• 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!

Who will Democrats blame for the failure of Obamacare?

Who to Blame for Obamacares' Failures?

  • They wil blame Republicans, claiming Obamacare was their idea

    Votes: 24 34.3%

  • They will blame themselves for not pushing single payer

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • They will blame providers and insurers for attempting to survive

    Votes: 30 42.9%

  • IT WAS THAT VILLIAN, GEORGE BUSH!

    Votes: 33 47.1%
  • Total voters
    70
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your poll is also prefaced by the assumption that Obamacare will fail.
Click to expand...

And even assuming it does fail, I will blame Republicans for forcing the Democrats to negotiate (pointlessly) a watered-down bill that hopelessly steered away from UHC, the Democrats for that concession, and the the health insurance companies who played a large part in writing the resulting bill.

Blame for all.
 
Cardinal said:
And even assuming it does fail, I will blame Republicans for forcing the Democrats to negotiate (pointlessly) a watered-down bill that hopelessly steered away from UHC, the Democrats for that concession, and the the health insurance companies who played a large part in writing the resulting bill.

Blame for all.
Click to expand...

And then you'd be wrong in doing so. UHC was never on the table. Obama himself took it off the table very early on in closed door meetings with insurance execs.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Are they suffering and dying now?
Click to expand...
"Could" is the key.
As to what the masses are doing...I know not, do you ?
As I am part of the masses......suffering ?
Yes, a chronic blood nose problem, the ultra expensive doctor/hospital failed to fix 100%, and I'll not return due to the excruciating pain..
Or another problem, a chronic common cold.. a man pays out a lot of money and time to find out that our "medical system" can do nothing..
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
And even assuming it does fail, I will blame Republicans for forcing the Democrats to negotiate (pointlessly) a watered-down bill that hopelessly steered away from UHC, the Democrats for that concession, and the the health insurance companies who played a large part in writing the resulting bill.

Blame for all.
Click to expand...

How many Republicans voted for the bill and how many Republican votes did they need to get? They didn't compromise with the Republicans, I believe most of the compromise was between left wing Dems and more moderate Dems.
 
digsbe said:
How many Republicans voted for the bill and how many Republican votes did they need to get? They didn't compromise with the Republicans, I believe most of the compromise was between left wing Dems and more moderate Dems.
Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out. However, people who support it are really not worth debating on this subject. Delusional.
 
clownboy said:
And then you'd be wrong in doing so. UHC was never on the table. Obama himself took it off the table very early on in closed door meetings with insurance execs.
Click to expand...

I tried to be careful to couch my post in the context that neither Republicans nor health insurance companies were single handedly responsible for diminishing any hope of uhc. Any concession to the insurance companies would almost by definition declaw uhc, but there were other concessions to Republicans such as an agreement to back away from a government plan to compete with private insurers, and to allow states to opt out of the program.

As I said, blame for all.
 
earthworm said:
"Could" is the key.
As to what the masses are doing...I know not, do you ?
As I am part of the mwasses...suffering ?
Yes, a chronic blood nose problem, the ultra expensive doctor/hospital failed to fix 100%, and I'll not return due to the excruciating pain..
Or another problem, a chronic common cold...pay out a lot of money and time to find out that our "medical system" can do nothing..
Click to expand...

Well they all ARE dying so what do you propose we do about it?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I thought ACA kicked in January 1, 2014? How can it be a failure before it starts?
Click to expand...

If its designed wrong to begin with then its a failure before it starts. Like the Spruce Goose.
 
Cardinal said:
I tried to be careful to couch my post in the context that neither Republicans nor health insurance companies were single handedly responsible for diminishing any hope of uhc. Any concession to the insurance companies would almost by definition declaw uhc, but there were other concessions to Republicans such as an agreement to back away from a government plan to compete with private insurers, and to allow states to opt out of the program.

As I said, blame for all.
Click to expand...

That's nice, but single payer was off the table BEFORE any congressional discussion began and it was taken off the table by Obama himself (Pelosi played along, lying about it all the way of course).
 
clownboy said:
That's nice, but single payer was off the table BEFORE any congressional discussion began and it was taken off the table by Obama himself (Pelosi played along, lying about it all the way of course).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think this contradicts anything I said. As I said, any concessions to insurance companies would by definition take us away from uhc. Any elements that remained were further diminished by concessions to Republicans.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not sure how you think this contradicts anything I said.
Click to expand...

You position is that republicans had, at the very least, a hand in the death of UHC consideration. They didn't even have the chance to oppose it - it wasn't on the table from the get-go. Why, because Obama had already met closed door with insurance execs and negotiated for no single payer in return for their (industry) support of the bill.

The republicans actually have clean hands in this matter (this time). They did not kill single-payer/UHC and had no part in killing it here.
 
clownboy said:
You position is that republicans had, at the very least, a hand in the death of UHC consideration. They didn't even have the chance to oppose it - it wasn't on the table from the get-go. Why, because Obama had already met closed door with insurance execs and negotiated for no single payer in return for their (industry) support of the bill.

The republicans actually have clean hands in this matter (this time). They did not kill single-payer/UHC and had no part in killing it here.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said.
 
Ah, well, no it isn't. To be sure, it looks pretty lame. Far too complicated to comprehend and too much bureaucratic power given to allow anyone to determine the outcome.

Also, what is "failure"? Nobody seems to know the outcome. For example, GW Bush initiated Medicare Part D. Was this a success or a failure? Even after all these years, it's hard to say one way or the other. Certainly its been good for some - but is it good overall? It certainly isn't cheap for the USG.

If I had written Obamacare, it would have been 50 pages, not 2000. Just like the tax code, theres plenty of special favors packaged in there. So, is the Tax Code a success or a failure?



Dpetty said:
That’s a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
Right, so. Obamacare is now bending the cost-curve up, millions are going to lose their health insurance, the IRS is saying that the cheapest plan under Obamacares' exchanges will cost $20,000 for a family of five by 2016 and increase out of pocket costs even AFTER the subsidies, the hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicare to fund the program will cause many doctors to stop taking Medicare patients, and if we don't make those cuts to providers, then the costs of Obamacare, which are already rising, to explode. 26 States are refusing to work with HHS, and Obamacare's implementation, already well behind track threatens to fall further and further behind even as it is announced that they will not, actually, technically, so-to-speak, be able to help the people the bill was purported to aid.




So. As this disaster of a behemoth of a bill continues to flail and fail, who are the Democrats going to blame? How far down the rabbit hole are they willing to go, ears plugged, eyes closed?
Click to expand...

I choose number 1, blame the Republicans but not for the reason you stated or give. They will blame the Republicans for not fixing all the glitches that comes up. Stating the Republicans failed to fix the broken pieces of Obama care because they still want to repeal and do not want to make it work as intended.
 
Obamacare is a terrible law and a terrible plan, with numerous highly negative unintended consequences embedded within it. By 2014 Repubs will be enthusiastically running against Obamacare while Dems will desperately run from it. The irony will be entertaining.:laughat:
 
specklebang said:
Ah, well, no it isn't. To be sure, it looks pretty lame. Far too complicated to comprehend and too much bureaucratic power given to allow anyone to determine the outcome.

Also, what is "failure"? Nobody seems to know the outcome. For example, GW Bush initiated Medicare Part D. Was this a success or a failure? Even after all these years, it's hard to say one way or the other. Certainly its been good for some - but is it good overall? It certainly isn't cheap for the USG.

If I had written Obamacare, it would have been 50 pages, not 2000. Just like the tax code, theres plenty of special favors packaged in there. So, is the Tax Code a success or a failure?
Click to expand...


From what I can tell there is about as many people who like Part D as hate it. The tax is designed to illicit certain behavior from its citizens. It does raise revenue, so it isn't a complete failure and one can debate how much these special favors, tax incentives really drive the people in the direction government wants them to go. I wouldn't call the tax system a success either as it is clumsy and not very efficient in it ultimate goal. Obama care, the jury is still out, most of the good stuff has all ready kicked in, most of the bad stuff yet to come. But looking at the polls, right after Obama care was passed, 58% wanted it repealed, 39% did not. As of 7-11 Feb 2013, the latest poll shows 49% still favor repeal, 46% do not. Is Obama care catching on or has the numbers dropped, those favoring repeal only because they have decided that repeal isn't coming?
 
earthworm said:
No, we should not have to "buy" a "product" or service, taxes will do....I am against insurance...
Click to expand...

Perhaps you fail to realize that even in a universal healthcare environment like Canada's most employers provide their employees with additional healthcare insurance and many individuals and families also purchase additional coverage. While we pay a great deal in taxes to provide for our government funded healthcare, the costs are becoming prohibitive and the government is delisting benefits and services yearly. Our healthcare provides generous coverage for the poorest of our citizens, such as those on welfare. Our healthcare does not provide drug coverage, except for those under 18 and over 65. Our healthcare doesn't cover dental care, for any age. Our healthcare does not provide eyecare, except for those under 18 and over 65. Many drugs are not covered, even for those under 18 and over 65. Many Canadians, who have the means or who have additional healthcare insurance, travel to the US to receive either quicker care or care that the Canadian government does not approve or provide.

When the government provides for all, all often receive inferior care. Particularly if some view care as a right to be exercised without concern or serious need and jam up the works for those who are actually sick and need care.

All that said, I've never been "sick" in my 6 decades on the planet but I am very grateful that if I did become seriously ill my basic life needs would be provided without bankrupting me and my family.
 
specklebang said:
Ah, well, no it isn't. To be sure, it looks pretty lame. Far too complicated to comprehend and too much bureaucratic power given to allow anyone to determine the outcome.

Also, what is "failure"? Nobody seems to know the outcome. For example, GW Bush initiated Medicare Part D. Was this a success or a failure? Even after all these years, it's hard to say one way or the other. Certainly its been good for some - but is it good overall? It certainly isn't cheap for the USG.

If I had written Obamacare, it would have been 50 pages, not 2000. Just like the tax code, theres plenty of special favors packaged in there. So, is the Tax Code a success or a failure?
Click to expand...

If Obamacare fails to live up to the promises Obama made, then its a failure. Seems pretty simple to me. He promised it would cover every American and that it would lower prices and its now obvious that it will do neither.
 
Anybody that expects a political "promise" to achieve 100% of the purported goals, is not being realistic. I'm trying to think of even one time that such a thing has happened. Just as you can't fool all the people all the time, you can't satisfy all the people all the time.

A much simpler approach would have created an insurance company of last resort underwritten by the USG. By using a simpler approach, there would not have been as much opportunity to reward thoose who were due a reward for their influence and donations. Thats the case with all legislation.

So, the real answer won't be known for years, if ever. Some people will be happy, some will be furious.

As for Part D, of course, anybody on Medicare saves quite a lot of money on their prescription drugs. So, what;s not to like if you're a senior. It also gave the Pharma industry a sweetheart deal on pricing, so they can add fabulous profits to their bottom line at the taxpayers expense. So, again, is this a success or a failure? Neither or both?


Perotista said:
From what I can tell there is about as many people who like Part D as hate it. The tax is designed to illicit certain behavior from its citizens. It does raise revenue, so it isn't a complete failure and one can debate how much these special favors, tax incentives really drive the people in the direction government wants them to go. I wouldn't call the tax system a success either as it is clumsy and not very efficient in it ultimate goal. Obama care, the jury is still out, most of the good stuff has all ready kicked in, most of the bad stuff yet to come. But looking at the polls, right after Obama care was passed, 58% wanted it repealed, 39% did not. As of 7-11 Feb 2013, the latest poll shows 49% still favor repeal, 46% do not. Is Obama care catching on or has the numbers dropped, those favoring repeal only because they have decided that repeal isn't coming?
Click to expand...

Dpetty said:
If Obamacare fails to live up to the promises Obama made, then its a failure. Seems pretty simple to me. He promised it would cover every American and that it would lower prices and its now obvious that it will do neither.
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
.... the CBO is deceptive because they don't tell you what you want to hear. Classic ad sourcinem by Redress.

Here's a deception for you: "If you like your insurance, you can keep it." That was deceptive as the man knew that it was crap when he said it. I would believe he has been honestly surprised by the fact that he's bent the cost-curve up, though. Give the man honest credit for his beliefs.



:) Gonna be fun watching ya'll deal with this slow self-dismemberment. Little bit of schadenfreude in all of us. :)
Click to expand...

You did not link to the CBO report. You never do. They tend to say things you might not want to hear, so you link to people telling you the parts of the CBO report that are more palatable to you, even if that might lack context, or be flat our wrong. Me, I am not afraid of raw data, and don't need some one to tell me what to think about it. That is why I link to actual CBO reports, and not editorials. For example:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43900_ACAInsuranceCoverageEffects.pdf

So, things like the 7 million losing coverage, that is not the whole story. In point of fact, the whole story is much more complex. CBO projects that in 2013, 154 million will have insurance through an employer. By 2023, that number is going to be 167 million. Hrmmmmmm... Total insured in 2013, 272 million , in 2023, 288 million. There is even a nice little footnote to explain the employer insurance number:

The change in employment-based coverage is the net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families. For example, in 2019,
an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 3 million people will have an offer of
employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 7 million people who will
newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...

So, don't trust people who link to editorials, and then claim they are referencing CBO reports. There is good and bad with Obamacare, and overall I do not like it. But since it isn't even fully ****ing implemented yet, I am not going to go all out scare tactics to try and convince people it must be bad. The irony in this case is the person using scare tactics is the same guy who cryed about them(and rightfully), during the discussion of Paul Ryan's proposed changes to Medicare. How quick they move to all out hypocrisy.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
It will fail because there aren't enough doctors to handle millions of new patients. The only thing it will be successful at is providing less healthcare.
Click to expand...

Those people are being treated by doctors. Just being uninsured does not mean you don't get treated. Guess who pays those bills....
 
specklebang said:
Anybody that expects a political "promise" to achieve 100% of the purported goals, is not being realistic. I'm trying to think of even one time that such a thing has happened. Just as you can't fool all the people all the time, you can't satisfy all the people all the time.

A much simpler approach would have created an insurance company of last resort underwritten by the USG. By using a simpler approach, there would not have been as much opportunity to reward thoose who were due a reward for their influence and donations. Thats the case with all legislation.

So, the real answer won't be known for years, if ever. Some people will be happy, some will be furious.

As for Part D, of course, anybody on Medicare saves quite a lot of money on their prescription drugs. So, what;s not to like if you're a senior. It also gave the Pharma industry a sweetheart deal on pricing, so they can add fabulous profits to their bottom line at the taxpayers expense. So, again, is this a success or a failure? Neither or both?
Click to expand...

As for Part D, it is another level of bureaucracy. I would classify it as neither a success or a failure at this point in time.
 
Perotista said:
I choose number 1, blame the Republicans but not for the reason you stated or give. They will blame the Republicans for not fixing all the glitches that comes up. Stating the Republicans failed to fix the broken pieces of Obama care because they still want to repeal and do not want to make it work as intended.
Click to expand...

Oddly, this related to one of my biggest beefs with Obamacare. The proper way to reform anything as big as the US healthcare system is incrementally, small steps, see what happens, fix them, and then more small steps.
 
Exactly my point about Obamacare. Success and/or failure is highly subjective.


Perotista said:
As for Part D, it is another level of bureaucracy. I would classify it as neither a success or a failure at this point in time.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom