• 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!

Obamacare is Dead

...

Step 1: Have as many states as possible refuse to expand Medicaid or establish their own exchanges.

Step 2: Promote only the negative aspects of the law and completely ignore every success and positive aspect of it.

Step 3: After doing everything possible to interfere in its implementation, claim the damage you caused is evidence of the law's faults.

Step 4: Win power with absolutely no plan of a better system to put in its place. End up keeping most of the law but passing simple fixes and pretending that it is a whole new system because of them.

Any thing to counter this and help the American people see the benefits of proposed health?
 
Any thing to counter this and help the American people see the benefits of proposed health?

America is too large and diverse. A better approach would be to allow each state to tackle it in its own way and then let people vote with their feet.That is an approach that would be very attractive to the GOP, particularly in the current political climate and their current domineering control of the local field through a successful gerrymandering campaign. However, its implementation would be devastating to them because the systems they advocate for are simply not viable and most states would abandon them within a generation.
 
Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.

I don't even know what you are trying to say there. Just never mind.
 
America is too large and diverse. A better approach would be to allow each state to tackle it in its own way and then let people vote with their feet.That is an approach that would be very attractive to the GOP, particularly in the current political climate and their current domineering control of the local field through a successful gerrymandering campaign. However, its implementation would be devastating to them because the systems they advocate for are simply not viable and most states would abandon them within a generation.

I am optimistic that single payer solution may be more successful in some states than in others. If so then traveling agencies will flourish because people from other states would come to benefit from the single paying state.
 
Just like it has been for the past seven years or so? Alas!
 
The flaws of Obamacare could have been fixed, and still could be. However, the other side was too busy trying to dismantle it and put nothing in its place. One party presents ideas, usually flawed because of their centrism and compromise. The other party spins comically in a circle, as if one of their legs is too short and they don't notice.

Not as long as the ACA props up two entire industries. Seriously, taxpayers cannot fund both national healthcare AND the health INSURANCE industry. We're getting ripped. It's cheaper for taxpayers to just absorb health bills of the indigent than to prop up the insurance industry. Right now, the insurance industry, via the ACA, is the bully at the schoolyard gate, taking the children's lunch money. Citizens are forced to buy policies, many of which are so inadequate that they still can't get healthcare because they can't afford the astronomical deductibles. Who benefits? Only the insurance industry and Big Pharma.

I'm a fiscal conservative and I've been in business long enough to know how to crunch numbers. I think all of us want affordable healthcare and a national plan has been coming for a long time.

This is the wrong plan, however. This is a disaster.

The best way to solve the problem now is to go back to private insurance policies - BUT - institute a national single-payer policy as well. Take away all mandatory requirements. The insurance industry will howl because the national plan, which must be subsidized, will be much more affordable, so private insurers will lose clients. So what? There will always be some who choose Cadillac plans, but the average Joe could also afford care.

And, for the indigent - the truly indigent - we'd have more money left from not subsiding the insurance industry to cover their bills.
 
Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.

Obviously you do not have the foggiest clue what an ad hominem is.
 
America is too large and diverse. A better approach would be to allow each state to tackle it in its own way and then let people vote with their feet.That is an approach that would be very attractive to the GOP,

That would have been a much better approach then the authoritarian ponzi scheme Obama and the democrats shoved down America's throats.

particularly in the current political climate and their current domineering control of the local field through a successful gerrymandering campaign.

Translation: The GOP won majority of state legislatures in the 2010 congressional midterms in effect giving them the gerrymandering advantage that democrats had held for virtually seven decades.

However, its implementation would be devastating to them because the systems they advocate for are simply not viable and most states would abandon them within a generation.

Not nearly as fast as the entire country would abandon obamacare if given the choice. And chances are some of the states would come up with something that would work and become popular. Most other states would eventually go along.
 
Model from countries where single payer system worked then. For example, how about India? And if you look at Micheal Moore's documentaries, then how about other place in Britain?



Call her corrupt because she is a woman all you want, but she is surrounded with capable people, and she would be able to sort this problem financially.

No, I call her corrupt because she is. Has nothing to do because she's a woman. That's rather shallow of you to make that assertion.
 
Ad hominem.

Then it should not have rather than resort to ad hominem.

No, it's not.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[SUP][1][/SUP]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[SUP][2][/SUP] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[SUP][3]
[/SUP]ad hominem

Characterizing Moore's films as propaganda is most certainly not an Ad hominem attack.
How is characterizing Moore's films as propaganda personal in any way?

You really should start knowing the definitions of the terms that you so causally bandy about.
 
...

Step 1: Have as many states as possible refuse to expand Medicaid or establish their own exchanges.

Step 2: Promote only the negative aspects of the law and completely ignore every success and positive aspect of it.

Step 3: After doing everything possible to interfere in its implementation, claim the damage you caused is evidence of the law's faults.

Step 4: Win power with absolutely no plan of a better system to put in its place. End up keeping most of the law but passing simple fixes and pretending that it is a whole new system because of them.

Yep, all the issues you raise are due to the way Obamacare was passed -- with absolutely no Republican support and against every Republican objection.
 
No, it's not.

[/SUP]ad hominem

Characterizing Moore's films as propaganda is most certainly not an Ad hominem attack.
How is characterizing Moore's films as propaganda personal in any way?

Here is how:

Next you are going to cite Al Gore and his "documentary". You really need to get serious about what you cite.

Three "you's" and it goes way passed a critique of Moore and the attention/topic/issue moves "to the man"/me, rather than the position, which was Moore. Moore gone, now the issue is whom I will cite and whether I should get serious about what I cite.

Another Ad Hominem is here:

You really should start knowing the definitions of the terms that you so causally bandy about.

The post is also Ad Hominem (partly) because this paragraph does not addresses the issue, it is not about Ad Hominem (the position), but it is about me personally with 2 "You's" telling me in person what I should start knowing and how I disperse the definitions.
 
Yep, all the issues you raise are due to the way Obamacare was passed -- with absolutely no Republican support and against every Republican objection.

I thought that those steps were used to assure that Obamacare failed.
 
No, I call her corrupt because she is. Has nothing to do because she's a woman. That's rather shallow of you to make that assertion.

Rather than show how she is corrupt I am made the issue and it is asserted that I am being shallow in my assertions/Ad hominem.
 
Here is how:



Three "you's" and it goes way passed a critique of Moore and the attention/topic/issue moves "to the man"/me, rather than the position, which was Moore. Moore gone, now the issue is whom I will cite and whether I should get serious about what I cite.

Another Ad Hominem is here:



The post is also Ad Hominem (partly) because this paragraph does not addresses the issue, it is not about Ad Hominem (the position), but it is about me personally with 2 "You's" telling me in person what I should start knowing and how I disperse the definitions.

Yep, I see a pattern here. Your posts aren't really worth answering with any substance because they have no substance. I think this is what me and eohrnberger and I are trying to tell you.
 
Here is how:



Three "you's" and it goes way passed a critique of Moore and the attention/topic/issue moves "to the man"/me, rather than the position, which was Moore. Moore gone, now the issue is whom I will cite and whether I should get serious about what I cite.

Another Ad Hominem is here:



The post is also Ad Hominem (partly) because this paragraph does not addresses the issue, it is not about Ad Hominem (the position), but it is about me personally with 2 "You's" telling me in person what I should start knowing and how I disperse the definitions.

Ad Hominem isn't just ''those who disagree with me' nor is it any criticism of someone. Nor has it anything to do with how many 'you' or 'yours' are included.

Ad Hominem is a personal attack like calling someone stupid.

So that which you point out still aren't Ad Hominem attacks.
 
Rather than show how she is corrupt I am made the issue and it is asserted that I am being shallow in my assertions/Ad hominem.
I'm not calling you shallow, which would be an Ad Hominem, I'm calling you out on 'because she's a woman' bs.
 
I'm not calling you shallow, which would be an Ad Hominem, I'm calling you out on 'because she's a woman' bs.

Ad Hominem isn't just ''those who disagree with me' nor is it any criticism of someone. Nor has it anything to do with how many 'you' or 'yours' are included.

Ad Hominem is a personal attack like calling someone stupid.

So that which you point out still aren't Ad Hominem attacks.

Nope,

It is not a personal attack, it is discussing at the person/ad hominem/at the man, rather than the post. Does not has to be an attack, but as long as it diverts attention from the post (usually because it cannot be tackled) to the person then it is ad hominem, this according to the source provided in this debate.
 
Yep, I see a pattern here. Your posts aren't really worth answering with any substance because they have no substance. I think this is what me and eohrnberger and I are trying to tell you.

If they are not worth answering then why are they still being answered?
 
Nope,

It is not a personal attack, it is discussing at the person/ad hominem/at the man, rather than the post. Does not has to be an attack, but as long as it diverts attention from the post (usually because it cannot be tackled) to the person then it is ad hominem, this according to the source provided in this debate.

So any post that "diverts attention from the post" is an 'ad hominem'? Well that can't be right.

Straying off topic a bit, perhaps, but still well within the rules as I've experienced them on this forum.

So back to the point.

Model from countries where single payer system worked then. For example, how about India? And if you look at Micheal Moore's documentaries, then how about other place in Britain?



Call her corrupt because she is a woman all you want, but she is surrounded with capable people, and she would be able to sort this problem financially.

I wasn't calling Hillary corrupt because she's a woman,
(that's a weak argument / position to make / take, as how can you possibly hope to prove or disprove that?)
I was calling Hillary corrupt for her continued inability to perform her 'public' service (more like self-service if you ask me), without glaring and ever present conflict of interest situations, which she invariably shrugs off as if those laws and rules don't apply to her.

If you look at her history, it's little more than a hit parade of one scandal after another, all punctuated with this consistent and continuous conflict of interest situations.
 
The flaws of Obamacare could have been fixed, and still could be. However, the other side was too busy trying to dismantle it and put nothing in its place. One party presents ideas, usually flawed because of their centrism and compromise. The other party spins comically in a circle, as if one of their legs is too short and they don't notice.

You need to stop drinking the kool-aid.
 
My premiums are actually going down a dollar or so next year .. oh, but the coverage dropped too .. .. oh my .. .. . Looks like I'll have to spend more to get equivalent benefits.

By the way, I read "somewhere" that income is up 843% between 1955 and 2010, but the cost of healthcare went up 6,900% during that span!

What are we going to do ...

What can we do?

When we have people voting in politicians to bring home the bacon, and continue to allow it, we are a doomed nation.

People need to stop voting for selfish reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom