• 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!

Do You Want "Obamacare" to Fail?

Do you want Obamacare to Fail


  • Total voters
    86
No, I don't want it to fail. But I think it probably needs a good tweaking. Some things right off the top: lower the number of hours to 20 for considering an employee part-time

Creating huge financial incentives for employers to reduce employee hours only has the effect of... making it more profitable to reduce employee hours.

let religious organizations opt out of birth control and abortion coverage;

Rights are individual in nature. Until you also allow religious individuals to opt out on faith-based grounds, you are still going to have lawsuits.

I think coverage for mental health and addiction is going to have to be changed. I'm sure there are hundreds of regulations in the background that most of us know nothing about that need changing; and that'll probably happen eventually.

Hundreds? Only hundreds?

Grassley-ObamaCare-regulations.jpg


I'd say.... "thousands" would be.... well, a not-too-terribly conservative estimate.

There is absolutely no way people could get coverage for pre-existing conditions without a mandate.

Sure they could - they are called "high risk pools", and can be operated at the State level.

But for the life of me, I don't know why they didn't just fold everyone into Medicare. Maybe they will eventually.

...Medicare is currently scheduled to go bankrupt in the 2020s. Every person hitting retirement age today is scheduled to outlive their benefits. Even back when our top tax rate was 91%, we did not collect anywhere near the revenue that we would need to "fold everyone into Medicare"; and attempting to do so would only have the effect of collapsing our social safety net.
 
Now, there's a decent argument that the failure of Obamacare could usher in something worse (or better, depending on your point of view - honestly, single payer scares the **** out of me). To be truthful, though, I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I didn't want it and the fact that "you could keep your insurance" had to be such a big part of getting support indicates to me, that a good many of us didn't want it and Obama knew that. Now, I don't know if it can ever fully go away, but presuming it could do you want Obamacare to fail?

Give me a minute to attach the poll.

I am of the opinion that republicans in congress could help make fixes in the ACA or Obamacare but they don't want to. Obamacare presents too big of a political opportunity to actually make adjustments that can make it workable. From their MO any addressing of Obamacare must be couched in language that requires the President's key legislative initiative to shame him, must be "completely repealed" before anything can be done and defines his Presidency as a failure. If they really cared about the American people they would offer amendments to the ACA in a spirit of bi-partisanship such as:

- Introducing federal legislation that AMENDS the ACA to allow policies to be purchased across state lines.
- Expand health savings accounts WITHIN the ACA.
- Require healthcare providers to publish the fees for various procedures and treatments so consumers can better shop for medical services.
- Help make common less expensive treatment options like midwifery at military hospitals that could in time become more accepted at other hospitals as a result.

But again, they don't want to help make the ACA better, not when it can be used as a political football.
 
I think the government should get out of a lot of areas. Basically, the only things I want the government really involved in is healthcare because it doesn't adhere to the laws of supply and demand (outside of completely elective procedures), environmental protection, and public education (although it obviously needs significant reform). The rest of it I could care less about.

The State is a parasitic creature; in that, it lives coercively off the production of the citizens. There is in fact, only two means in which a man can be productive. One, is the method of production and voluntary exchange, which is the method used in the free market. The other, is the method of robbery by the use of violence, or in this case, taxation. This quote covers the rest in which I want say...

Whatever amount is taken from the community in the form of taxes, if not lost, goes to them in the shape of expenditures or disbursements. The two—disbursement and taxation—constitute the fiscal action of the government. They are correlatives. What the one takes from the community under the name of taxes is transferred to the portion of the community who are the recipients under that of disbursements. But as the recipients constitute only a portion of the community, it follows, taking the two parts of the fiscal process together, that its action must be unequal between the payers of the taxes and the recipients of their proceeds. Nor can it be otherwise; unless what is collected from each individual in the shape of taxes shall be returned to him in that of disbursements, which would make the process nugatory and absurd. ...

The necessary result, then, of the unequal fiscal action of the government is to divide the community into two great classes: one consisting of those who, in reality, pay the taxes and, of course, bear exclusively the burden of supporting the government; and the other, of those who are the recipients of their proceeds through disbursements, and who are, in fact, supported by the government; or, in fewer words, to divide it into tax-payers and tax-consumers.

But the effect of this is to place them in antagonistic relations in reference to the fiscal action of the government—and the entire course of policy therewith connected. For the greater the taxes and disbursements, the greater the gain of the one and the loss of the other, and vice versa. ... The effect, then, of every increase is to enrich and strengthen the one, and impoverish and weaken the other.

There is no real social reform or progress that can be found using the state. It a coercive parasitic creature that was neither put in place for the peoples benefit, or serves to its behest. It's simply a tool of force that has no ability to use any other tool or could ever possibly use another tool to reach it's ends. There is no great benefit that can be found by using this creature to run those systems we are in need of, nor any great reason to even suggest it would be wise to do.
 
I am of the opinion that republicans in congress could help make fixes in the ACA or Obamacare but they don't want to. Obamacare presents too big of a political opportunity to actually make adjustments that can make it workable. From their MO any addressing of Obamacare must be couched in language that requires the President's key legislative initiative to shame him, must be "completely repealed" before anything can be done and defines his Presidency as a failure. If they really cared about the American people they would offer amendments to the ACA in a spirit of bi-partisanship such as:

- Introducing federal legislation that AMENDS the ACA to allow policies to be purchased across state lines.
- Expand health savings accounts WITHIN the ACA.
- Require healthcare providers to publish the fees for various procedures and treatments so consumers can better shop for medical services.
- Help make common less expensive treatment options like midwifery at military hospitals that could in time become more accepted at other hospitals as a result.

But again, they don't want to help make the ACA better, not when it can be used as a political football.

I think there's some truth to this, but I'm also ok with it. It was passed without any Republican votes, why would the Republicans want to help 'fix' it? I know how bad that sounds but, like I said, I didn't want this.
 
I think there's some truth to this, but I'm also ok with it. It was passed without any Republican votes, why would the Republicans want to help 'fix' it? I know how bad that sounds but, like I said, I didn't want this.

Bingo. We told them not to do this, they refused our suggestions when offered, and were convinced that this was going to usher in some kind of nirvana. This is their bed, let them lay in it.
 
No. I want it to succeed. Then i want people to ditch the for profit system all together.

The world is a horrible place when people want to profit when they provide people service. :lol: I mean gosh, actually benefiting from an exchange? How terrible.
 
Bingo. We told them not to do this, they refused our suggestions when offered, and were convinced that this was going to usher in some kind of nirvana. This is their bed, let them lay in it.

And it wasn't just Republicans. The election of Scott Brown was a clear message, one that was ignored. Dems doubled down, changed the rules to get it passed. I don't really feel it's up to us to make the best of it.
 
It will work...
What we had already failed the nation miserably.

There's nothing to go back to.
 
And it wasn't just Republicans. The election of Scott Brown was a clear message, one that was ignored. Dems doubled down, changed the rules to get it passed. I don't really feel it's up to us to make the best of it.

Pretty much. All this pissing and moaning about Republicans who didn't expand Medicare? GFY's. This is your baby. We are not on the hook to fix it for you, we want this abomination gone so that we can actually reform the HC system in a way that will work.
 
It will work...
What we had already failed the nation miserably.

There's nothing to go back to.

Well, I'm guessing that the million or so people who lost their coverage thanks to Obamacare wish they could go back. If Obamacare was such an improvement, why the need to repeatedly (and falsely) promise that nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to?
 
The world is a horrible place when people want to profit when they provide people service. :lol: I mean gosh, actually benefiting from an exchange? How terrible.

Yea i mean these people "benefited" really well from this for profit system: New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette
World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems | thepatientfactor.com
New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last - Grace Rubenstein - The Atlantic
 
I am of the opinion that republicans in congress could help make fixes in the ACA or Obamacare but they don't want to.

You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Any attempt to “repair” the ObamaCare scam can only make it worse. The only genuine repair has to begin with completely repealing this entire steaming pile of solid digestive waste and starting over.
 
Oh look, that completely debunked WHO link again. It would be great if people realized that even WHO said it was trash.

:lamo Remember when facts are presented just yell "lies!".
 
:lamo Remember when facts are presented just yell "lies!".

First of all, you're arguing from a premise I can't even begin to care about. It has nothing to do with human rights, and as such, nothing to do with government. You might as well be trying to learn the language of squirrels right now, as it would get you the same returns as arguing from such absurd position with me. I just don't care what our ranking is in the world, nor am I going to bother to believe an organization that has already admitted to be a liar on healthcare rankings of this sort.
 
Well, I'm guessing that the million or so people who lost their coverage thanks to Obamacare wish they could go back. If Obamacare was such an improvement, why the need to repeatedly (and falsely) promise that nothing has to change for you if you don't want it to?
When all you had was worthless crap to start with ....there really wasn't anything worth keeping.
A smart, honest person would know this and admit it.
A hack would play it for all they could.
When the policy offered is better, for less money...it would be assumed that no one would want the crap, but the President underestimated the dishonest fear mongers who want people to believe they've lost something.
 
ACA goals are to make healthcare more available, more affordable for more Americans than it was before

of course i would want it to succeed

now im not saying it will but thats it goals
 
First of all, you're arguing from a premise I can't even begin to care about. It has nothing to do with human rights, and as such, nothing to do with government.
Isnt the job of a healthcare industry supposed to be to save lives? Not let 45,000 people die because they cant "afford it"? And no it does have a lot to do with government. How does it not at all when talking about getting rid of a for profit healthcare system which i stated and you are the one criticizing the very thing?


You might as well be trying to learn the language of squirrels right now, as it would get you the same returns as arguing from such absurd position with me. I just don't care what our ranking is in the world, nor am I going to bother to believe an organization that has already admitted to be a liar on healthcare rankings of this sort.
Yea. **** it! I wouldnt care if we were dead last! :roll:
 
When all you had was worthless crap to start with ....there really wasn't anything worth keeping.
A smart, honest person would know this and admit it.
A hack would play it for all they could.
When the policy offered is better, for less money...it would be assumed that no one would want the crap, but the President underestimated the dishonest fear mongers who want people to believe they've lost something.

Well, you have the talking points down, but they're complete bull pellets. Where have you heard that premiums have gone down for better coverage? See, anything can be promised but reality is still reality. In order to do what Obamacare promises, premiums had to go up.
 
ACA goals are to make healthcare more available, more affordable for more Americans than it was before

of course i would want it to succeed

now im not saying it will but thats it goals
Well said AJ ...
Only an asshole would want it to fail.
 
When all you had was worthless crap to start with ....there really wasn't anything worth keeping.
A smart, honest person would know this and admit it.
A hack would play it for all they could.
When the policy offered is better, for less money...it would be assumed that no one would want the crap, but the President underestimated the dishonest fear mongers who want people to believe they've lost something.

I'm kind of interested why you think your opinion matters on what people consider to be crap or not. It also amazes me that people that are regularly arguing against private monopolies are the same people always arguing for government monopolies.
 
I don't understand the question. I support universal health care for all but the PPACA doesn't provide for that. Seems like a seriously flawed plan. I suppose that it will be modified and perhaps contorted into some workable program but as currently written it is probably best that it fails (unless heavily modified). Thought that an expansion of Medicaid would serve the needs better. Hopefully we are headed for a plan closer to France (rated #1 by WHO and with a lot of private insurance) rather than the single payer UK or Canada which even WHO doesn't consider much better than the US system.
 
Well, you have the talking points down, but they're complete bull pellets. Where have you heard that premiums have gone down for better coverage? See, anything can be promised but reality is still reality. In order to do what Obamacare promises, premiums had to go up.
The premiums changed and the policies changed to meet bare minimum standards , in aggregate people got MUCH MUCH better deals with real coverage. Like deals where they wouldn't go bankrupt because of a minor illness or a small accident.
They couldn't keep what they had and they shouldn't have wanted to. Until dishonest people told them they had had something taken away.
 
Isnt the job of a healthcare industry supposed to be to save lives? Not let 45,000 people die because they cant "afford it"?

Besides the fact you are being extremely dishonest, no, their job is to make money. The service they provide is to fill the healthcare needs of their customers. Business is not a charity, and no one is going to do something for a living and make nothing doing it. With that mind, can you tell me how government lowers the cost of the services it provides?

And no it does have a lot to do with government. How does it not at all when talking about getting rid of a for profit healthcare system which i stated and you are the one criticizing the very thing?

Really, you're a socialist, so the last time you didn't want the government to run an industry was never. I know full well you don't like people profiting from the exchanges they have with you, but the fact will forever remain that people don't much care for transactions they get nothing from.


Yea. **** it! I wouldnt care if we were dead last! :roll:

When dealing with the question of government it really doesn't matter. If it's true or not has nothing at all to do with government. :shrug:
 
How exactly does single payer scare you? Are you terrified of communally paid-for roads? Public parks? Are things only okay if there's a higher class profiting from it at the expense of a lower class?
 
Back
Top Bottom