• 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
Nobody should want a piece of legislation that is intended to benefit people to fail.

Ok, I'm going to introduce legislation requiring that nobody under the age of 25 be allowed to leave their house ever (with some hardship exceptions, of course). I'm concerned about deaths from accidents and violence that impacts this demographic and this is the best course to keep them safe. My legislation, if passed, will save lives. I trust I can rely on your support?
 
Ok, I'm going to introduce legislation requiring that nobody under the age of 25 be allowed to leave their house ever (with some hardship exceptions, of course). I'm concerned about deaths from accidents and violence that impacts this demographic and this is the best course to keep them safe. My legislation, if passed, will save lives. I trust I can rely on your support?
Just so you know, I realized that I was going to have smartass examples like yours, but by that time it was too late to edit my post.
 
Just so you know, I realized that I was going to have smartass examples like yours, but by that time it was too late to edit my post.

Well, I appreciated the opportunity you provided.
 
When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

A better health plan?


You won't put out the fire by getting rid of ACA....but you could burn down your house.
 
A better health plan?


You won't put out the fire by getting rid of ACA....but you could burn down your house.

Really? Or maybe the state is the better entity to manage a one-size-fits-all health mandate. Or the private sector would prove to produce the very best healthcare system in the world as it once did before the government started meddling in it.

But the fact is, the ACA is doing far more harm than good, and the few folks it is benefitting just doesn't justify the damage it is doing to others. Just as your house fire might provide some warmth for a few folks for awhile, but I doubt you would think that was worth not putting out the fire.
 
Really? Or maybe the state is the better entity to manage a one-size-fits-all health mandate. Or the private sector would prove to produce the very best healthcare system in the world as it once did before the government started meddling in it.

But the fact is, the ACA is doing far more harm than good, and the few folks it is benefitting just doesn't justify the damage it is doing to others. Just as your house fire might provide some warmth for a few folks for awhile, but I doubt you would think that was worth not putting out the fire.
Either way, it's expensive...but private insurance has not proven to hold down costs and they insure less people than Medicare. When Medicare adopted private insurance "Medicare Advantage" it drove costs up, not down. So it might sound good in theory but when put to practice, private insurance costs more than government insurance.

Medicare vs private insurance....


mcare-private-krugman.jpg
 
Either way, it's expensive...but private insurance has not proven to hold down costs and they insure less people than Medicare. When Medicare adopted private insurance "Medicare Advantage" it drove costs up, not down. So it might sound good in theory but when put to practice, private insurance costs more than government insurance.

Medicare vs private insurance....


mcare-private-krugman.jpg
That doesn't seem to account for quality of care though?
 
That doesn't seem to account for quality of care though?

The quality of care is no better or worse whether it is paid by private or medicare insurance. The disagreement is how health care is paid for.
 
The quality of care is no better or worse whether it is paid by private or medicare insurance. The disagreement is how health care is paid for.

That's not quite true, overall availability and what you are calling quality of care are indeed ruled by payment.
 
The quality of care is no better or worse whether it is paid by private or medicare insurance. The disagreement is how health care is paid for.
The GRAPH does not account for quality of care - perhaps the medicare cost per beneficiary was lower because they didn't pay for as much care?
 
That's not quite true, overall availability and what you are calling quality of care are indeed ruled by payment.

Overall availabilty has never been that good in rural areas. So they can't lose something they never really had. But overall medical care is supposed to be the best in the world...but in reality it's no better or worse than other westernized countries...however the US can claim to be the most expensive in the world.

The CBO says that ACA will help reduce the national debt over the next ten years or so...unless congress ****s it up. Reducing the debt, isn't that what the right wing claim they want?
 
The GRAPH does not account for quality of care - perhaps the medicare cost per beneficiary was lower because they didn't pay for as much care?

Seniors on average use more medical care and services, not less. Private insurance companies prefer to only insure the healthy. So how is it that Medicare which has a lot more sick older people can still keep costs lower than private insurance that insures more healthier younger people?
 
There is no piece of legislation that large that gets it perfectly right the first time. I would like to see Obamacare succeed, and to be tweaked to improve it. I don't think it needs to be repealed.
 
Overall availabilty has never been that good in rural areas. So they can't lose something they never really had. But overall medical care is supposed to be the best in the world...but in reality it's no better or worse than other westernized countries...however the US can claim to be the most expensive in the world.

The CBO says that ACA will help reduce the national debt over the next ten years or so...unless congress ****s it up. Reducing the debt, isn't that what the right wing claim they want?

The CBO made all sorts of claims regarding Obamacare that they've had to walk back on. It's silly really, because the projections were based upon a bill whose language no one, especially not the congress, fully understood when it was passed. Not to mention the POTUS has altered the legislation since. Finally, there's the unknown - how Americans will choose to adopt, adapt to and use Obamacare. The CBO predictions are not to be trusted here.

And are you saying the left wing doesn't want to reduce the debt?

We have been a largely rural nation with a coverage area much larger than most other "westernized" countries and still we managed to have modern care and the best diagnostic machinery available to even the most far flung corners. We are unique both in size and coverage area.
 
The CBO made all sorts of claims regarding Obamacare that they've had to walk back on. It's silly really, because the projections were based upon a bill whose language no one, especially not the congress, fully understood when it was passed. Not to mention the POTUS has altered the legislation since. Finally, there's the unknown - how Americans will choose to adopt, adapt to and use Obamacare. The CBO predictions are not to be trusted here.

And are you saying the left wing doesn't want to reduce the debt?

We have been a largely rural nation with a coverage area much larger than most other "westernized" countries and still we managed to have modern care and the best diagnostic machinery available to even the most far flung corners. We are unique both in size and coverage area.

Actually, the CBO has been quite consistent in it's projections since 2009. The ACA is posted online and it's not that difficult to understand.

The POTUS has not altered the legislation, only the deadlines to fully implement it.

If it wasn't for the left, the rural areas wouldn't even have roads, electriciy or running water let alone health care availability.

The right wing could care less about the debt...that they created. They pretend to care because it gets them elected and once elected they spend like there is no tomorrow.
 
Seniors on average use more medical care and services, not less. Private insurance companies prefer to only insure the healthy. So how is it that Medicare which has a lot more sick older people can still keep costs lower than private insurance that insures more healthier younger people?

A myriad of reasons. I have no idea which ones are the most significant.
 
The POTUS has not altered the legislation, only the deadlines to fully implement it.
Bull****! Altering the deadlunes is altering the legislation. There used to be a time when Congress was the only one who could alter legislation. Pesky Constitution... :roll:

If it wasn't for the left, the rural areas wouldn't even have roads, electriciy or running water let alone health care availability.
What a load of bull****! The **** that comes out of your keyboard is truly ignorant.

The right wing could care less about the debt...that they created. They pretend to care because it gets them elected and once elected they spend like there is no tomorrow.
And that's why the Tea Party has become so popular. Most of the establishment republicans are as bad as the democrats.
 
Bull****! Altering the deadlunes is altering the legislation. There used to be a time when Congress was the only one who could alter legislation. Pesky Constitution... :roll:

i thought changing the deadlines was subject to discretion on the part of the department of health and human services?
 
i would hope it works, as I hope any reform results in an improvement over the status quo. That said I am rather skeptical of it working in the end, but I still want it to. The status quo was unsustainable. The ACA was passed to reform the healthcare system. Hopefully that reform works because the status quo was unsustainable.

The status-quo worked a million times better than this piece of crap.

This Humpty-Dumpty idiotic scheme is going to get worse over the long haul because the government doesn't have a fraction of the flexibility to correct things as the free market. Just look at King Hussein Obama trying to protect his party from getting their asses kicked due to this idiocy by his enacting legislation... acting as Congress and President!

He hasn't only screwed up the health care system majestically, he's now created a Constitutional crisis and illustrated ObamaKare is a political tool... to be managed for the Demokrats good... like the IRS.

The way to have made the old system better is to get the bureaucratic Federal government largely out of it.
 
Because you prefer your lower standard of living, or your inferior health care? I wasn't exactly sure from this comment.

My standard of living is fine, and my private healthcare is fine... as long as the government stays out of it.

It is not the role of government to provide healthcare. If people cannot afford healthcare, it is no different than not being able to afford satellite television. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. If you force government to provide it, then at least acknowledge that it is on the backs of other taxpayers.
 
My standard of living is fine, and my private healthcare is fine... as long as the government stays out of it.

It is not the role of government to provide healthcare. If people cannot afford healthcare, it is no different than not being able to afford satellite television. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. If you force government to provide it, then at least acknowledge that it is on the backs of other taxpayers.

Okay, fair enough -- you didn't respond to my bait with vitriol, and I really do respect that, especially here.

In that case, I'll ask you an honest question.

You say healthcare isn't the government's business. I assume you say that not out of some bizarre stringent anti-government healthcare ideology, but rather because you believe the government has no mandate for it, and thus shouldn't assume powers outside of its ambit. I'll leave by the side any ideology on either side -- we could both, I am sure, have a very interesting and very futile ideological debate about the government's duties.

Back to the idea that in your country the government doesn't have the peoples' mandate for healthcare. If that's the case, surely you can agree that there are some places where healthcare has been placed under the control of the government -- like France, Britain, or indeed even New Hampshire to an extent. It then seems to me that the democratic process is what determines what powers the government has, and in many places, the citizens have democratically given the government the mandate to provide healthcare.

Here's the rub: It appears to me that your country, despite how you feel, has given your government the mandate to provide healthcare, by electing someone running on a platform that includes government healthcare.

It then seems to me that, as this man, democratically elected and very open about his intention to bring government healthcare to the United States, has his mandate, he can and indeed MUST try to implement it.

Therefore, it seems to me that your country wants and is going to get government healthcare. Where is your issue with this?
 
Bull****! Altering the deadlunes is altering the legislation. There used to be a time when Congress was the only one who could alter legislation. Pesky Constitution... :roll:

What a load of bull****! The **** that comes out of your keyboard is truly ignorant.


And that's why the Tea Party has become so popular. Most of the establishment republicans are as bad as the democrats.

What you ever say, Red. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom