• 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
mac said:
No accurate option.

My answer is no because it's bad law.

Well intentioned, bad law.
Click to expand...

If republicans believe it us bad law, work to improve or write a better one. Work through the system. Handle this they we handle all other laws.
 
USViking said:
A completely uninformative reply.

What is bad about it?

The concept of nationalized HI?

The details of the ACA?

What?
Click to expand...

First, it's an infringement on personal liberty...always contentious in a freedom loving society. Second, it raises taxes....stupidly. How is making medical equipment more expensive going to reduce costs? Third, it's a bit senseless...the ponzi scheme requires young healthy subscribers to keep it afloat, but makes it possible to remain on mommy and daddy's plan until 26. Last, it really does nothing of value except benefit health insurers....and if anyone deserves a break here, it ain't them.

Bad law.
 
Boo Radley said:
If republicans believe it us bad law, work to improve or write a better one. Work through the system. Handle this they we handle all other laws.
Click to expand...

How are they going to do that if the other side won't negotiate? I think in the two years and 42 defunding votes, Democrats could have considered a sit down on straightening it out before we got to this point.
 
mac said:
How are they going to do that if the other side won't negotiate? I think in the two years and 42 defunding votes, Democrats could have considered a sit down on straightening it out before we got to this point.
Click to expand...

Win more elections, the same way it's always been done.
 
francois60 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ahhh....this is why we got into the misguided Iraq War. People fail to understand the difference between "believe" and "know."

The question was not do I "believe" the ACA will benefit a lot of people. If that were the question, my answer would be yes (since it is already doing that).

The question was "will it succeed," with "succeed" not being defined. No one can answer that question yes or no truthfully. The ACA is targeting many things, most of which people don't know about (since they don't even seem to know the ACA is the same thing as Obamacare). This is the first time our country has tried extensive health care reform. Time will tell whether it will succeed in every area it is intended for.

But it's like one of my favorite lines in a movie. It's from Paint Your Wagon, when the beautiful 2nd, junior wife of a Mormon man agrees to be auctioned off to a burly group of dirty, low-down, uncouth and desperate men in a gold mining town. The Mormon husband says, "But wife, you don't know what you'll get!" She replies, "Well, I know what I've had."
 
JumpinJack said:
Ahhh....this is why we got into the misguided Iraq War. People fail to understand the difference between "believe" and "know."

The question was not do I "believe" the ACA will benefit a lot of people. If that were the question, my answer would be yes (since it is already doing that).

The question was "will it succeed," with "succeed" not being defined. No one can answer that question yes or no truthfully. The ACA is targeting many things, most of which people don't know about (since they don't even seem to know the ACA is the same thing as Obamacare). This is the first time our country has tried extensive health care reform. Time will tell whether it will succeed in every area it is intended for.

But it's like one of my favorite lines in a movie. It's from Paint Your Wagon, when the beautiful 2nd, junior wife of a Mormon man agrees to be auctioned off to a burly group of dirty, low-down, uncouth and desperate men in a gold mining town. The Mormon husband says, "But wife, you don't know what you'll get!" She replies, "Well, I know what I've had."
Click to expand...

Things could actually get worse. Right now, we have a private insurance system in which millions lack access due to high costs. The end result of ACA could be that we have a private insurance system in which millions lack access due to even higher costs, and then we're making them pay a tax for their lack of insurance.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
The plan I was on now costs more as well.
Click to expand...

Now it's coming clear. The insurance company raised its rates, and so your employer went with a plan that has a higher deductible. The new plan costs more, but not as much more as the old plan.

You do realize that this same thing has been happening for several years now, don't you? If you were able to keep your plan for years, that means that your employer has been absorbing the increased costs. Some years, our insurance plan went up by 30% and more, and that was when Obama was still a community developer or whatever it was he used to do.
 
rocket88 said:
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




There will be problems, probably lots of them at first. But the losers on the far right will not get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

It will survive and eventually be changed into a single-payer system -wait and see.




"Better days are coming." ` But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
rocket88 said:
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




It will not only succeed, eventually it will be changed into a single-payer plan for all American health-care consumers.

Anyone who doesn't like it probably voter for Romney last November. If it bothers them enough they can always leave the USA.

The entrance to the exit is wide open.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
shrubnose said:
It will not only succeed, eventually it will be changed into a single-payer plan for all American health-care consumers.

Anyone who doesn't like it probably voter for Romney last November. If it bothers them enough they can always leave the USA.

The entrance to the exit is wide open.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

Why would a Romney voter not like it? Didn't he sign a similar measure into law in Michigan? Isn't that where the term "Obamneycare" comes from?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would a Romney voter not like it?
Click to expand...
 Didn't he sign a similar measure into law in Michigan? Isn't that where the term "Obamneycare" comes from?
Click to expand...




As you probably know, it's not the plan it's the man who shoved it through Congress against the wishes of the G-nO-P that the far right really doesn't like. The GOP will probably be whining about this until they join the Whigs in thirty years or so.

And they will get zero sympathy from me.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why would a Romney voter not like it? Didn't he sign a similar measure into law in Michigan? Isn't that where the term "Obamneycare" comes from?
Click to expand...

Actually Mitt Romney signed a similar measure in Mass.

Mitt's father George was the Governor of Michigan during the 1960's.

I wish his dad had started Romneycare for Michigan back then.
 
Last edited:
But pretty much anywhere they would want to live would already have UHC.
shrubnose said:
It will not only succeed, eventually it will be changed into a single-payer plan for all American health-care consumers.

Anyone who doesn't like it probably voter for Romney last November. If it bothers them enough they can always leave the USA.

The entrance to the exit is wide open.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...
 
mac said:
Bad Law
Click to expand...
It might be, but most so for the following reasons rather than for any you give.

(1) Premium costs are little if any lower with the bill than without it, so the incentive to buy in at several times the penalty for not buying in will for many be absent.

(2) The system is wide open for being gamed by people who do not buy in until they get sick.

If enough people opt for the penalty and for playing the game then there could be a real train wreck.



mac said:
First, it's an infringement on personal liberty...always contentious in a freedom loving society.
Click to expand...
It is an infringement necessary to keep the public and the medical industry from having to foot the bill for uninsured expenses. The same general principle applies to mandatory auto liability insurance.



mac said:
Second, it raises taxes....stupidly.
Click to expand...
Taxes should never have been reduced by that silly little prick GW Bush, and they should have been raised again as soon as we went to war in 2001. We have needed a tax increase ever since, over and above anything ACA does.



mac said:
How is making medical equipment more expensive going to reduce costs?
Click to expand...
I also have doubts about the wisdom of this. It is not worth throwing the entire bill out for, though.



mac said:
Third, it's a bit senseless...the ponzi scheme
Click to expand...
It is not ponzi because the customers do not buy in for profit, but to avoid having to pay for a loss out of their own pockets.



mac said:
requires young healthy subscribers to keep it afloat,
Click to expand...
The viability of ALL insurance relies upon income from people who do not have to make a claim for loss, didn't you know that? Among health insurance policyholders those are necessarily going to be younger in average age, and they will pay significantly lower rates. The opposite is true in auto insurance, where young policyholders produce a higher rate of claims and consequently pay higher premiums.



mac said:
but makes it possible to remain on mommy and daddy's plan until 26.
Click to expand...
I also have doubts about the wisdom of this. It is not worth throwing the entire bill out for, though.



mac said:
Last, it really does nothing of value except benefit health insurers....and if anyone deserves a break here, it ain't them.
Click to expand...
That is ridiculous. The presently uninsurable obtain a product of essentially unlimited value.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
. ...requires young healthy subscribers to keep it afloat, but makes it possible to remain on mommy and daddy's plan until 26....
Click to expand...
The way I understand it the ACA only allows them to remain on mommy and daddy until 26 if they are a full time student or living at home with mommy and daddy.
If they have a different address and are not a full time student they cannot remain on the policy .
 
shrubnose said:
It will not only succeed, eventually it will be changed into a single-payer plan for all American health-care consumers.

Anyone who doesn't like it probably voter for Romney last November. If it bothers them enough they can always leave the USA.

The entrance to the exit is wide open.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
Click to expand...

Actually, if it works, people will want to keep it. Why would people switch to a single payer system if they liked their private insurance?

We have some experience with UHC on a global basis. Countries with these systems nearly always keep them in the basic form they are, forever. Single payer countries stay single payer, multi payer countries stay multi payer. Centralized systems stay centralized, decentralized systems stay decentralized. That's the way entitlements work. If people like it, they don't want to change it.

So no, single payer is not going to happen, because either a) ACA will work well and the public will support it, or b) it will fail and the public won't trust Democrats when they say, "Well, we have this other idea..."
 
USViking said:
It might be, but most so for the following reasons rather than for any you give.

(1) Premium costs are little if any lower with the bill than without it, so the incentive to buy in at several times the penalty for not buying in will for many be absent.

(2) The system is wide open for being gamed by people who do not buy in until they get sick.

If enough people opt for the penalty and for playing the game then there could be a real train wreck.
Click to expand...

also good examples of why it's bad law.

It is an infringement necessary to keep the public and the medical industry from having to foot the bill for uninsured expenses. The same general principle applies to mandatory auto liability insurance.
Click to expand...

It's an infringement on personal liberty, period. It is unlike auto insurance because driving is optional.

Taxes should never have been reduced by that silly little prick GW Bush, and they should have been raised again as soon as we went to war in 2001. We have needed a tax increase ever since, over and above anything ACA does.
Click to expand...

No, we need a govt forced to operate within budget and within statutory limits on taxation.

I also have doubts about the wisdom of this. It is not worth throwing the entire bill out for, though.
Click to expand...

It is certainly worth revamping it.

It is not ponzi because the customers do not buy in for profit, but to avoid having to pay for a loss out of their own pockets.
Click to expand...

It is ponzi because it relies on healthy subscribers to fund the unhealthy subscribers.

The viability of ALL insurance relies upon income from people who do not have to make a claim for loss, didn't you know that? Among health insurance policyholders those are necessarily going to be younger in average age, and they will pay significantly lower rates. The opposite is true in auto insurance, where young policyholders produce a higher rate of claims and consequently pay higher premiums.
Click to expand...

The difference is that under obamacare, insurers are required to offer insurance to those that are sick right now. There is no period of premium payment with no payout for the company to invest.

That is ridiculous. The presently uninsurable obtain a product of essentially unlimited value.
Click to expand...

The number of truly uninsurable persons is statistically insignificant. The numbers are very low, and they'd have been better served by an expansion of medicare than they are under obamacare.
 
minnie616 said:
The way I understand it the ACA only allows them to remain on mommy and daddy until 26 if they are a full time student or living at home with mommy and daddy.
If they have a different address and are not a full time student they cannot remain on the policy .
Click to expand...

That's not what I've read. Care to substantiate?
 
The argument that we need to foot the bill for people's medical care because we're footing the bill for unpaid medical bills is not very convincing. Either way, you're footing the bill.
 
francois60 said:
The argument that we need to foot the bill for people's medical care because we're footing the bill for unpaid medical bills is not very convincing. Either way, you're footing the bill.
Click to expand...

What is the alternative?
 
rocket88 said:
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?
Click to expand...

succeed in doing what?

having more people paying insurance companies for coverage?.. sure thing... absolutely.

making insurance companies more money?.. yessir.

making healthcare affordable?... nope

making the nation healthier?.. nope.


overall, success or failure doesn't enter into the equation... it's here and it's the law, and that's that.
 
shrubnose said:
I'll bet that you voted for that loser, Mitt Romney, last November, eh?

Where is that guy? We haven't heard much about him lately.
Click to expand...

He is having a car elevator installed in the garage of his new mutiny - million dollar home much to the dismay of one of his neighbors who tried to stop it from happening.
 
francois60 said:
The argument that we need to foot the bill for people's medical care because we're footing the bill for unpaid medical bills is not very convincing. Either way, you're footing the bill.
Click to expand...

So why do it with the addition of an infringement on personal liberty and raising taxes under false pretenses?
 
mac said:
That's not what I've read. Care to substantiate?
Click to expand...

I know it happened to my daughters friend when she moved to her own place.
She thought she could stay her on her dad's insurance but once the insurance found out she moved out she is being billed retroactively for all the bills from the time she moved out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom