• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Aw, please stop, this is embarrassing on your part. Such indoctrination



Recession began December 2007, Obama took office January 2009 and in January 2011 there were 139 million working Americans. Apparently that is a liberal success story regarding the stimulus

Please note it took until mid 2012 to get back to the numbers Obama inherited and mid 2014 to get back to the December 2007 levels. You keep defending the indefensible, why?

Not to mention many of the so called improved employment numbers do not account for the millions who gave up trying to find employment and accepted food stamps.
 
where was that "it's not my job to fix bad legislation, garbage in garbage out" promise by scalia

then again, he is garbage, so it makes sense he'd get confused
 
Repeal would be a very bad idea IMO. Given the subsidies will ever increase and the costs therefore of healthy people will ever increase, it will eventually become the failure the SCOTUS saved it from being multiple times now. If only Republicans would be smart and treat it like the collar around American's neck and when that collar becomes too heavy...

It's already too heavy.
 
...yes, they could repeal it outright if they just paid every american $10,000.... the "if's" on both fronts are equally unlikely.

The PPACA is here to stay. Deal with it, Republicans. Stop living in the past or thinking you can return to the past and start looking forward.

I am not a republican....and I do not have to deal with it. I am exempt from it. Repeal or not...obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.
 
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....
 
This and the SC ruling on gay marriage. It's a bad day to be a conservative, you could almot pity them.
 
I am not a republican....and I do not have to deal with it. I am exempt from it. Repeal or not...obamacare is going to collapse under it's own weight.

It's significantly lighter than it was even designed to be. Hundreds of billions of dollars lighter, in fact. The transition implementation period (2010-2014) is now over, which is why most of the right's favorite gripes have evaporated. The right's blazing hope that somehow it wouldn't work or somehow could be made to collapse has dimmed, flickered, and finally been snuffed out.

Time to move on to the next stage of grief.
 
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....

You have a $30,000 plan.

Who buys a luxury car and then complains about how expensive their car is? Oh right, you.
 
You have a $30,000 plan.

Who buys a luxury car and then complains about how expensive their car is? Oh right, you.

I'm not an island. I have friends and family who have healthcare needs, or did you think you were the only one? By the way, if healthcare was affordable, I wouldn't need a $30,000 plan. :roll:

Unbelievable.
 
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....

Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.
 
Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.

It isn't called the "Slower Price Increase Act". It's falsely labeled. It doesn't make healthcare affordable. It isn't affordable. In fact, it's the opposite. If they truly wanted to make healthcare affordable, that wasn't the way to do it.
 
Where and when did you get your puffed up idea that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice? What are you, forum qualifications inspector? This is a thread discussing a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, I didn't notice a self-appointed gate-keeper.

When you make statements such as...

Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional - unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared a Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.

There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed that at times Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier with the defense, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.

Perhaps most let their view of Obamacare shape their opinion - rather, my view of law shapes my opinion of the legality of Obamacare.

"Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional"....

This is a debate forum. There is actually a theory and a set of rules to having a debate. You don't get to simply debate impressions of things. When you make an assertion, you must be prepared to back-up you that assertion when challenged. If you can not, then the assertion is considered invalid. Consider yourself so challenged.

You have ZERO base of telling us its "indefensible" because you do not know. Really, you are telling us you have superior knowledge of the law and Constitution to each member of the Supreme Court. How arrogant!

The only way you can back up an assertion of something being "legally indefensible" is with expertise. In this case, real and credible knowledge of the law. Either you have that knowledge yourself (real and credible because you have a law degree) or can produce third party expertise (an real and credible attorney that is considered an expert in Constitutional Law) or your assertion is nothing but a shallow, meaningless, uninformed impression, which I suspect that is what is .

You want to debate on DP....be prepared to defend yourself. I love calling people out on their meaningless, uninformed impressions as they are a waste of everyone's time and unworthy of the cyberspace they occupy.

So, produce your credentials or your third party expertise or re-state by telling us this is your most humble opinion (which is a polite way of telling us its just an impression.)
 
Last edited:
I'm not an island. I have friends and family who have healthcare needs, or did you think you were the only one? By the way, if healthcare was affordable, I wouldn't need a $30,000 plan. :roll:

Unbelievable.

"Those of us." You're bitching about your diamond plan, as you always do. New Hampshire is one of the few states with a price transparency tool--how many times have used that to shop for the least expensive health service (since it sounds like you consume a huge amount of health services every year)? I'm guessing never, since your diamond plan doesn't have cost-sharing on your part so why would you care about the price of any given service?
 
Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.

Lol !

If it wasn't affordable to begin with, ( apparently why we needed a law ) how is it more affordable now if the prices keep rising ?

Unreal. Is that what the Democrats promised ? That they would slow the increase while increasing deductibles and out of pocket expenses ?

That they would make it more unaffordable ?

Its such a bad law the Democrats running in 2014 had to avoid it like the plague and they STILL lost.

All the SCOTUS'S ruling does is put this abomination back into to the laps of the party that's repsonsible for it and it let the GOP off the hook.

It will be fun watching the Democrats squirm in 2016.
 
Unreal. Is that what the Democrats promised ? That they would slow the increase while increasing deductibles and out of pocket expenses ?

That they would make it more unaffordable ?

Bending the cost curve and bringing back market dynamics to health care? Yes, that's exactly what I was expecting (and hoping for). What exactly were you expecting?
 
"Those of us." You're bitching about your diamond plan, as you always do. New Hampshire is one of the few states with a price transparency tool--how many times have used that to shop for the least expensive health service (since it sounds like you consume a huge amount of health services every year)? I'm guessing never, since your diamond plan doesn't have cost-sharing on your part so why would you care about the price of any given service?

Do you need help translating my posts? Let me help you.

Healthcare isn't healthcare insurance. Are you capable of understanding the difference between the two, Greenbeard?

This has nothing - zero - to do with the cost of insurance. It has to do with the cost of healthcare. FFS pay attention and stop the whining and apparently very jealous posts about my premium insurance plan. I can't help it if you don't have the same kind of job that I do.

And since you're so damned interested in where I get my healthcare (the thing that's different than insurance), my family and I go to doctors in the Elliot Hospital network. We pay minimal costs for care, surgeries, referrals to specialists, treatments, and emergency care.

And I don't bitch about the cost of my insurance. I never did. I wasn't the one whining for Uncle Sam and the taxpayers to pay for my family.

Geezus. Read.
 
Bending the cost curve and bringing back market dynamics to health care? Yes, that's exactly what I was expecting (and hoping for). What exactly were you expecting?

Bringing back market dynamics through government intervention in the marketplace? What?
 
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....

Given that prior to the PPACA our medical system incurred an annual cost of $116B to cover the uninsured with $49B baked into the insurance premiums of all (at an average of $1,100 per yer per family plan) and $67B picked up by the government, I would say that having less uninsureds (and they actually paying premiums) "impacts (in a very positive way) those of us that have been paying for our own healthcare insurance..."

Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Uninsured Healthcare Tab- $49 Billion Annually
Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com


I don't know about you, but my premiums are 1/3 less with Obamacare than before. (I realize I am a sample of one).
 
Last edited:
This has nothing - zero - to do with the cost of insurance. It has to do with the cost of healthcare.

I have no idea why you think these are unrelated. If your plan had any incentive to encourage rationale behavior in the selection and consumption of health services by members like you--choosing lower-cost or lower-prices services over higher-priced equivalents--it would have cheaper premiums (virtually every single plan on the open market in your state does).

Bringing back market dynamics through government intervention in the marketplace? What?

The dreaded deductible doesn't exist to penalize you, it exists to make you think about the price of the health service you want to consume. If Provider A offers a scan for $2,500 and Provider B offers the same service for $600, you may have no preference if you have a zero deductible (you may even be perversely drawn to Provider A--more expensive must be better! and it doesn't cost you a dime!). If you have a $2,000 deductible, the calculus becomes a little bit different. And far more rational.

The argument that nobody should have deductibles or be price sensitive when shopping for health services has historically been an argument of the left. That the right has now adopted it out of expedience is just dumb. It's not a coincidence that price growth has plummeted as price sensitivity has returned to the market.
 
I have no idea why you think these are unrelated. If your plan had any incentive to encourage rationale behavior in the selection and consumption of health services by members like you--choosing lower-cost or lower-prices services over higher-priced equivalents--it would have cheaper premiums (virtually every single plan on the open market in your state does and is).



The dreaded deductible doesn't exist to penalize you, it exists to make you think about the price of the health service you want to consume. If Provider A offers a scan for $2,500 and Provider B offers the same service for $600, you may have no preference if you have a zero deductible (you may be drawn to Provider A--more expensive must be better! and it doesn't cost you a dime!). If you have a $2,000 deductible, the calculus becomes a little bit different. And far more rational.

The argument that nobody should have deductibles or be price sensitive when shopping for health services has historically been an argument of the left. That the right has now adopted it out of expedience is just dumb.

You still don't get it. Stop wasting my time quoting me about the cost of insurance.
 
You still don't get it. Stop wasting my time quoting me about the cost of insurance.

...I'm talking about the price of health services. When is the last time your used your state's transparency tool to shop for the cheapest provider of a given service?
 
...I'm talking about the price of health services. When is the last time your used your state's transparency tool to shop for the cheapest provider of a given service?

I. Don't. Need. To. It isn't relevant to the cost of my plan. Do you have any clue how employer sponsored insurance works? Apparently not. They will pay for a $5 fee or a $5 million fee. And my employer's negotiated rate won't change.

Good grief. Just stop.
 
I. Don't. Need. To. It isn't relevant to the cost of my plan. Do you have any clue how employer sponsored insurance works? Apparently not. They will pay for a $5 fee or a $5 million fee. And my employer's negotiated rate won't change.

Good grief. Just stop.

So you've never shopped for a lower priced service. Yet complain about the price of services. Hmm! What on earth could be the problem here?

To the guy questioning the value of deductibles to price sensitivity and market dynamics: see utter lack of both above. And misdirected consumer angst that results from lack thereof.
 
You are arguing against yourself. On one hand you claim the subsidies are not paid by the other insured while on the otherhand you in effect admit that it's not working as well as it should because not enough of the young and healthy are signing up. And how can any human being be proud of making a young and healthy person pay higher rates to subsidize the old and sick many of whom are sick do to unhealthy eating habits, lack of excercise, drug, or alcohol abuse?

Same way every country on the planet does it. Same way every employer plan works. If you work for a large company, the youngsters subsidize the old, the healthy the sick, etc. And when those young folks get old, they are subsidized by the people not born when they started work. It's how all health insurance actually works, including Medicare.

If you've got a better idea, love to hear it. If you underwrite a 60 year old with diabetes, and charge him the full cost, he's pretty much uninsurable and therefore will never get health insurance unless he's well into the top 10% or so. If that 60 year old has survived cancer, he'll never get insurance of any kind. So what is the ObamacareFail plan other than throwing bricks at any idea anyone else comes up with?
 
Back
Top Bottom