's a graph showing the "causation" you're looking for which you probably "glanced" over.
 
Dovkan said:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan


Read more: How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider

Again, I digress, the fine is for those who don't have health care, at all, so your sister doesn't? She makes between 75-and 100 thousand and doesn't have health insurance? Hm.
Click to expand...

You can read what I wrote just fine yourself.
 
Henrin said:
You can read what I wrote just fine yourself.
Click to expand...

I am reading it, it seems pretty absurd that your sister doesn't get healthcare. It's also not forcing anyone to do anything.
 
Dovkan said:
It's a graph showing the "causation" you're looking for which you probably "glanced" over.
Click to expand...

It shows correlation, not causation. Learn the difference.
 
Henrin said:
It shows correlation, not causation. Learn the difference.
Click to expand...

Causation: the relationship between cause and effect
The studies show the effect of putting in welfare programs in many countries, saying "its not the welfare programs at all, obviously something else.. no connection, digging a deeper hole" is something else :mrgreen:
 
Dovkan said:
I am reading it, it seems pretty absurd that your sister doesn't get healthcare. It's also not forcing anyone to do anything.
Click to expand...

I can't answer for her or why she makes the decisions she does nor is it important for this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Dovkan said:
Causation: the relationship between cause and effect
The studies show the effect of putting in welfare programs in many countries, saying "its not the welfare programs at all, obviously something else.. no connection, digging a deeper hole" is something else :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It shows poverty rates from before and after welfare. The data alone proves no connection between the two.
 
Henrin said:
No, it doesn't. It shows poverty rates from before and after welfare. The data alone proves no connection between the two.
Click to expand...

The cause: Introducing welfare
The effect: Reduced poverty in countries implementing it.
Seems like an easy connection to make.
 
Dovkan said:
The cause: Introducing welfare
The effect: Reduced poverty in countries implementing it.
Seems like an easy connection to make.
Click to expand...

You have to show that the one caused the other. That would detail doing more than just looking at poverty rates.
 
Henrin said:
You have to show that the one caused the other. That would detail doing more than just looking at poverty rates.
Click to expand...

"Two studies compare countries internationally before and after implementing social welfare programs. Using data from the Luxembourg Income Study, Bradley et al. and Lane Kenworthy measure the poverty rates both in relative terms (poverty defined by the respective governments) and absolute terms, (poverty defined by 40% of US median income) respectively. Kenworthy's study also adjusts for economic performance and shows that the economy made no significant difference in uplifting people out of poverty.

The studies look at the different countries from 1960 to 1991 (Kenworthy) and from 1970 to 1997 (Bradley et al.). Both these periods are roughly when major welfare programs where implemented such as the War on Poverty in the United States. The results of both studies show that poverty has been significantly reduced during the periods where major welfare programs were created."

How is this not showing one caused the other? Is the OECD wrong on there studies of all countries with welfare programs? Ok, how about this, show me how the "unregulated free market" helps the poor.
 
Henrin said:
So the $1,700 fine my sister got THIS year for not buying insurance didn't happen.

Sure, I will tell her to ignore the almost $2,000 dollar fine. :lamo
Click to expand...

the penalty for 2014 was 1% of income above the filing threshold (which is about $10k for a single person) so your sister would have to be making at least $180K to pay a $1700 penalty
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
But then his next sentence was he still wants ACA repealed. So IMO then he needed to go another route. There were other options.
Click to expand...

If the ACA is repealed, do you think the members of Congress will say "Okay, no more employer insurance from us"? Or do you think that they will go right back on the same plans they had in the first place?

In other words, he wants to repeal the ACA because he believes (as I do) that it's a junk law. If the government wanted to contain healthcare costs for everyone, this wasn't the law to do it. The ACA for the most part is nothing but a very large entitlement. The ACA also stretches far and above the movement of government employees' plans from where they were to Exchanges. That policy didn't even take effect until 5 years after the bill was signed into law.
 
tres borrachos said:
If the ACA is repealed, do you think the members of Congress will say "Okay, no more employer insurance from us"? Or do you think that they will go right back on the same plans they had in the first place?

In other words, he wants to repeal the ACA because he believes (as I do) that it's a junk law. If the government wanted to contain healthcare costs for everyone, this wasn't the law to do it. The ACA for the most part is nothing but a very large entitlement. The ACA also stretches far and above the movement of government employees' plans from where they were to Exchanges. That policy didn't even take effect until 5 years after the bill was signed into law.
Click to expand...


you spelled insurance industry handout wrong
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
60% of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. We have a huge health insurance/health care problem in this country. ACA is not the answer, but what we had before ACA wasn't working either. Hospital rooms around here are $5,000 a night. WTF? Simple procedures are $50,000. What middle class family can afford that?

I'm not smart enough to know the answers. But I do know something needs to be done. If you're poor and have nothing with or without ACA you will get treatment and lose nothing. If you're rich obviously you can afford treatment. If you're middle class you're get treatment but if you don't have insurance you will lose everything. There's something seriously wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Actually, medical expenses are a contributing factor of 60% of all bankruptcies, not the primary reason, and they are as low as $1000. Elizabeth Warren's famous "analysis" was well received by the left, dismissed by the right, and the smart people in the middle actually looked at it.

Most people in this country had/have insurance through their employers. As you correctly said, the poor people were taken care of. I remember seeing a recent census that showed something like 35% of those counted in the uninsured category made over $50,000 a year. Those people go to Disneyworld, and have cell phones and cable TV and computers....my priorities before my husband & I started to finally do well financially were mortgage, insurance, and savings. Maybe people needed to reassess their priorities.

Medical costs are WAY too high and have been for decades. That isn't something anyone with a functioning brain would debate. But the ACA is not going to fix that. Yes, it enabled people who couldn't buy private insurance on the market because of pre-existing conditions a chance to get insurance, no question about that. The ACA isn't a total disaster. But for the majority of Americans, it isn't going to help at all. It hardly makes "healthcare affordable" for the rest of us.
 
NIMBY said:
I have a different take--I voted against Nixon, Carter twice, Reagan the 2nd time.
For Clinton twice--against Bush-43 twice and for Obama twice.
I have voted in the GOP primaries since 1972.

Was heartbroken to lose Gov. Ogilvie in 1972 when I was 18 to future jailbird DEM Walker--not from what he did as governor--though he should have been.
Since he signed the law to shortchange our public pensions that Ogilvie wouldn't sign.
And Ogilvie signed the law giving me my full tuition since I was in as field with a critical shortage--Chem/Physics/Math.

Ogilvie and my Sen. Percy were the ultimate RINOs, which is why I will never vote for another GOP as President.
Though I like Kasich the best--then Bus--notice both were invited to the Adelson summit .
Click to expand...

Morning Nimby, you've been voting a little longer than I have. Interesting POTUS voting history you have.

I'm not familiar with Ogilvie so I had to look him up. Sounds like he was a good guy. Died young too.

I like Kasich a lot. I wish he'd express an interest in the nomination. I'd consider him in the GOP primary here.
 
tres borrachos said:
Actually, medical expenses are a contributing factor of 60% of all bankruptcies, not the primary reason, and they are as low as $1000. Elizabeth Warren's famous "analysis" was well received by the left, dismissed by the right, and the smart people in the middle actually looked at it.

Most people in this country had/have insurance through their employers. As you correctly said, the poor people were taken care of. I remember seeing a recent census that showed something like 35% of those counted in the uninsured category made over $50,000 a year. Those people go to Disneyworld, and have cell phones and cable TV and computers....my priorities before my husband & I started to finally do well financially were mortgage, insurance, and savings. Maybe people needed to reassess their priorities.

Medical costs are WAY too high and have been for decades. That isn't something anyone with a functioning brain would debate. But the ACA is not going to fix that. Yes, it enabled people who couldn't buy private insurance on the market because of pre-existing conditions a chance to get insurance, no question about that. The ACA isn't a total disaster. But for the majority of Americans, it isn't going to help at all. It hardly makes "healthcare affordable" for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

It was never meant to be for the 'majority of Americans'. Just for people who don't have HI. But you're right something needs to be done so HI can be affordable for everyone.

ACA isn't perfect, far from it. I would have a ton more respect for the GOP if instead of trying to kill it they would say it's not perfect, so lets work together on a system that everyone can afford. I'm sure they have a functioning brain and realize costs are too high. But for political reasons they won't work to fix it because they are using ACA as a political tool to keep their base inline and screaming 'socialism'.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
It was never meant to be for the 'majority of Americans'. Just for people who don't have HI. But you're right something needs to be done so HI can be affordable for everyone.

ACA isn't perfect, far from it. I would have a ton more respect for the GOP if instead of trying to kill it they would say it's not perfect, so lets work together on a system that everyone can afford. I'm sure they have a functioning brain and realize costs are too high. But for political reasons they won't work to fix it because they are using ACA as a political tool to keep their base inline and screaming 'socialism'.
Click to expand...

Good morning, I apologize for yesterday. I know what it's like to see a blanket insult on this board and take it personally. It happens to me all the time.

That's my problem too - it was never meant for the majority of Americans. That's why the Republicans should just shut up, leave it as the entitlement program it is, and then put together something that actually does start to manage costs. But in their usual way, the partisans on both sides down in DC can't come up with a cohesive plan or adjustment to the ACA that are meaningful.
 
tres borrachos said:
Good morning, I apologize for yesterday. I know what it's like to see a blanket insult on this board and take it personally. It happens to me all the time.

That's my problem too - it was never meant for the majority of Americans. That's why the Republicans should just shut up, leave it as the entitlement program it is, and then put together something that actually does start to manage costs. But in their usual way, the partisans on both sides down in DC can't come up with a cohesive plan or adjustment to the ACA that are meaningful.
Click to expand...

Good morning. And no problem.

What pisses me off is even before ACA what we had socialism. Someone goes to the ER without HI, and can't pay, so who pays for them? The tax payers and the people with HI, thats who. So they need to put something in place so everyone is covered. Yes, that is socialism, but that's what we got now anyway. The difference is what we have now is a complete, helter skelter mess. The person w/o HI gets a heart procedure and is charged $20,000. The person with HI for the same procedure is charged $50,000. They need to put something in place that manages costs fairly. And that should stabilize costs, maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom