• 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]

Noticed how you ran from my post and tough questions as you continue to parrot the liberal talking points without doing any actual research to verify the rhetoric you are told. How would you know that conservatives are wrong about other things as well since results don't matter to you and other Obama supporters

LOL. You mean when I nailed you to the wall on misstatements (because health care is a field that is my profession and I've been involved in both the public and private sectors for 25 years - which I'm pretty sure qualifies as 'research') and you ignored it and started screaming about liberals taking your tax money, and then demanded I answer to your ideological cartoon position?
 
LOL. You mean when I nailed you to the wall on misstatements (because health care is a field that is my profession and I've been involved in both the public and private sectors for 25 years - which I'm pretty sure qualifies as 'research') and you ignored it and started screaming about liberals taking your tax money, and then demanded I answer to your ideological cartoon position?

I have ignored nothing including the reality that healthcare deductibles have gone up and there is no way to insure 50 million uninsured many of whom are high risk and lower costs. If you lower healthcare costs but increase deductibles what have you accomplished?
 
LOL. You mean when I nailed you to the wall on misstatements (because health care is a field that is my profession and I've been involved in both the public and private sectors for 25 years - which I'm pretty sure qualifies as 'research') and you ignored it and started screaming about liberals taking your tax money, and then demanded I answer to your ideological cartoon position?

I know it so funny how some who are so opposed to " Obamacare " think having private insurance means they don't have " Obamacare".

My sister in law is totally against the ACA which she calls Obamacare but she was so happy she was able to help her 23 year son who lives out state ( and save a lot of money too ) by adding him to her policy.

She doesn't even know that if were not for the ACA ( " Obamacare ") she would not be able to do that. She thinks since she has private insurance she does not have that dreaded " Obamacare". :lol:
 
I know it so funny how some who are so opposed to " Obamacare " think having private insurance means they don't have " Obamacare".

My sister in law is totally against the ACA which she calls Obamacare but she was so happy she was able to help her 23 year son who lives out state ( and save a lot of money too ) by adding him to her policy.

She doesn't even know that if were not for the ACA ( " Obamacare ") she would not be able to do that. She thinks since she has private insurance she does not have that dreaded " Obamacare". :lol:

where do you think the subsidies come from to fund ACA?
 
where do you think the subsidies come from to fund ACA?

According to a MIT economist who helped develop the law about half the money comes from medicare savings, another 25 percent from the added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies and the rest rest from those families who make over $250,000 a year.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.

"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."

Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By the CBO's accounting, Obamacare will produce a surplus. Gruber says the law will "actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after."

How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR
 
According to a MIT economist who helped develop the law about half the money comes from medicare savings, another 25 percent from the added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies and the rest rest from those families who make over $250,000 a year.



How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR

Was that the same Gruber who called the American electorate stupid? So you have no problem with someone else paying subsidies for your health insurance? Is that how you were raised? Only in the liberal world can you add more people to the insured role with many of them being high risk people and lower costs. Why do you believe anything coming out of a govt. that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt we have today. Seems you don't understand who truly funds most of the uninsured expenses and continue to buy liberal rhetoric
 
Was that the same Gruber who called the American electorate stupid? So you have no problem with someone else paying subsidies for your health insurance? Is that how you were raised? Only in the liberal world can you add more people to the insured role with many of them being high risk people and lower costs. Why do you believe anything coming out of a govt. that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt we have today. Seems you don't understand who truly funds most of the uninsured expenses and continue to buy liberal rhetoric


Actually I do not need subsidies our family is one of the higher income families that is paying the higher taxes that is helping to pay for the subsidies.
 
Actually I do not need subsidies our family is one of the higher income families that is paying the higher taxes that is helping to pay for the subsidies.

So you have no problem sending tax dollars to the Federal Govt. to supplement uninsured in other states or communities rather than doing it locally through your state? Where exactly does it state that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide health insurance for uninsured individuals? Do results matter in your world? 18.2 trillion dollar debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare, and now another Federal entitlement program none of which ever cost what they were supposed to cost and always grew in size and scope?
 
Maybe the Cons will finally stop trying to rely on legislation from the bench. Perhaps they will get smart and actually work WITH the PPACA (fix the legislation, where appropriate and expand state exchanges), because they are out of options in working against it.

Thank you for acknowledging that the PPACA needs fixing. Poorly conceived, poorly written, poorly implemented. US remains the only developed country without universal health care and 35 million or so uninsured. The PPACA did not lower costs, result in a lower deficit, or any of the things proponents stated 5 years ago. The people opposing have been proven right on much of their objections.
 
So you have no problem sending tax dollars to the Federal Govt. to supplement uninsured in other states or communities rather than doing it locally through your state? Where exactly does it state that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide health insurance for uninsured individuals? Do results matter in your world? 18.2 trillion dollar debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare, and now another Federal entitlement program none of which ever cost what they were supposed to cost and always grew in size and scope?

We make more money.
We pay more federal , and state taxes.
Hopefully some of those taxes are used to help my fellow US citizens.
I care about all my citizens not just those in my community or in my state.
I highly value good health care and I think everyone should have access to good healthcare.
I especially like the fact that the ACA has a lot of preventative healthcare with no co pay included in the plan.
 
We make more money.
We pay more federal , and state taxes.
Hopefully some of those taxes are used to help my fellow US citizens.
I care about all my citizens not just those in my community or in my state.
I highly value good health care and I think everyone should have access to good healthcare.
I especially like the fact that the ACA has a lot of preventative healthcare with no co pay included in the plan.

Why don't you send your money directly to local charities or free clinics instead of the Federal Bureaucrats that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt? You think the Federal govt is going to assure good quality healthcare? Where does quality appear in ACA?
 
Why don't you send your money directly to local charities or free clinics instead of the Federal Bureaucrats that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt? You think the Federal govt is going to assure good quality healthcare? Where does quality appear in ACA?

We do give directly to charities.
...

Since the ACA was passed more doctors have computerized records. More patients can monitor their lab results online and communicate with their doctors online. Hospitals and nurses use the computers bedside to make sure the correct patient is receiving the correct meds at the correct dosage. Duplicate tests are being elimated since nurses and doctors can view the results on previous tests even when those tests were taken out of state.

This article also tells more quality results from the ACA

The field of quality measurement is at a critical juncture. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)—which mentions “quality measures,” “performance measures,” or “measures of quality,” 128 times—heightened an already growing emphasis on quality measurement. With so much focus on quality, the resource burden on health care providers of taking and reporting measures for multiple agencies and payers is significant.

Furthermore, the field itself is being transformed with the continued adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). Traditional measures are largely based on administrative or claims data. The increased use of EHRs create the opportunity to develop sophisticated electronic clinical quality measures (eQMs) leveraging clinical data, which when linked with clinical decision support tools and payment policy, have the potential to improve quality and decrease costs more dramatically than traditional ones.


Innovative electronic measures on the horizon include “delta measures” calculating changes in patient health over time and care coordination measures for the electronic transfer of patient information (i.e., hospital discharge summary or consultant note successfully transmitted to the primary care physician). Additionally, traditional data abstraction methodologies for clinical data require labor intensive, chart review processes, which would be eliminated if data could be electronically extracted.

Read more:

The Melody Of Quality Measures: Harmonize And Standardize
 
Last edited:
We do give directly to charities.
...

Since the ACA was passed more doctors have computerized records. More patients can monitor their lab results online and communicate with their doctors online. Hospitals and nurses use the computers bedside to make sure the correct patient is receiving the correct meds at the correct dosage. Duplicate tests are being elimated since nurses and doctors can view the results on previous tests even when those tests were taken out of state.

This article also tells more quality results from the ACA



Read more:

The Melody Of Quality Measures: Harmonize And Standardize

Keep buying the rhetoric and ignoring results. Please use logic and common sense and tell me how a massive federal entitlement program that is going to insure millions more Americans many of whom are high risk is going to cost less or even come close to Federal projections? Name for me just one Federal entitlement program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost over time?

Do you realize that you are buying the leftwing rhetoric that the Federal Govt. does things cheaper. Once an entitlement program is created it never goes away and always increases in cost. If you want to truly control costs do it at the state level and in conjunction with things that actually will benefit healthcare costs such as tort reform. You have to realize that ACA doesn't do a thing about quality but rather simply buys votes by gaining access. Anyway the uninsured costs are mostly paid for by the state not the Federal taxpayers.
 
So send me your address so I can publish it for others who have seen their deductibles skyrocket. I am sure you will be happy to pay those as well.

They can afford it. That's the concept of the ACA. If you want to pay less in premiums, you get a higher deductible.

It's all about personal responsibility, something the Conservatives constantly squawk about but don't want to face when it impinges upon their handouts.
 
Where does quality appear in ACA?

So you ignorantly oppose a law you don't even understand?

Quality is a linchpin of the ACA, especially when it comes down to reimbursement! And reimbursement is the driver of healthcare in our system.

In fact, this comment is so fantastically stupid, it deserves highlighting...the move from pay for service to pay-for-quality has been a dramatic change over the last few years. I could describe why and how, but that's easy to look up, and my guess is you don't want to know, because it will conflict with your imaginary facts.

This truly illustrates how the core of ACA opposition is mostly abjectly ignorant of the ACA itself.
 
Connections are one thing, but you have obviously taken the time to inform yourself, and it's largely accurate, surprising for Americans today.
I agree with the difference in perception, and is where the right in the US is in the dark ages, as bound to ideology as any left wing gruber. The for-profit model is simply not sustainable and, is yet another indicator of the division in the US. The resistance to it has nothing to do with merit, cost or effectiveness, it is all politics. The financial argument, which should sell them, is there. And I agree, they are stupid enough to try to repeal Obamacare and leave nothing as an alternative.

<snip>
Thanks for the reply & friendship request Fearandloathing, and sorry for the delay in my response.

Wow!

You've got a lot of good content in this post, and I'm not at all surprised you're a journalist (I note your ability to see the big picture in a cause-effect manner). I was a big-city newspaper-boy during the tail-end of the newspaper era in the city that many considered the top investigative 'hard news' newspaper town in the country, and I read & worshiped the local newspapermen along with the local authors & novelists: Royko, Terkel, Algren, Hemingway (all extant then, except Hemingway); these were the men that shaped my mind as a young child - enough, so that I seriously considered attending the Medill School of Journalism (Northwestern University), which was only an 'el' ride away. In the end, I decided upon a degree in technology, because I thought it was the fastest way to make some money. But my heart never left reading, and I still love the process of writing.

You're definitely right in that the problems we have here are not GOP specific, but that of the entire political process - both parties included. I beat harder on the GOP in this instance because I saw them as the primary opponents to UHC, but the Dems are often just as culpable in many matters. I do tend go after the GOP more often because I usually lean more progressive than conservative, but not always.

The American form of constitutional equal branches of government may have some flaws vs the Canadian parliamentary, one of which is it seems to naturally devolve into a two-party system, and I see that as a problem. You've stated we need to elect better leaders (I agree), but in the end the two-party system gives us only two choices, and really, how much difference is there between Secy Clinton & Governor Romney? Or Governor Bush? So electing better is not quite that easy.

And with a two party system comes the natural tendency to polarize & demonize. Why? Because one doesn't need ideas with merit - they merely need to demonize the other guy(s). However this system has previously worked, as flawed and difficult as it is, but I believe the current influx of huge amounts of cash & it's influence is usurping the very democratic nature of the political process. All the serious GOP candidates have publicly stopped by Sheldon Adelson's office for his imprimatur, but not one has stopped by my home to talk to me - why could that be? My daughter personally met and had discussion with Senator Paul in D.C. when she was an intern for the 2nd largest healthcare network in the States, and her boss was in D.C. to discuss campaign funding & contributions to the Senator. If I sent him an email, do you think he'd meet with me to discuss my concerns (unless I'm meeting him with bags of $$$)?

But I think your most reflective point for me was: you are right - President Obama needed to use his tremendous charisma and near-fanatical following to cohere the political will to accomplish his objectives. In this, he fell short. The oft-repeated phrase, "He's a better campaigner, than leader" has some merit.

As to your fears of civil war, I can understand. I recently began thinking that if the North & South had divided along the Mason-Dixon Line, everyone might be a bit happier!
 
...ain't no such thing as common sense nor common knowledge. You make the assertion that the earth is round with me, you better be prepared to show credible third party evidence to support that assertion. I sure as hill won't simply take your rank amateur word for it....;)

... than again, I probably would pass on the earth is round claim.... we have yahoos on this board that have never studied law yet claim there is NO legal defense of certain SCOTUS decisions... they have ZERO expertise, but tell us they know more than every lawyer in the country (I just love that deadly mix of arrogance and ignorance) .... them's are the id**ts that need to do the 'splainin' (or need to find themselves an AOL chatroom)..

I got news for you my friend, there's no such thing as, common sense, common knowledge nor any brains anymore, we have become stupid as hell, example: look at the idiots we have put in charge of this nation. we have declined immensely as a nation and we are the laughing stock of the world, this country is not as rich any more, Bush and 0bama took over and ruined it by spending money that we don't have. I don't think I am telling you anything new that you already know.
 
Thanks for the reply & friendship request Fearandloathing, and sorry for the delay in my response.

Wow!

You've got a lot of good content in this post, and I'm not at all surprised you're a journalist (I note your ability to see the big picture in a cause-effect manner). I was a big-city newspaper-boy during the tail-end of the newspaper era in the city that many considered the top investigative 'hard news' newspaper town in the country, and I read & worshiped the local newspapermen along with the local authors & novelists: Royko, Terkel, Algren, Hemingway (all extant then, except Hemingway); these were the men that shaped my mind as a young child - enough, so that I seriously considered attending the Medill School of Journalism (Northwestern University), which was only an 'el' ride away. In the end, I decided upon a degree in technology, because I thought it was the fastest way to make some money. But my heart never left reading, and I still love the process of writing.

You're definitely right in that the problems we have here are not GOP specific, but that of the entire political process - both parties included. I beat harder on the GOP in this instance because I saw them as the primary opponents to UHC, but the Dems are often just as culpable in many matters. I do tend go after the GOP more often because I usually lean more progressive than conservative, but not always.

Edited for space ....


Thank you.


In no particular order, I lecture a class on applied ethics in journalism today and am often asked makes for the best journalist and my reply is always 'curiosity', and when asked what tool they most need, I say eyes, to read and to observe, the ears are easily deceived and when the sound is spoken, likely deception to begin with. What we, cops, lawyers and reporters talk about in that "no tell' press club is often how everyone lies, often for no reason and often an "honest lie", like they saw something they couldn't have....we learn "eye witness" is the least reliable evidence of anything.

There are certainly draw backs in the parliamentary system, not the least of which is uncertainty in minority governments, unfounded uncertainty. But your comments on being able to get to your politician is kind of ironic today, as I was just poled by the Premier's office, the party version, but herself, the single mom with bright shiny eyes, Cristy Clark wanting to know what I thought on topics today, no big deal, but a comment section as well, still no big deal.

but the thank you by a real aid ten minutes later in what is our 4th of July, Canada Day was. In the 80's my partner was an American nurse and we lived in the Prime Minister's riding, where the head of the country has to get out of the car [no limos here] and meet real people. Late in the election Prime Minister John Turner went door knocking on my street. My partner answered and did not know what to say when the aid told her the Prime Minister was going door-to-door and would she like to speek to him. On her somewhat awed behalf I said sure. Turner, who knew me when he was Finance Minister in Ottawa and on the campaign trail in Vancouver, says "hi" with surprise in his eyes when he sees me and says "pretty sneaky way to get an interview" [he was the most approachable PM I ever worked with]. So I tell him it's off the record and my GF doesn't believe you're the PM"

So they had a chat and off he went and as far as I know she still talks about it, as most of her crowd had never even met a congressman.

The biggest fear for our political system now is becoming "American". This government has opened the $ floodgates, allowed more third party advertising, and we have seen a trend on their part to use nasty negative ads. The leader of the opposition volunteered publicly that he had smoked pot since being elected to office [done by design] and the Tories have been running ads for two years saying Justin Trudeau wants to sell pot to kids.

If they win a majority, I fear we will become like you
 
They can afford it. That's the concept of the ACA. If you want to pay less in premiums, you get a higher deductible.

It's all about personal responsibility, something the Conservatives constantly squawk about but don't want to face when it impinges upon their handouts.

Its not about " personal responsibility ", its about Government mandating compliance based on a highly politicized definition of personal responsibility.

The Federal government has decided for Millions of Americans what's " affordable " and whats " fair ", and if we disagree with them then we get to pay a fine. A fine that increases every year regardless of our personal economic issues.

Its not about the Free market, or " affordable healthcare " either.

If Healthcare was so unaffordable that we needed ObamaCare, how is it MORE affordable now that rates and out of pocket cost continue to climb ?

If it were a Free market solution then the consumer would have recourse.

No matter how bad and how expensive ObamaCare policies are, we are still forced to purchase a product that was sold under false pretenses.

There is no recourse for the consumer. ObamaCare policies aren't judged on their merits as it applies to the individual consumer, they're judged and will always be judged based on how good or bad it makes one specific Political party and or President look.

There is no Free market without the CHOICE not to participate.

Its interesting to watch Liberals defend what's analogous to what would be one of the most corrupt and lawless Corporations that ever existed in our Nation's history.
 
They can afford it. That's the concept of the ACA. If you want to pay less in premiums, you get a higher deductible.

It's all about personal responsibility, something the Conservatives constantly squawk about but don't want to face when it impinges upon their handouts.


So how do you know how much someone else can afford? where is it the Federal Government's responsibility to provide personal responsibility issues?
 
So you ignorantly oppose a law you don't even understand?

Quality is a linchpin of the ACA, especially when it comes down to reimbursement! And reimbursement is the driver of healthcare in our system.

In fact, this comment is so fantastically stupid, it deserves highlighting...the move from pay for service to pay-for-quality has been a dramatic change over the last few years. I could describe why and how, but that's easy to look up, and my guess is you don't want to know, because it will conflict with your imaginary facts.

This truly illustrates how the core of ACA opposition is mostly abjectly ignorant of the ACA itself.

Sorry but it is your ignorance that ignores reality, basic civics and the Constitution. Quality never was the issue in ACA and it is obvious it won't provide quality but rather just coverage and it won't reduce costs as no federal entitlement program does that.
 
Sorry but it is your ignorance that ignores reality, basic civics and the Constitution. Quality never was the issue in ACA and it is obvious it won't provide quality but rather just coverage and it won't reduce costs as no federal entitlement program does that.

Now we can get down to substance, instead of your ideological pap.

Quality was and is a key part of the ACA, with the establishment of pay for performance measures to the Center for Medicare Innovation.

You have no clue what you are talking about. This proves it.

The matter is concluded.
 
That's the same thing. If you're accepting those studies that happen to align with your assumptions and ignoring those studies that conflict with your assumptions, that is no different than just ignoring all studies and going with your assumptions.

Not at all. A study does not have to necessarily agree with my point of view....it merely needs to be based on actual science or common sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom