• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

MN Democrat Gov. Obamacare not affordable.

Nowadays? Saying I'm not a Republican is a compliment. Thank you. Actually modern Republicans like you are the phonies. They don't represent ANYTHING that the GOP of the past stood for. It use to be the party of the working man. Not anymore.

Now it's the party of, Donald Trump!! LOL That's all that needs to be said to show how offtrack and lost the current GOP is.

thank you for proving my point. First off I am conservative before I am republican and before I am a conservative I am an American.

I have yet to see a democrat policy that was for me. all I see are more and more policies that take money from me.
let me know when liberals actually have an idea that doesn't take money out of my pocket and give it to someone else.
 
I have yet to see a democrat policy that was for me.

Not a single one huh? NOT ONE! Yep, as I said you are a typical modern day Republican. No compromise. Just vicious, fanatical devotion to you party.

And right now your party being lead by a madman. So you are a REPUBLICAN 1st, not an American. No true patriotic American would support someone like a Donny Trump.
 
Not a single one huh? NOT ONE! Yep, as I said you are a typical modern day Republican. No compromise. Just vicious, fanatical devotion to you party.

And right now your party being lead by a madman. So you are a REPUBLICAN 1st, not an American. No true patriotic American would support someone like a Donny Trump.

Ahh, its been a while since I heard from a True Scotsman.
 
Not a single one huh? NOT ONE! Yep, as I said you are a typical modern day Republican. No compromise. Just vicious, fanatical devotion to you party.

And right now your party being lead by a madman. So you are a REPUBLICAN 1st, not an American. No true patriotic American would support someone like a Donny Trump.

your assumptions are just that conjecture not based in reality.
Nope I am an American that is why I will not support Clinton. Higher taxes on working people and businesses. means less money for me.

I still don't know who I am voting for, However I will not support Clinton and her anti-prosperity and anti-worker policies.
 
Why did these politicians not listen to all of the very smart people, experts, who warned before it was voted on that Obamacare can not work? You didn't even have to be a well educated person to know that. A sixth grader doing basic math could have told us that Obamacare would fail.

Well first, they were lied to. Second, they didnt even read the bill.

Gruber said:
"In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."

Pelosi said:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
 
There is, actually. Speaking strictly from a policy standpoint, the fixes are conceptually extremely easy. Eliminate the employer mandate and penalty, change the subsidy cutoff from 400% of FPL to 800% of FPL and smooth it after that

Where does the revenue come from to essentially end the employer-based system and buy another 160 million people exchange coverage instead? And how on earth would it be politically feasible to bump those people out of a situation where platinum-level benefits are the norm and into one where silver-level benefits are the most popular choice?

I suppose it is easy on a conceptual level to just buy the whole country exchange coverage. But on every other level, it's actually pretty challenging.

prohibit insurance networking.

That defeats much of the point of having a market in the first place. And would drive health care price inflation.
 
Where does the revenue come from to essentially end the employer-based system and buy another 160 million people exchange coverage instead?

From the same thing that made it Constitutional for Congress to compel private commerce with the threat of a penalty: the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

And how on earth would it be politically feasible to bump those people out of a situation where platinum-level benefits are the norm and into one where silver-level benefits are the most popular choice?

You're asking me to speculate the political feasibility of fixing what's wrong with our health care system? You're right, anything but what we're currently doing is "politically unfeasible," so we're good, right?

I suppose it is easy on a conceptual level to just buy the whole country exchange coverage. But on every other level, it's actually pretty challenging.

It's what the law was designed to do. Why was the law designed to do this if the reaction to the idea that we should move everyone onto it is met with this sort of resistance?

That defeats much of the point of having a market in the first place. And would drive health care price inflation.

It's getting to the point where increasing numbers of people don't have "a market" anyway. We certainly don't in my state (and yeah, I get that we're an outlier). Insurers are scrambling to merge and acquire each other, leaving or contemplating it in several states, "the market" seems to be rather quickly folding in on itself. And the idea of this law being about "the market" was illusory from the start, to try to convince those dead set against government health insurance that this was a pro-market reform.
 
Shouldn't you look also at income
From a quick search the average income in Alaska is $69,825 and Minnesota is $ 58,476. That is $11,349 per year diff. The cost of living is higher in AK. Hence your medical, gas, food, etc is going to be higher. It is not surprising to me that AK health insurance is higher than the lower 48.

A concern I have in AZ is the amount of insurance companies pulling out of the ACA. Also the costs are going up with the ones that remain. Seems not enough young healthy people are signing up under ACA to help off set costs.
That's one of the stupid things among many about the ACA. It competes against itself. It expanded allowing young people to be on their parent's employer coverage until age 26 but it needs young people to have ACA plans to offset the costs. It's clear that nobody who actually has any expertise in the insurance industry was consulted when the ACA was written.
 
From the same thing that made it Constitutional for Congress to compel private commerce with the threat of a penalty: the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

You're asking me to speculate the political feasibility of fixing what's wrong with our health care system? You're right, anything but what we're currently doing is "politically unfeasible," so we're good, right?

It's what the law was designed to do. Why was the law designed to do this if the reaction to the idea that we should move everyone onto it is met with this sort of resistance?

It's getting to the point where increasing numbers of people don't have "a market" anyway. We certainly don't in my state (and yeah, I get that we're an outlier). Insurers are scrambling to merge and acquire each other, leaving or contemplating it in several states, "the market" seems to be rather quickly folding in on itself. And the idea of this law being about "the market" was illusory from the start, to try to convince those dead set against government health insurance that this was a pro-market reform.

What a great example of a political cluster****! It's what happens when government decides to do things that government isn't qualified to do.

Frankly, neither Ds nor Rs, nor any bi-partisan coalition of them, are qualified to micromanage anything more complicated than building a road (and they often make huge errors in the most simple things).

Anything and everything that is run by government becomes a lot worse mess than it needs to be. There are systemic reasons for this failure. Neither political gang has any clue as to how to solve anything in the free market. All they know how to do is add restrictions, regulations, and inject cash in all the wrong places. Invevitably, they wind up with a lot worse case than before their interference.

0-care (0 benefits for mucho dinero) is just the latest example.

People in our area pay for 0-care because they have to. But, when it comes to real medical care, many are glad that Mexico is so close. People from as far away as Alaska go to Mexico for their medical care.
 
What a great example of a political cluster****! It's what happens when government decides to do things that government isn't qualified to do.

(and jumping ahead)

Neither political gang has any clue as to how to solve anything in the free market. All they know how to do is add restrictions, regulations, and inject cash in all the wrong places. Invevitably, they wind up with a lot worse case than before their interference.

Government began entitling people to medical care, regardless of whether they pay for it or not, decades ago. Are you advocating a cash-only health care system that repeals all government health care laws, policies & programs?

Frankly, neither Ds nor Rs, nor any bi-partisan coalition of them, are qualified to micromanage anything more complicated than building a road (and they often make huge errors in the most simple things).

Federal policymakers aren't supposed to micromanage anything. They're supposed to pass policies. Management and micromanagement are for the wage workers.

Anything and everything that is run by government becomes a lot worse mess than it needs to be.

So, anarcho-capitalism then?
 
Back
Top Bottom