• 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" or UHC?

Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?


  • Total voters
    46
I vote for UHC, but not a "free" system of government provided services for everything. Universal health insurance is the way to go. Let the individual pay for doctor's visits. The insurance can pick up the tab (most of it anyway) when there is a serious illness or accident that the individual can't pay for.

Obomneycare isn't going to control costs. When costs continue to go up, its detractors will say they are going up because of it, but that won't be correct. Costs have been out of control for a long time now. The bottom line is that we can afford neither the pre reform system nor Obomneycare.

Correct. Single payer. Here, that would be two tiered.
 
[citation needed]

They now HAVE to buy insurance or pay a fine, Supreme court ruled it a tax. people who have decided not to buy insurance because they don`t have enough $ to do so will be forced to pay.
Ie they are those who can least afford it and are now forced to pay.
 
They now HAVE to buy insurance or pay a fine, Supreme court ruled it a tax. people who have decided not to buy insurance because they don`t have enough $ to do so will be forced to pay.
Ie they are those who can least afford it and are now forced to pay.
YES! Exactly ike the following family (copied from an earlier post):
A Tea Party family was at the demonstration, father, mother and one 10 year old son; two more at home. My wife and I chatted with them. The father is a vet that started serving just after the Viet War ended. He was disposing of Agent Orange; which in our opinion may have been the source of his health problems. He had a heart attack about 6 months earlier. Went to the hospital where his wife works as a low level employee. What she said she did only pays low wages. They can’t afford the extra for family health insurance, she was the only one insured since that can’t be refused for more pay. His bill was about $90,000. Her wages were garnished by the hospital; it’s only a small garnishment so it will take a very long time to pay it off. Again, they were there with a Don’t Tread On Me flag and more.
Yup, it's good that this family was not forced to pay! Right? Note, 90K at 4% is $300/month in intrest alone. I think her payments were less than $300/month.
 
Last edited:
They now HAVE to buy insurance or pay a fine, Supreme court ruled it a tax. people who have decided not to buy insurance because they don`t have enough $ to do so will be forced to pay.
Ie they are those who can least afford it and are now forced to pay.

This is simply not true. Most people who can't afford it will either get free Medicaid, or receive a generous subsidy for private health insurance. And the few who still can't afford it will get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate.
 
Last edited:
We had one. It was called the United States of America.

That is such crap. If you want a libertarian paradise go move to Somolia. No gov't intervention in business, or regulation, or anything for that matter... No taxes, you can do whatever it is that your little libertarian heart desires.
 
That is such crap. If you want a libertarian paradise go move to Somolia. No gov't intervention in business, or regulation, or anything for that matter... No taxes, you can do whatever it is that your little libertarian heart desires.

That's always THE response: "Move to Somalia then!" Why? Last time I checked, one can speak out against what one doesn't approve of the government. Don't like opposition? Join a dictatorship! :2razz:
 
That is such crap. If you want a libertarian paradise go move to Somolia. No gov't intervention in business, or regulation, or anything for that matter... No taxes, you can do whatever it is that your little libertarian heart desires.

Libertarian philosophy is not anarchy. It is that the purpose of the government is to protect our rights. What we see in Somalia is anarchy in which no one has any rights.
 
When someone with a negative net worth and without insurance ends up in an ER with a $50,000 bill noone is forced to pay. Right?
 
YES! Exactly ike the following family (copied from an earlier post):
A Tea Party family was at the demonstration, father, mother and one 10 year old son; two more at home. My wife and I chatted with them. The father is a vet that started serving just after the Viet War ended. He was disposing of Agent Orange; which in our opinion may have been the source of his health problems. He had a heart attack about 6 months earlier. Went to the hospital where his wife works as a low level employee. What she said she did only pays low wages. They can’t afford the extra for family health insurance, she was the only one insured since that can’t be refused for more pay. His bill was about $90,000. Her wages were garnished by the hospital; it’s only a small garnishment so it will take a very long time to pay it off. Again, they were there with a Don’t Tread On Me flag and more.
Yup, it's good that this family was not forced to pay! Right? Note, 90K at 4% is $300/month in intrest alone. I think her payments were less than $300/month.

And if they had UHC they wouldnt even worry about the 300$, As a Canadian with UHC you will have a near impossible time convincing me obamacare is even close to being as fair to the poor as our system.
 
This is simply not true. Most people who can't afford it will either get free Medicaid, or receive a generous subsidy for private health insurance. And the few who still can't afford it will get a financial hardship exemption from the mandate.

See bolded then realize why I think obama care sucks vs UHC, jump through hoops for the poor and charge the guy who can afford it just barely the same as the multi millionaire sounds great to me.
 
See bolded then realize why I think obama care sucks vs UHC,

Of course it sucks vs UHC. But you claimed that it would be a tax on people who could least afford it, which is simply not true. Anyone who can't afford insurance (and there will be far fewer of them with all the subsidies) would be EXEMPTED from the tax.
 
Of course it sucks vs UHC. But you claimed that it would be a tax on people who could least afford it, which is simply not true. Anyone who can't afford insurance (and there will be far fewer of them with all the subsidies) would be EXEMPTED from the tax.

Perhaps we disagre on the term poor. If you can afford it just then it sucks to be you as you will have to pay.
 
And if they had UHC they wouldnt even worry about the 300$, As a Canadian with UHC you will have a near impossible time convincing me obamacare is even close to being as fair to the poor as our system.
Oh, but they would have been forced to pay for his insurance indirectly, that is so unfair. He had exposure to Agent Orange in the military which is most likely the root cause of his heart attack but our government wasn't giving into that claim, and that saves us on taxes. Since they chose not to have insurance wouldn't the fairest thing to do is not accept him into the ER. It would have saved everyone money. (This side of the the issue is so much fun!)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we disagre on the term poor. If you can afford it just then it sucks to be you as you will have to pay.

Everyone whose annual income is less than $44,680 (for an individual) or $92,200 (for a family of four) will get subsidies to help them pay for health insurance. That's not exactly dire poverty, or anything close to it. If at that level of income, you can't afford health insurance and you can't afford to pay the tax, then you're doing it wrong.
 
Everyone whose annual income is less than $44,680 (for an individual) or $92,200 (for a family of four) will get subsidies to help them pay for health insurance. That's not exactly dire poverty, or anything close to it. If at that level of income, you can't afford health insurance and you can't afford to pay the tax, then you're doing it wrong.

depends on where you live 44K a year in NYC is not the same a 44k in some small town in Alabama.
 
Last edited:
Oh, but they would have been forced to pay for his insurance indirectly, that is so unfair. He had exposure to Agent Orange in the military which is most likely the root cause of his heart attack but our government wasn't giving into that claim, and that saves us on taxes. Since they chose not to have insurance wouldn't the fairest thing to do is not accept him into the ER. It would have saved everyone money. (This side of the the issue is so much fun!)

I do not see where in this example UHC would be worse than obamacare.
 
depends on where you live 44K a year in NYC is not the same a 44k in some small town in Alabama.

Then don't live in NYC. This is like saying that 44K doesn't go as far after you make a car payment on a Ferrari as it does after you make a car payment on a Camry. No one is forcing you to own a car you can't afford, and no one is forcing you to live in a city you can't afford.
 
Everyone whose annual income is less than $44,680 (for an individual) or $92,200 (for a family of four) will get subsidies to help them pay for health insurance. That's not exactly dire poverty, or anything close to it. If at that level of income, you can't afford health insurance and you can't afford to pay the tax, then you're doing it wrong.

But look at that from the OTHER side. EVERYONE that makes more than $44,680 (or $92,200 for a family) will simply pay MORE to get the same medical care that they now enjoy (except with a longer waiting line). If that is "fair" to you then fine, but many see that as simply the income redistribution that it really is. The PPACA has many things that INCREASE the current cost of medical care and its related mandated medical care insurance, yet little, if anything, that reduces those costs except mere hope, or treatment change mandates backed by the IPAB "rationing" that will occur later.
 
Then don't live in NYC. This is like saying that 44K doesn't go as far after you make a car payment on a Ferrari as it does after you make a car payment on a Camry. No one is forcing you to own a car you can't afford, and no one is forcing you to live in a city you can't afford.

No one is forced to but people do live in more expensive areas with lesser salaries. if your job is in NYC you can live in NYC or commute. Some choose to spend more on housing and less commuting others vice versa. We are talking the future here as taxes aren`t really in yet so I`ll guess we shall just have to wait and see.
 
We had one. It was called the United States of America.
Until the experiment failed somewhere around the 1850's. Some still haven't recovered.

Otherwise UHC is the clearly superior plan. The only problem with it is that you can't get there from here. You have to go the long way around. The lives and health of millions of Americans depend from minute to minute on the health care system however it's defined continuing to function smoothly and effectively. The jobs that support millions of American households and families are wound up in various aspects of the health care industry. Their ability to function depends on our remembering to bring them along. We in fact have to bring everyone of every sort and stripe along if reforms are to work. That is why we begin with baby steps and hope to take larger ones as we go. Doubters can look at Social Security as it is today and compare it to what was passed in 1935. It has been bent and twisted and updated and rebenched a dozen times over 75 years. The same will happen with HCR and each new step will take us closer to where we need to go. There is no other way to get there.
 
Last edited:
Pretty good poll, but there's not just one type of universal health care. The systems used in Germany, the UK, and Canada are very different from one another. These systems are as different from each other as they are from ours.
 
But look at that from the OTHER side. EVERYONE that makes more than $44,680 (or $92,200 for a family) will simply pay MORE to get the same medical care that they now enjoy (except with a longer waiting line).

To me it seems quite unfair to expect the poor to just go without medical care and die, so that you can get non-emergency surgery a week earlier. And if your response is that the poor already have access to medical care, then there shouldn't be any change in the length of the waiting line.

If that is "fair" to you then fine, but many see that as simply the income redistribution that it really is.

I see it as both. :2wave:

The PPACA has many things that INCREASE the current cost of medical care and its related mandated medical care insurance, yet little, if anything, that reduces those costs except mere hope, or treatment change mandates backed by the IPAB "rationing" that will occur later.

You can casually dismiss the IPAB as "mere hope" if you like, but the experience of every other developed country suggests that more government control over health care prices succeeds in keeping the costs down.
 
I'm beginning to think that we should just have a "libertarian opt-out" for everything. Better yet why don't we set aside a parcel of land so that the libertarians can have their own paradise lol. That would be quite an experiment.
That experiment has already been hypothesized. It didn't turn out well......

LordOfTheFliesBookCover.jpg

 
Would you rather have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA "Obamacare) or have a system of UHC in this country?

I'm going to have to see how the AHA works before I'll know.

Personally, I don't understand why the government didn't simply envelope everyone into Medicare and call it a day.
 
Back
Top Bottom