• 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!

Good for the goose, good for the gander?

apdst said:
The Democrats penned and passed Obamacare in 60 days? I bet those dates don't match up.
Click to expand...

Were you born yesterday? Why don't you know how the ACA got passed?
 
NIMBY said:
I appreciate the fact that you expect Democrats to act like the loyal opposition, versus the Republicans acting like unanimous obstructors for eight years .
Click to expand...
I jave partisan positions just like everyone but i believe in rigorous debate to find yhe best solutions.

Contrary to popular belief the right isnt a buch of bigots and the left does not hate america. We share many of the ideals. We just disagree on the best course to get us there. Im pretty sure all us want prosperity for all.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Ahlevah said:
You know what's a lie? The idea that people who don't qualify for a subsidy can universally buy medical insurance at an affordable price on an exchange. I priced a policy late last year (because there was only one provider in our county offering insurance), and the premium came back at over $1,300 per month for me and my wife (because we didn't qualify for a subsidy). It was actually slightly cheaper to buy an individual policy through either Blue Cross & Blue Shield or United Health, and those policies were considerably more expensive than what was available just a few years ago because the deductibles were capped at $5,000 and all sorts of other crap we didn't need or want was added into the plans. I wanted a major medical policy with a high deductible, like $15,000, that would cover us in case of a disaster, but I couldn't find one. So when I changed jobs I just used the 60-day election period under COBRA to cover us until my new group plan kicked in.

What Obamacare is is a plan to shift costs from unhealthy to healthy people and older people to younger people, while providing poor people along the way with subsidies paid for out of the general U.S. Treasury as well as reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Poor, unhealthy, older people love it. The reason premiums are going up and companies are pulling out of the exchanges is younger, healthier people aren't buying it in the numbers expected because it's cheaper for them to just pay the tax penalty. If they get sick, then they buy it, because they're guaranteed coverage. Over time these problems with the program due to the millions of (subsidized) poor, sick people who are signing up for it will only snowball, because subsidizing health care does nothing to address the cost of the services to the larger society.
Click to expand...
Your exactly right and its why i say we would be better to go back to the system we had. It worked better

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
All your arguments would be satisfied by single payer. You hit on the problem though, the mandate is not enforced. Since HC is a problem for the WHOLE society not just the old or sick (the young will be old and sick someday too) the proper way is to take equal amounts from every taxpayer. That would bring the lowest costs for all and be the most fair. The Govt. would then subsidize those that could not afford the premiums.
Click to expand...
I find single payer flawed because there is no price control on place. A person can go to the doctirs everyday and run all kinds of unneeded test without finacial consequence to them. It will drive costs even higher than they already are

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I find single payer flawed because there is no price control on place. A person can go to the doctirs everyday and run all kinds of unneeded test without finacial consequence to them. It will drive costs even higher than they already are

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Except that in every single country that it is law, single payer has given as good or better outcomes for a fraction of what we are paying. We are not ostriches are we? We can see the world around us I think. When the profit is taken away from the insurers the entire system becomes better. We are not sliced bread and "the marketplace" is no place for health care. Medicare does not have 77% popularity for nothing.

importantce.png
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Except that in every single country that it is law, single payer has given as good or better outcomes for a fraction of what we are paying. We are not ostriches are we? We can see the world around us I think. When the profit is taken away from the insurers the entire system becomes better. We are not sliced bread and "the marketplace" is no place for health care. Medicare does not have 77% popularity for nothing.

importantce.png
Click to expand...
What metrics are you using to define good and better? There are tradeoffs that come with that approach. I think there are things they do that we could transition sucessfully into our own system but we also have to recognize that some things that work in other nations will not work as well here.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Ahlevah said:
You know what's a lie? The idea that people who don't qualify for a subsidy can universally buy medical insurance at an affordable price on an exchange. I priced a policy late last year (because there was only one provider in our county offering insurance), and the premium came back at over $1,300 per month for me and my wife (because we didn't qualify for a subsidy). It was actually slightly cheaper to buy an individual policy through either Blue Cross & Blue Shield or United Health, and those policies were considerably more expensive than what was available just a few years ago because the deductibles were capped at $5,000 and all sorts of other crap we didn't need or want was added into the plans. I wanted a major medical policy with a high deductible, like $15,000, that would cover us in case of a disaster, but I couldn't find one. So when I changed jobs I just used the 60-day election period under COBRA to cover us until my new group plan kicked in.

What Obamacare is is a plan to shift costs from unhealthy to healthy people and older people to younger people, while providing poor people along the way with subsidies paid for out of the general U.S. Treasury as well as reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Poor, unhealthy, older people love it. The reason premiums are going up and companies are pulling out of the exchanges is younger, healthier people aren't buying it in the numbers expected because it's cheaper for them to just pay the tax penalty. If they get sick, then they buy it, because they're guaranteed coverage. Over time these problems with the program due to the millions of (subsidized) poor, sick people who are signing up for it will only snowball, because subsidizing health care does nothing to address the cost of the services to the larger society.
Click to expand...

er uh A, we were not talking about your unbelievable personal story. we were discussing your long since disproven "wah wah Obama wouldn't compromise" narrative. I have to assume that your obvious attempt to change the subject means you figured out you were lied to by the right. Now that you understand that, why do you still believe everything they tell you?
 
trouble13 said:
What metrics are you using to define good and better? There are tradeoffs that come with that approach. I think there are things they do that we could transition sucessfully into our own system but we also have to recognize that some things that work in other nations will not work as well here.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The metrics are quite simple and adequate. We spend about 2.5 times more than the average single payer nation and in return we get a life expectancy that is ranked 34th.

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg


rankings.ashx
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
The metrics are quite simple and adequate. We spend about 2.5 times more than the average single payer nation and in return we get a life expectancy that is ranked 34th.

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg


rankings.ashx
Click to expand...
Throwing up graph in this case is not very helpful when it isnt accompanied with the metrics it used.

Is it a failing of our healthcare system if people live excessively unhealthy lifestyles?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Throwing up graph in this case is not very helpful when it isnt accompanied with the metrics it used.

Is it a failing of our healthcare system if people live excessively unhealthy lifestyles?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The "metrics" were cost vs. benefits and they speak for themselves. And yes our healthcare system has failed to educate us about what we need to do to live longer.
 
Vern said:
er uh A, we were not talking about your unbelievable personal story. we were discussing your long since disproven "wah wah Obama wouldn't compromise" narrative. I have to assume that your obvious attempt to change the subject means you figured out you were lied to by the right. Now that you understand that, why do you still believe everything they tell you?
Click to expand...

So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? :lol: Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
 
Republicans have openly admitted what yer still denying.

Now it's called tds---trump deflection syndrome .

Ahlevah said:
So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? :lol: Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
Click to expand...
 
iguanaman said:
The "metrics" were cost vs. benefits and they speak for themselves. And yes our healthcare system has failed to educate us about what we need to do to live longer.
Click to expand...
No the metrics dont speak for themselves. Your graphs are not taking peoples lifestyles into account.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Ahlevah said:
So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? [emoji38] Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
Click to expand...
Republicans stood against it because they were afraid of losing their seats. Even democrats were seperating themselves from obama during election season. It was a tremendously unpopular move and it cost n the democratic party dearly.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
NIMBY said:
Republicans have openly admitted what yer still denying.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying anything. I'm just asking Vern to support his claim. You can help him out if you feel the same way he does. What Republicans? Which Congressional Republicans supported requiring every American to buy health insurance and pay a tax if they didn't? How many can you name? Let's start with one, shall we?
 
Ahlevah said:
So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? :lol: Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
Click to expand...

er uh A, asking a "question" doesn't change the facts. The republicans told you it was their plan to obstruct President Obama. The republicans supported mandates for 20 years. President Obama campaigned against mandates. His plan was DOA so he compromised on mandates. He wanted health care reform, He didn't take the "my way or the highway" approach.

A, you're simply at that stage all conservatives (and conservative like posters) get to in every discussion. You really want to believe what you've been told but when your opinions require you to ignore the actual facts, its not a good opinion.
 
Vern said:
er uh A, asking a "question" doesn't change the facts. The republicans told you it was their plan to obstruct President Obama. The republicans supported mandates for 20 years. President Obama campaigned against mandates. His plan was DOA so he compromised on mandates. He wanted health care reform, He didn't take the "my way or the highway" approach.

A, you're simply at that stage all conservatives (and conservative like posters) get to in every discussion. You really want to believe what you've been told but when your opinions require you to ignore the actual facts, its not a good opinion.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that obama did not want a mandate included but only signed off on it so that he could get republican support?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Are you saying that obama did not want a mandate included but only signed off on it so that he could get republican support?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Trouble, President Obama campaigned on his single payer plan. He campaigned against mandates. But his plan was DOA even in a democratic congress. So in attempt to get much needed health care reform in this country, President Obama compromised on mandates. He and the democratic congress thought that would get republicans on board. Mandates were their plan for 20 years. But they decided to obstruct President Obama for their political gain. Conservatives simply cannot explain the republican flip flop without acknowledging their obstructionism. But remember, they told you it was their plan.
 
Vern said:
Trouble, President Obama campaigned on his single payer plan. He campaigned against mandates. But his plan was DOA even in a democratic congress. So in attempt to get much needed health care reform in this country, President Obama compromised on mandates. He and the democratic congress thought that would get republicans on board. Mandates were their plan for 20 years. But they decided to obstruct President Obama for their political gain. Conservatives simply cannot explain the republican flip flop without acknowledging their obstructionism. But remember, they told you it was their plan.
Click to expand...
Ok but he did not need republican support and he did not offer them the mandate as some form of an olive branch to bring them in. He litterally locked them out of the room. The only reason a mandate was included was because the democrats would not sign off without it. Now i do agree that democrats should not support any republican efforts that they dont include them on. Thats fair but saying the democrats should obstruct just for the sake of obstructing because thats what the republicans did is taking it out of context.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Ok but he did not need republican support and he did not offer them the mandate as some form of an olive branch to bring them in. He litterally locked them out of the room. The only reason a mandate was included was because the democrats would not sign off without it. Now i do agree that democrats should not support any republican efforts that they dont include them on. Thats fair but saying the democrats should obstruct just for the sake of obstructing because thats what the republicans did is taking it out of context.
Click to expand...

President Obama wanted republican support. So did democrats. That's good government. Mandates were a compromise no matter how you try to spin it. He wanted reform. Republcans said they wanted reform and supported mandates for 20 year. Try to look at the actual facts knowing republicans told you their plan was to obstruct democrats and supported mandates for 20 years. That's a big hurdle to overcome to in any way blame democrats or President Obama. And remember you and yours were told President Obama was born in kenya and wanted to kill old people. So republicans had no intention of accepting President Obama's compromise on this or any issue. And you supported their obstructionism blindly. Again, they told you it was the plan.

As far as your last sentence, I going to assume you're talking about now. We're not discussing now. We're discussing republicans suddenly didn't support something they supported for 20 years. And they told you why.
 
Vern said:
er uh A, asking a "question" doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

And voicing an opinion isn't a fact.

Vern said:
A, you're simply at that stage all conservatives (and conservative like posters) get to in every discussion. You really want to believe what you've been told but when your opinions require you to ignore the actual facts, its not a good opinion.
Click to expand...

Vern, I can't ignore a fact I haven't seen yet. Can you offer one? Here are some facts by way of example:

(A) bipartisan health-care agenda at the federal level will necessarily look quite different than one at the state level. If liberals had bothered to ask, they could easily have elicited bipartisan support for a proposal that did the following: (1) set up the Obamacare exchanges for those under 400% of FPL; (2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.

But they didn’t. The Democratically-controlled House passed its plan in 2009 with nearly zero Republican input. In the Senate, the Gang of Six—Democratic Sens. Baucus (Mont.), Conrad (N.D.), and Bingaman (N.M.), and Republican Sens. Grassley (Iowa), Snowe (Maine), and Enzi (Wyo.)—failed to come to an agreement because the Republicans were concerned about the bill’s dramatic increase in taxes and spending.

What a Bipartisan Version of Obamacare Would Have Looked Like
Click to expand...

These facts support this opinion:

Let me be as clear as I can be on this point: the idea that Obamacare was designed by magnanimous Democrats, as a way to be nice to Republicans, is bunk. Instead, Obamacare was designed to please both left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.

What a Bipartisan Version of Obamacare Would Have Looked Like
Click to expand...
 
Ahlevah said:
Vern, I can't ignore a fact I haven't seen yet. Can you offer one? Here are some facts by way of example:

These facts support this opinion:
Click to expand...

I see the problem now A, you don't know what a fact is. You just cant post an editorial that tells you what you want to hear and say "this is a fact". And your "editorial" ignores the fact that republicans supported mandates for 20 years and told you it was the republican plan was to obstruct. A, you can find thousands of lying conservative editorials that tell you what you want to believe but they cant address the facts.

See A, you're simply at the stage all conservatives get to in any discussion. You're starting to realize you've been lied to. Now the easy thing is to look for something to soothe your ego rather than admit the truth. And there is always plenty of lying conservative editorials to comfort you. But its a life choice A, narrative or integrity. Don't worry if you take the easy choice. all conservatives do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom