• 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!

Doyou think Obamacare should be repealed?

Do you think Obamacare should be repealed?


  • Total voters
    63
I think Republicans are open for any reasonable health plan.........

This has been consistently demonstrated to be untrue.

The difference is Republicans want to pay for it, democrats don't care.......They know that they can get votes this way.

Go back over the last couple years and read the news more carefully regarding the raising of the debt debacle. You'll see that Democrats wanted to raise taxes in addition to cutting spending in order to address the debt, which the Republicans did not want. So both parties agree that the debt is a problem, but not on how to address it.

Of course, if you get your news entirely from right wing blogs, Fox News and am radio, it's certainly easy to understand why you would think Democrats don't care about the debt.
 
I disagree with you in your characterization of the Republican's abilities...but I agree that type of reform would never be enacted...because the Democrats would never allow it.

How would you see the government dealing with the lack of interstate competition? As I said to Goshin, I believe his idea is inarguable, but this has typically been the sort of solution that is tarnished as socialism/government interference.
 
How would you see the government dealing with the lack of interstate competition? As I said to Goshin, I believe his idea is inarguable, but this has typically been the sort of solution that is tarnished as socialism/government interference.

Ummm...

Are you suggesting that allowing interstate competition is "socialism/government interference"?

If so, how do you figure?
 
Last edited:
Unlike Medicare, ObamaCare and Medicaid seek to make medical care/insurance into a basic right for some at the expense of others. This is income redistribution at its worst. All people need food, clothing and shelter yet they are not rights, we are all expected to work and provide them for ourselves and to our dependents. As the gov't creates many more entitlement programs the separation from the need to work and a having a decent standard of living grows ever smaller. In the liberal, utopian society, work will be required only to secure luxuries, as all things considered to be needs will be supplied by the gov't as 'rights', through taxation of the (ever dwindling) productive. If a person gets a pet that they can not (or will not) feed and properly care for, then they are charged with a crime and the pet is taken to a shelter. If that same person has a child that they can not (or will not) feed and properly care for, then they are considered needy and given a gov't check as a reward - is that insane or what?
 
This country is a free republic...........If you want everything handed to you on a silver platter then move to Cuba....

That has nothing to with what I said. SO, why are you leaping around?

But since you mentioned Cuban:

One of the hallmarks of the Cuban health system since the early 1980s has been its research results and applications -- ranging from high-tech biotechnology and vaccine R&D, to broad community-based epidemiological studies on chronic diseases.

The health system - its universal access and coverage, as well as statistical records - has provided the formidable backbone for research, enabling massive informed-consent participation in clinical trials of new medications and vaccines, as well as longitudinal studies on conditions such as chronic vascular diseases and cancer.

The Cuban philosophy is “closed-loop” research, in which investigation priorities are based on priority health problems that need solving, whether outbreaks of disease (such as meningitis or hepatitis); the financial urgency of replacing expensive imported drugs; or the conditions that come with aging. Research is carried out, and then results applied nationally and/or internationally, thus “closing the loop.” Vaccine research is currently being carried out into such “neglected diseases” as cholera, dengue, tuberculosis and leptospirosis.

In addition, the universal nature of the health system has greatly facilitated national studies on key topics. One such study on the disabled has led to reforms in the health and education systems to more adequately meet the needs of these persons. (See Por la Vida, Casa Editorial Abril, La Habana, 2003.). National registries - in everything from sickle cell anemia to twins - have also been developed as a way to direct better attention to specific populations within the country.

As Cuba emerged from the economic hurricane of the 90s, the country’s health system began to share its experience more widely with other developing countries, engendering South-South synergies that continue to develop today, both in medical services, research and medical education (see Cuba and Global Health ¡Salud!).

Cuban Health System
 
Is that what I said?

Also,

The wording of your post makes understanding your point quite difficult. That's why I asked for a clarification. Can you provide one?
 
Because I don't believe in socialism or crade to grave care...
Its not socialism. Its not socialized health care. Health care is still handled by private insurance companies.

.That is not what this country was founded on.........
Really?
Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Forbes

.First it will be health care, then a job, then a free car to gt to the job, then a free home to live in, then free food..................Who is going to pay for all these freebies?
Of course it will be...
This is a classic strawman. Thanks for giving the kiddies a prefect example of what a strawman is Navy!
Just like gay marriage right? Then people will want to marry pets, then they will want to marry a tree! Right?

Wow I see the poll has turned around quite a bit since I posted the national poll....that is great to see........
Cool...
 
See the highlighted text above.

Who says that's what everyone wants?

It's not what I want. I want everyone who wants healthcare to pay for their own healthcare. If they choose not to pay for their healthcare then they don't get it. It's kind of like buying a car...if they want a car they can pay for it...if they don't want to pay for a car then they don't get a car. If Obamacare were about cars, then everyone would have to buy a car...and if they can't afford a car, then I would have to help them buy one.

Everyone who is part of the labor force already pays into a health care system. It's called "Medicare" and it's funded in part from payroll taxes. The CLASS Act was one part "Medicare" where everyone who participates pays a tax toward coverage and one part "Medicaid" where the health care benefits can be used after a specified period of time has lapsed (5 yrs, if I remember the initial requirements correctly). The only reason the CLASS Act didn't work was because Congress didn't put an expiration date on Medicare and Medicaid. Had our duly elected legislators shown courage, we'd have something better than "ObamaCare" that works exactly like Medicaid but is financied by working people just like Medicare. You could even go a step further and incorporate a lump-sum payment option into the mix akin to health savings accounts for those who want to pay more and receive better benefits or "pay-in-full" and draw benefits directly from their account until it needs to be replenished.

Everyone would then be taking full responsibility for their own health care and by imposing a "health care tax" identical to that portion of the payroll tax that pays for SSN/Medicare benefits the funding mechanism would be constitutional.
 
Its not socialism. Its not socialized health care. Health care is still handled by private insurance companies.

Private companies that are sanctioned by the government. If they don't toe the line of Obamacare then they get into trouble.
 
Private companies that are sanctioned by the government. If they don't toe the line of Obamacare then they get into trouble.

Nationalization of the healthcare industry would be socialized health care. New regulations is not socialism. We have regulations now. Weve had regulations in the past. Is our healthcare system always been socialist then?
 
I came across the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman Act before while researching and subsequently responding to commentary in this thread on health insurance and the constitutionality of the individual mandate. (See link in post #23)

The counter-argument many people have used when discussing the individual mandate has been that in both cases where the government instituted an "individual mandate" the laws that were enacted at the time were directed primarily at military personal (i.e., sailors for the purpose of ensuring international trade continued and infantrymen to purchase weapons and other munitions), segments of the population the government controlled constitutionally, i.e., Army and Navy. Only problem here is in both cases, not everyone who made up our Army or Navy signed up on the dotted line.

The U.S. Army included volunteer militiamen and the Relief of Sick and Disabled Act related initially to volunteer merchant Marines/Sailors. It wasn't until around 1799 did the government require members of the Navy to have health insurance. And in both cases, the government empossed a tax on health care coverage whether you volunteered or were conscripted. Thing is most people see these such Act as being enforceable only because the mandates were only directed at military personal/volunteers. Still, those "volunteers" were civilians! We tend to forget that.
 
Private companies that are sanctioned by the government. If they don't toe the line of Obamacare then they get into trouble.

Private companies don't seem to have a problem accepting federal tax subsidies/deductions for the portion of health care costs they pay for their employees. I see no problem with the government telling these companies that if they don't cover their employees but still accept said subsidies they will be subject to a tax penalty. It's only fair. Use the tax subsidy to offset the cost of health insurance coverage or pay the money back via a fine.
 
No not with me my left wing friend, you are out of touch with the whole country........

Favor repeal 56% Oppose Repeal 37%

As I have said before in my post, the 1 trillion over 15 years it will cost can be made by gradually phasing out all Bush taxcuts, making government more efficient, and drawing down our military to 2001 budget levels.

As for the Healthcare act being opposed; of course it will be opposed by a majority of Americans if one side continuously slams the idea of everything about it is horrible and bad, from spreading flatout lies to telling half-truths when the side for it, is really ****ing stupid about explaining it in a matter that makes sense to Americans. The biggest misunderstanding, is that people believe they are going to get a serious fine if they don't have healthcare. By 2016 the max fine is $695 if you don't have health insurance or 2.5% of your income, whichever comes first.

The funny thing about this poll is most of those polled won't even be effected by such a tax. Roughly 20% of Americans do not have insurance, most of those that don't have it are at poverty level and will not be fined, or if they make $25,000 or under will get it all back by the end of the year anyways, so that leaves maybe 1 in 10 Americans that will seriously be "fined". If you are making $30,000 a year by 2016 and opt to not have insurance then you are paying about 2.31% ($695) more in taxes before deductions and likely less.
 
As I have said before in my post, the 1 trillion over 15 years it will cost can be made by gradually phasing out all Bush taxcuts, making government more efficient, and drawing down our military to 2001 budget levels.

A couple of problems with your points:

1. The Democrats seem to want to fix a number of problems by phasing out the Bush tax cuts...Obamacare's costs, the deficit, the debt, etc. I'm sorry, but y'all are gonna have to choose. That rise in taxes just won't cover it all.

2. Speaking of the rise in taxes...do you seriously think the Public will approve an increase in their taxes so that the government can TELL them what to buy?

3. "making the government more efficient"...do you even think that is possible? Has the government ever done that before?

4. "drawing down our military..."...National Defense is mandated by the Constitution...unlike any of the entitlement programs that eat so much money...and is the LAST place to cut. Start with the entitlements.
 
A couple of problems with your points:

1. The Democrats seem to want to fix a number of problems by phasing out the Bush tax cuts...Obamacare's costs, the deficit, the debt, etc. I'm sorry, but y'all are gonna have to choose. That rise in taxes just won't cover it all.

2. Speaking of the rise in taxes...do you seriously think the Public will approve an increase in their taxes so that the government can TELL them what to buy?

3. "making the government more efficient"...do you even think that is possible? Has the government ever done that before?

4. "drawing down our military..."...National Defense is mandated by the Constitution...unlike any of the entitlement programs that eat so much money...and is the LAST place to cut. Start with the entitlements.

Addressing this last point. Just because national defense is mandated by the Constitution doesn't mean wasteful defense spending doesn't exist. Weren't you the one who just said government was inherently inefficient?
 
"drawing down our military..."...National Defense is mandated by the Constitution

Only defense is proscribed under the Constitution.

We have no need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined for defense only.
 
I don't believe that universal healthcare is viable, simply because I don't believe it will be able to provide the best care possible, to those who need it most. Instead of Universal Health Care, I think we should stick to letting individual people purchase the health care plans that are best suited to their needs, while regulating how insurance policies are managed. I just don't see UHC as anything other than a taxpayer burden that will only get heavier as the years go by.
 
A couple of problems with your points:

1. The Democrats seem to want to fix a number of problems by phasing out the Bush tax cuts...Obamacare's costs, the deficit, the debt, etc. I'm sorry, but y'all are gonna have to choose. That rise in taxes just won't cover it all.

2. Speaking of the rise in taxes...do you seriously think the Public will approve an increase in their taxes so that the government can TELL them what to buy?

3. "making the government more efficient"...do you even think that is possible? Has the government ever done that before?

4. "drawing down our military..."...National Defense is mandated by the Constitution...unlike any of the entitlement programs that eat so much money...and is the LAST place to cut. Start with the entitlements.

We should start where the pork and fat is, with the defense budget. Right now the House is trying to give the Pentagon more money than it even wants. Doesn't that clue you in on where their bread is buttered?
Every poll I've seen says voters are overwhelmingly in favor of ending the tax cuts for the top bracket and why wouldn't they? It's less money for hedge funds and more money for bridges and schools, whats not to like?

The administration signaled last week that it would not support a budget that is $4 billion over the president's request and $8 billion over the spending caps set last fall by the bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the Armed Services Committee chairman, had a terse exchange of statements last week, with Panetta claiming the extra money would actually hurt the military by making it more likely that Congress and the White House will be unable to avoid across-the-board budget cuts in January that could reduce the 2013 defense budget by $55 billion or more.
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120516/AGENCY04/205160303/1017/CONGRESS03
 
Last edited:
Addressing this last point. Just because national defense is mandated by the Constitution doesn't mean wasteful defense spending doesn't exist. Weren't you the one who just said government was inherently inefficient?

I have to agree. The military wastes the **** out of money, and the "defense" budget should be cut just on principal.
 
Okay, this is to all of you who responded to my post.

I agree that wasteful spending is bad...no matter what agency or department it occurs in. I won't single out one particular department, though. If you want to end wasteful spending, then enact an across-the-board spending cut. The various agencies and departments will HAVE to cut the waste or fail in their intended functions. The directors of those that fail should be replaced with people who CAN provide the function without the waste.

Now. It's easy to rail on the DOD as being too big. But the fact is, it's mandated. There are a whole host of departments and agencies that are NOT mandated by the Constitution. THESE should be cut back or eliminated first. If we still have deficit spending after doing all we can in those areas, THEN we should look at DOD.

The first place to work on is Obamacare. It's totally unnecessary and it fails at its intended goal. Dump the piece of crap.
 
Addressing this last point. Just because national defense is mandated by the Constitution doesn't mean wasteful defense spending doesn't exist. Weren't you the one who just said government was inherently inefficient?

To be precise, I didn't say that...though it is.

What I talked about what the ability of government to increase efficiency.
 
Okay, this is to all of you who responded to my post.

I agree that wasteful spending is bad...no matter what agency or department it occurs in. I won't single out one particular department, though. If you want to end wasteful spending, then enact an across-the-board spending cut. The various agencies and departments will HAVE to cut the waste or fail in their intended functions. The directors of those that fail should be replaced with people who CAN provide the function without the waste.

Now. It's easy to rail on the DOD as being too big. But the fact is, it's mandated. There are a whole host of departments and agencies that are NOT mandated by the Constitution. THESE should be cut back or eliminated first. If we still have deficit spending after doing all we can in those areas, THEN we should look at DOD.

The first place to work on is Obamacare. It's totally unnecessary and it fails at its intended goal. Dump the piece of crap.

LOL Defense contractor Pork is "mandated" and Healthcare is unnecessary. What planet are you from? The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom