• 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!

Frustration mounts over ObamaCare co-op failures

Besides being wrong, you are still missing the point
1. They are not the same. You are required to have liability which is to cover damages you cause. Not injury to yourself as healthcare coverage does.
They simply are not the same thing.
2. You are also wrong as you can drive a motor vehicle without insurance on your own property.

It's not wrong. Car insurance is a form of insurance mandated by government. To use your vehicle on the public roads, you must have it, regardless of whether it is something you own or not.

The main difference between car insurance and health insurance is the overall cost of the system. Car insurance is easier to handle on the private side because the costs of fixing/replacing cars is far lower than that of healthcare. We already aggregate car insurance over everyone, this is done via government mandate. So a less complex and less expensive insurance system is already under mandate from government.

With nationalized health insurance, you can aggregate risk and costs over all the People, thus lowering costs and increasing accessibility of healthcare. Nobody exists in a vacuum, people being sick or dying can affect us all through costs and insurance premiums. Increasing the population we're able to aggregate over helps not only to offset the costs by having more people to pool from, but also with greater access comes reduction in costs as well. It's easier and cheaper to treat cancer when it's caught early.

We already have forms of nationalized healthcare. We have medicade and medicare systems for specific groups of folk, but also we have the ER. The ER cannot turn down anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Those who can't pay...the taxpayer eats the cost. So we're already doing it. It's just that using the ER is insanely expensive and stupid. If you can treat people before they need to go to the ER, you can save money and lives.
 
United Health care is leaving the exchange. BCBS is going to limit it to certain counties.
"UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross Blue Shield are the only health-care insurers that sold marketplace plans in every Arizona county this year. If Blue Cross Blue Shield also drops marketplace plans in some rural counties, it could leave consumers in those counties without a way to get subsidized health-care insurance.


One of Arizona's largest health-care insurers to exit marketplace; second could follow


imo, Obamacare has been a train wreck. Less coverage and higher premiums.

Obamacare has been a train wreck, but it wasn't designed to fix any problems. Just shuffle money around and mandate that people buy a faulty product.
 
Obamacare has been a train wreck, but it wasn't designed to fix any problems. Just shuffle money around and mandate that people buy a faulty product.

Just like the broken promise of you can keep your plan and doctors.
 
Paul saves money and gets greater access to healthcare, as does Peter. Peter is still paying as well, just not as much (as is Paul).

less money for and greater access to healthcare is what can be achieved through proper use of nationalized healthcare.
Doesn't matter one bit who you think can save money or not. Spinning the argument doesn't change the underlying basis of the facts.
It is still taking from one to give to another that which they did not earn.
It is fundamentally wrong.


Just an opinion, you've given not proof that it is an invalid argument.
I already provided you example of what healthcare would be covered under general welfare.
You have yet to refute that.

[/QUOTE]General welfare is general welfare,[/QUOTE]Example already provided.
It doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
If it did it wold have been required by the founders.


and now that healthcare has aggregated to such levels of technology and sophistication it has and prices are where they are and that everyone has the right to life, under general welfare we can make a nationalized healthcare system that ultimately saves the People money and allows them better access to our healthcare system. Improving quality of life and individual liberty.
No. Healthcare is not needed for you to live your natural life.
An "individual's" health concerns has nothing to do with the "general" welfare of the society like preventing the spread of a contagion does.

Healthcare is a product and service provided by others.
If you want it pay for/earn it on your own.

If it is about access/affordability for those among us you are actually arguing for, then start a non-profit insurance agency where all of you who are like minded can support those you want covered as well.
You wont do it because you know it isn't a tenable solution to get what you want, so instead you want to wrongly burden everyone else.




Peter and Paul both make out well.
1. Irrelevant.
2. Against choice.
3. Still taking from one to give to another.
 
Just like the broken promise of you can keep your plan and doctors.

Obama was just trying to get some more money to his corporate sponsors, Obamacare wasn't a system designed to benefit the People.
 
It's not wrong. Car insurance is a form of insurance mandated by government. To use your vehicle on the public roads, you must have it, regardless of whether it is something you own or not.
Yes it is wrong, as it is not the same thing in scope or coverage.
It is insurance to protect others from you.


The main difference between car insurance and health insurance is the overall cost of the system.
Wrong.
It is insurance to protect others from you.


Car insurance is easier to handle on the private side because the costs of fixing/replacing cars is far lower than that of healthcare. We already aggregate car insurance over everyone, this is done via government mandate. So a less complex and less expensive insurance system is already under mandate from government.
1 Lame argument as they are not the same thing.
2. Wrong. We do not aggregate this to everyone.


With nationalized health insurance, you can aggregate risk and costs over all the People, thus lowering costs and increasing accessibility of healthcare.
Not your or the government's business.


Nobody exists in a vacuum, people being sick or dying can affect us all through costs and insurance premiums.
Oy Vey!
Injury, sickness and dying are part of life. Unless they affect the entire nation as a whole (general welfare, such as in a contagion) it is none of the government's business.


Increasing the population we're able to aggregate over helps not only to offset the costs by having more people to pool from, but also with greater access comes reduction in costs as well. It's easier and cheaper to treat cancer when it's caught early.


We already have forms of nationalized healthcare. We have medicade and medicare systems for specific groups of folk,
We do not have to have that. Especially as we can see what it has lead to and the difficulties that then exist with trying to eliminate it.


but also we have the ER. The ER cannot turn down anyone, regardless of ability to pay. Those who can't pay...the taxpayer eats the cost. So we're already doing it.
Not really.
Those who receive the treatment are billed for it. Their skipping on the payment part is the problem.
They should always be on the hook for it until it is paid in full by them.
With current technology that is feasible.
Still, we do not have to have such a requirement.
 
Things aggregated to far lower values and size. There's plenty private business can do, but it cannot do everything. Healthcare has aggregated itself to such large levels, financially and universally across the People. The current insurance system isn't working, it's produced a system that is amongst the most expensive and most exclusive in the modern world.

Like for example?

Yes, government mandates that you have car insurance. You cannot drive a car without it.

Yes, and why is this your argument? Why is this always the argument? How in the hell does it defend anything? It seems to me that it's just an excuse that opens up an entirely different issue.

The current system of insurance is, indeed, one reason why costs have become inflated. The poor regulations, the improper regulations, on insurance are one of the reasons that happened. It doesn't mean there should be zero regulation, there needs to be proper regulation. What we have now obviously, and measurable, doesn't work.

Health insurance as a concept doesn't really work, but this desire to have to cover everything under the sun is unbelievably dumb. It was never designed to withstand the pressure of those kind of demands and it's standing up to it poorly. If people never got used to the idea of relying on third parties in the transaction then costs would haven't be anywhere near where they are now. Regardless, if you look back at things from HMO's to government mandates on insurance all of them have created the situation we are in now.
 
If it is about access/affordability for those among us you are actually arguing for, then start a non-profit insurance agency where all of you who are like minded can support those you want covered as well.

A private organization cannot aggregate systems on the scale that government can, and when you approach the monetary values involved in the healthcare system, private organizations have a hard time sourcing that flow and maintaining it. It’s one of the reasons we see the failures with Obamacare we see now.

It’s so nice to say “go start a non-profit insurance agency”, but a localized, private organization like that will not have the effect that government can have. Government has the stability and financial backing to be able to aggregate over the entire population and because of that, produces these effects. To produce this lower of costs and increased access to healthcare, the government is the necessary tool.

If You wont do it because you know it isn't a tenable solution to get what you want, so instead you want to wrongly burden everyone else.

You’re right, it’s not tenable. The scales are too large for a private, small scale, organization to have any affect on the aggregated system. Government has the power to aggregate over the healthcare pool, not private industry. Too many people, too much money for private corps to handle well.


If 1. Irrelevant.
2. Against choice.
3. Still taking from one to give to another.

It’s not irrelevant, you cannot argue against it so you’re trying to dismiss. Lots of things are against choice, you have no choice with car insurance as an example. You have no choice in taxes, for example. Everyone is going to have healthcare, this way just makes it cheaper and easier to obtain. Everyone just pays into the system, much like they do for insurance, but with much larger leverage on the system since the aggregated pool is much larger.
 
Less we save the aggregate people money by aggregating risks and costs over the whole. Then people can end up paying less for and having more access to healthcare. Part of the reason government exists is general welfare.

If you want a national system then I suggest you go about getting 3/4's of the people to agree to an amendment to the constitution so that you may have a consensus on the issue. As it stands despite what the courts have said, the current Obama care system is patently unconstitutional and was passed unilaterally over massive objection.
 
Our insurance and healthcare system clearly do not work well at this point. America has the highest costs and lowest accessibility to healthcare than any other advanced nation.



it's the same system and dynamics as insurance. there are plenty of places where we have government mandates for insurance, including car insurance and now health insurance. You for ending car insurance as well? And have you tried going without medical insurance? The prices have over inflated to ridiculous values. It's one reason we have insurance, but the system hasn't been regulated well and thus it's exploded into the mess that we have currently. An intelligently designed nationalized healthcare system can lower the costs of healthcare while increasing the access to it for everyone.

I have concierge service for 79 bucks a month and the rates I get on services not covered are incredible. It covers the first 90% of what I might need done. It doesn't cover major emergencies but I can se the doc anytime I need. Most prices that someone without insurance pays, outrageously inflated rates. Take an appendix removal operation. Here cash price at the hospital is about 50,000 dollars. With my concierge service that same operation with same people is about $3500.00 out the door all inclusive with an anesthesiologist. That's fricken huge. They are in the process of franchising this practice and I am going to be setting up a partnership where I am moving to. They make good money saving people good money and keeping them healthy. Most of that inflation is from the fact that hospitals and doctors that take insurance have huge amounts of paperwork to do and bull**** to deal with and the fact they can because very few people know what is going on.
 
Should have done this right, should have had a public option.

We could benefit the people greatly by a real National Healthcare System...but that won't net the Republocrats profit, so we will never get it.

No, nothing is more detrimental to society then enforced reliance on Government. This is a bad idea on a number of fronts, the least of which being cost.
 
No, nothing is more detrimental to society then enforced reliance on Government. This is a bad idea on a number of fronts, the least of which being cost.

It would be cheaper. All modern countries that have some form of nationalized healthcare overall pay less for and have better access to healthcare.

There is no enforced reliance on government, government is merely a tool to achieve these ends given its size, stability, and ability to aggregate over very large populations and financial obligation.
 
It would be cheaper. All modern countries that have some form of nationalized healthcare overall pay less for and have better access to healthcare.

There is no enforced reliance on government, government is merely a tool to achieve these ends given its size, stability, and ability to aggregate over very large populations and financial obligation.

Then move to one of THOSE countries and don't try to force you views of morality on me.
 
Then move to one of THOSE countries and don't try to force you views of morality on me.

No. What a fascist thing to say "My way, or move out". It's America, I am free to pursue political agendas and support candidates who will bring about those ends. If you want political censorship, why don't you move to China? Don't force your view of morality on me. haha
 
No. What a fascist thing to say "My way, or move out". It's America, I am free to pursue political agendas and support candidates who will bring about those ends. If you want political censorship, why don't you move to China? Don't force your view of morality on me. haha

You want to enslave me into a healthcare system that I have no choice but to participate in, taking my income to fund your desired system.

And you call ME Facist. Get a mirror buddy.
 
Should have done this right, should have had a public option.

We could benefit the people greatly by a real National Healthcare System...but that won't net the Republocrats profit, so we will never get it.
\

The big insurance companies would love a national healthcare system.. tons of profit for them.

And two systems.. one for the rich.. and a crappy government program for everyone else.
 
Our insurance and healthcare system clearly do not work well at this point. America has the highest costs and lowest accessibility to healthcare than any other advanced nation.



it's the same system and dynamics as insurance. there are plenty of places where we have government mandates for insurance, including car insurance and now health insurance. You for ending car insurance as well? And have you tried going without medical insurance? The prices have over inflated to ridiculous values. It's one reason we have insurance, but the system hasn't been regulated well and thus it's exploded into the mess that we have currently. An intelligently designed nationalized healthcare system can lower the costs of healthcare while increasing the access to it for everyone.

Except we score among the highest in healthcare. In things like timeliness of care and effectiveness of care.

For most americans.. the 90% that are insured.. a national healthcare program would be a decrease in coverage for them.
 
No one but the individual should be responsible for their healthcare.

What is your thought on police and fire protection?
 
It would be cheaper. All modern countries that have some form of nationalized healthcare overall pay less for and have better access to healthcare.

There is no enforced reliance on government, government is merely a tool to achieve these ends given its size, stability, and ability to aggregate over very large populations and financial obligation.

Actually they probably don;t pay that much less. Not when you consider that they pay for other things that don;t get lumped under cost of healthcare... (like paying for physician education and retirement) and when you calculate the differences in pay etc between economies.
 
You want to enslave me into a healthcare system that I have no choice but to participate in, taking my income to fund your desired system.

And you call ME Facist. Get a mirror buddy.

I was just handing back what you were dishing out Mr. "Go move somewhere else if you don't like what I like".

I'm not looking to "enslave" anyone. Just pay less money for while gaining more access to healthcare.
 
Except we score among the highest in healthcare. In things like timeliness of care and effectiveness of care.

For most americans.. the 90% that are insured.. a national healthcare program would be a decrease in coverage for them.

We have some nice standards, but ultimately pay the most for while having the least access to our healthcare system.

I'm not sure why a national healthcare program would automatically be a "decrease in coverage" for people. Most places that have some form or add-mixture of national healthcare tend to have, overall, better coverage.
 
I was just handing back what you were dishing out Mr. "Go move somewhere else if you don't like what I like".

I'm not looking to "enslave" anyone. Just pay less money for while gaining more access to healthcare.

UHC and other Government imposed systems where in unelected bureaucrats control your well being, choices and you cannot escape from is fundamentally repulsive. That is what UHC is.

Unelected bureaucrats making choices for you, you are forced to adhere to with no escape, no choice and forced to pay under penalty.

I fail to see the value in any of that.
 
UHC and other Government imposed systems where in unelected bureaucrats control your well being, choices and you cannot escape from is fundamentally repulsive. That is what UHC is.

Unelected bureaucrats making choices for you, you are forced to adhere to with no escape, no choice and forced to pay under penalty.

I fail to see the value in any of that.

Actually, modern nations that have some form of UHC typically post lower healthcare costs and better access to healthcare than we have in America. I'd call paying less for more has intrinsic value to it.
 
Actually, modern nations that have some form of UHC typically post lower healthcare costs and better access to healthcare than we have in America. I'd call paying less for more has intrinsic value to it.

It's an illusion. You pay for it in taxation and lower economic freedom for the false belief you are being saved.
 
It's an illusion. You pay for it in taxation and lower economic freedom for the false belief you are being saved.

You do pay for it in taxation, but the taxes you pay are less than the premiums you pay now, that's the whole "lowering costs" part. I don't think it's "lower economic freedom" any more than any particular insurance "restricts" economic freedom. It's just another form of insurance. Does the insurance offered through your job "lower your economic freedom"?
 
Back
Top Bottom