• 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!

Will ObamneyCare work?

Will Obamney care succeed

  • Yes, because of Obama

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • No, because of Obama

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because it's a great idea

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • No, it's a terrible idea

    Votes: 23 45.1%
  • 10 piece McNuggets with fries

    Votes: 16 31.4%

  • Total voters
    51
Why are you people so dead set on poor people being left sick and in the cold while roving packs of rabid wildebeests gnaw on their limbs and steal their children off into the night?

/hysteria

Right, because the only alternative to UHC is certain death for the victims of society. [/sarcasm]
 
It will work and that's why the Republicans are trying their damndest to kill it. If they thought it would crash and burn, they would have no problem with it's implementation because the Democrats would suffer.

I find it hilarious that "Obamacare" was meant to be a derogatory term but President Obama uses it himself.


What stop there and declare how Republicans want to kill all children. :roll:
 
Good lord... can none of you EVER post a legitimate poll?

No one ever thought it was a great idea. A republican invented it for goodness sakes. How good could it be?
It was all we could get passed, and it is a hell of a lot better than 45,000 deaths per year.
 
Sort of. They dropped all of the plans at work and got new plans, and still higher premiums. Blue Cross said the increase was due to regulations on the INSURANCE industry which forced our company to seek different plans, even though they could have just dropped us altogether.

Got it. The plan you had didn't qualify under Obamnycare, so you needed to have a new plan that covered what was mandated to be covered. The new plan cost a bit more in premiums. Your employer could have kept the old plan for another year, of course, but decided to be pro active.

Plus, the old plan would have cost another $29 a year anyway, so why not change now? It makes sense from that perspective.
 
Got it. The plan you had didn't qualify under Obamnycare, so you needed to have a new plan that covered what was mandated to be covered. The new plan cost a bit more in premiums. Your employer could have kept the old plan for another year, of course, but decided to be pro active.

Plus, the old plan would have cost another $29 a year anyway, so why not change now? It makes sense from that perspective.

No the plan did qualify, ObamaCare just SUCKS!
 
I suspect that the tea party has a grasp on this thread and the poll..much as they do with the gun polls.
Its a dangerous thing ...minority rule..
 
it already sucks for everyone that had decent insurance as out of pocket expenses doubled and cost went up 25% or more.
 
Dittohead not!:

It's $29 per month per employee, although davidtaylorjr seems to have been missing your error. See page 5 reply 91:

davidtaylorjr said:
You forget the employer is not the only factor in the insurance. So are the insurance companies. Did you know that each person pays $29 dollars a month to cover those who do not have insurance? For the company I work for that means premiums are an extra 139200 on top of the already increasing premium. Now do you get it? ObamaCare sucks!

davidtaylorjr:

So the company has exactly 400 employees? Although not "small" as defined by the ACA, $139,200 could easily be a significant burden for a business that size.

However, it would not be a significant burden for the employees to foot an extra $29 per month, and I am entitled to say so because my cash flow net is less than minimum wage net, and I could handle it easily.

So why didn't your employer pass the cost on to you and let you keep the old plan?
 
Dittohead not!:

It's $29 per month per employee, although davidtaylorjr seems to have been missing your error. See page 5 reply 91:



davidtaylorjr:

So the company has exactly 400 employees? Although not "small" as defined by the ACA, $139,200 could easily be a significant burden for a business that size.

However, it would not be a significant burden for the employees to foot an extra $29 per month, and I am entitled to say so because my cash flow net is less than minimum wage net, and I could handle it easily.

So why didn't your employer pass the cost on to you and let you keep the old plan?

Of course it's $29 per employee. It's still a drop in the bucket compared to the whole cost of the insurance policy.

and, if it is a qualifying plan, why drop it for one that is yet more expensive? That makes no sense at all.
 
Before we go any further let me make clear that I am now a Democrat who has voted for Obama twice, and who wants Obama's programs to succeed, including the ACA. But partisanship is not going to keep me from calling it straight.

Of course it's $29 per employee. It's still a drop in the bucket compared to the whole cost of the insurance policy.

and, if it is a qualifying plan, why drop it for one that is yet more expensive? That makes no sense at all.

It is $29 per employee per MONTH not $29 per year as you have persistently been saying.

And since you are here, what do you think of the following:

Goerge Will: The time bomb in Obamacare? (1/18/13)

(from link, emphasis added):
The point of the penalty to enforce the mandate was to prevent healthy people — particularly healthy young people — from declining to purchase insurance, or dropping their insurance, which would leave an insured pool of mostly old and infirm people. This would cause the cost of insurance premiums to soar, making it more and more sensible for the healthy to pay the ACA tax, which is much less than the price of insurance.

...a person earning $35,000 a year would pay a $60 monthly tax and someone earning $100,000 would pay $200. But the cost of a qualifying insurance policy is projected to be $400 a month. Clearly, it would be sensible to pay $60 or $200 rather than $400, because if one becomes ill, “guaranteed issue” assures coverage and “community rating” means that one’s illness will not result in higher insurance rates...

Unable to increase penalties substantially, Congress, in the context of “guaranteed issue” and “community rating,” has only one way to induce healthy people to purchase insurance. This is by the hugely expensive process of increasing premium subsidies enough to make negligible the difference between the cost of insurance to purchasers and the penalty for not purchasing.
IOW someone could game the system by paying the monthly non-compliance "tax", at a savings of probably at least $200 monthly under the premium cost; then after paying a few $100 out of pocket for diagnosis, they buy into an ACA plan before the several $1000 hospitalization and surgery costs are rung up.
 
Before we go any further let me make clear that I am now a Democrat who has voted for Obama twice, and who wants Obama's programs to succeed, including the ACA. But partisanship is not going to keep me from calling it straight.



It is $29 per employee per MONTH not $29 per year as you have persistently been saying.

And since you are here, what do you think of the following:

Goerge Will: The time bomb in Obamacare? (1/18/13)

(from link, emphasis added):

IOW someone could game the system by paying the monthly non-compliance "tax", at a savings of probably at least $200 monthly under the premium cost; then after paying a few $100 out of pocket for diagnosis, they buy into an ACA plan before the several $1000 hospitalization and surgery costs are rung up.

I'm sure that the original post said $29 added to the annual premium, but maybe that was wrong. Even $29 a month is irrelevant if the employer dumped the plan for one even more expensive.

Now, let's take a look at the premiums noted in your source. The average cost of medical care in the USA is over 8,000 per year per person, which would work out to $670 per month on average. If total premiums are $400 a month, that would be a bargain.

And yes, the youth who believe that they'll never get sick or be in an accident would rather not pay the cost of insurance. We've been subsidizing the uninsured for years, we being ratepayers and taxpayers, so why not have them pay a small tax to at least partly make up the difference?

I'm not a Democrat, didn't vote for Obama, thought that Romney was the best choice, but the misinformation about Obamacare is so pervasive and wrong that it's just time someone spoke up and said that it's not the train wreck that the right wing makes it out to be. It's far from perfect, still doesn't adequately address costs, but still helps more people be covered by insurance.
 
I'm sure that the original post said $29 added to the annual premium, but maybe that was wrong. Even $29 a month is irrelevant if the employer dumped the plan for one even more expensive.
dtjr still has some explaining to do on some other things, but he did specify $29 per month several times.



Now, let's take a look at the premiums noted in your source. The average cost of medical care in the USA is over 8,000 per year per person, which would work out to $670 per month on average.
Let us be precise. It is about $10,500 per person over 18. They foot the bill.



If total premiums are $400 a month, that would be a bargain.
ACA rates are slightly- about 5%- higher than what I pay, and I got 60+ year-old smokers rates (I have not smoked at all now since 11/10).



And yes, the youth who believe that they'll never get sick or be in an accident would rather not pay the cost of insurance. We've been subsidizing the uninsured for years, we being ratepayers and taxpayers, so why not have them pay a small tax to at least partly make up the difference?
What worries me is that premium income will be drastically less than expected, and that miscreants, old more than young, run up so many bills that the premium and "tax" income falls calamitously short of expenses. So what else is new, huh?



I'm not a Democrat, didn't vote for Obama, thought that Romney was the best choice, but the misinformation about Obamacare is so pervasive and wrong that it's just time someone spoke up and said that it's not the train wreck that the right wing makes it out to be. It's far from perfect, still doesn't adequately address costs, but still helps more people be covered by insurance.
It does more than "help." It is a guarantee. Will cannot yet know if the train will wreck. I don't feel lucky, but then I have been on a bit of a run of bad luck, and maybe that is doing too much to color my reaction. I sure was hoping ACA was going to save me about, oh $29 a month or so, but it looks like even that was hoping for too much.
 
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?

Depends on your definition of "succeed." In any case, the answer has to be "I don't know," since none of us knows, yet. But you didn't offer that option in your poll!
 
Depends on your definition of "succeed." In any case, the answer has to be "I don't know," since none of us knows, yet. But you didn't offer that option in your poll!

I don't know would get 100%, if we're honest with ourselves. But I think the OP wanted predictions, so "I don't know" is actually a copout in that context. Any supporter of ACA should be fully expecting it to succeed, or else why support it? Why futz with something so important if you're not sure it will work?
 
(page 5 reply 91)
davidtaylorjr said:
Did you know that each person pays $29 dollars a month to cover those who do not have insurance? For the company I work for that means premiums are an extra 139200 per year on top of the already increasing premium. Now do you get it? ObamaCare sucks!

Why didn't your employer pass the cost on to you and let you keep the old plan?

It would not be a significant burden for the employees to foot an extra $29 per month.
 
(page 5 reply 91)


Why didn't your employer pass the cost on to you and let you keep the old plan?

It would not be a significant burden for the employees to foot an extra $29 per month.

Doing that will cost us a meager 2% increase. Quite minor. That's about $297 a year for each person. That's for a family plan btw. Singles pay $121 a year. A full $10 a month. That's their total contribution.
 
Last edited:
No accurate option.

My answer is no because it's bad law.

Well intentioned, bad law.
 
No accurate option.

My answer is no because it's bad law.

Well intentioned, bad law.
A completely uninformative reply.

What is bad about it?

The concept of nationalized HI?

The details of the ACA?

What?
 
Back
Top Bottom