• 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 support Obamacare ?

Do you support Obamacare ?

  • Total voters
    85
JumpinJack said:
This is not single payer. It's insurance. As you say...risk spread around. Which means if you bring in more risk, you pay a bit more than someone who does not. That's the way it works. Or the way it used to work. Obamacare was NOT supposed to guarantee coverage for those with high claims at the same rate as someone who has no claims. But that's what they slipped in under the door. That's part of the reason that premiums (for the healthy people) sky rocketed. If you are sick, your premium went DOWN. Even though you will be using the insurance much more than others.

That's not right. It's not fair. And it shifts the costs of unhealthy lifestyles to those who don't use insurance that much, whether because of genetics or a healthy lifestyle. There are so many people who are obese (self-inflicted condition), which means they will get metabolic syndrome, if they don't have it already (diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke risk, etc.). All related to their obesity caused by their lifestyle. I, a healthy person, am footing the bill for their lifestyle, even though I live a healthy lifestyle myself. I walk every day, eat veggies & fruit, rarely eat pizza, etc., etc. Despite coming from a morbidly obese family, and tipping the scales at moderate obesity during puberty, I've escaped and have been a normal weight, healthy person all my adult life. It's not easy. My reward? I'm healthy. And I get to pay a higher premium so I can pay for an obese person's health care. Ironic.
Click to expand...

Just try to get sick more often and do riskier things. :shrug: That will make it more fair for you.
 
JumpinJack said:
You have decided that some people are more important than others.
Click to expand...

We are a nation. There is more than one person to consider. This severely complicates things. Did you know that? Well. Now you do. It makes it more complicated when more than one person is involved. When 350,000,000 are involved it becomes even more complicated.

You should have already noticed this in your life but just in case you didn't, I did tell you about it. Now you can't say that you didn't know.
 
I voted no only because there was no hell no option.

I don't CARE if there are some good components in Obamacare. There are very very few really bad laws that have no redeeming features to them whatsoever. And the few good components could have been addressed and accomplished without taking control of the entire system.

I oppose Obamacare because it is unconstitutional; most of it is very bad law that takes away the rights of the people in favor of an ever larger, more expensive, more intrusive, more authoritarian, more totalitarian central government for the benefit of a privileged permanent political class; and it is likely to complete the destruction of the finest medical system the world has ever known.
 
Mycroft said:
You keep harping on how Obamacare was designed to save the government money. I don't see it. Heck, right now, it's costing the government more money that originally stated and there isn't any reduction in sight.

As far as everyone acting opposite of what they believe, you couldn't be more wrong. The Democrats who foisted this on us and shoved it down our throats are acting exactly as they believe...that the government is the only ones who can do the right thing for people and government control is a good thing. The Republicans are also acting exactly as they believe...less government control and simpler solutions.
Click to expand...

If the government wanted to spend more money and control everybody's medical choices, they used the wrong method. All they had to do was expand Medicaid to every single American Citizen. The law would have fit on one page. The infrastructure was already in existence and had several decades of experience behind it. They chose not to go that route. Do you have any idea why?

I have explained my position thoroughly. How does this cost the government more money? Explain it to me. (or don't)

P.S. As a courtesy I promise not to respond if you promise to use more than 4 sentences to explain your case. Deal?
 
Last edited:
Im in favor of a single payer government ran healthcare system. But saying that I do see and understand the benefits to the ACA (Obamacare), when operating in a for profit medical system.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
That isn't absolutely nothing. This at least raises revenue for the government and reduces expenses. Republicans were able to acheive an objective that they have always had but now they have someone else to blame for it. This was a massive present to the Republican Party.

Republicans reached their goal of reducing expenditures without receiving any of the heat associated with it.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't reduce expenditures, it vastly increases them. It doesn't raise revenue for the government, it increases costs that the government has to borrow even more money from China to pay for. Obamacare is a disaster across the board.
 
Cephus said:
But it doesn't reduce expenditures, it vastly increases them. It doesn't raise revenue for the government, it increases costs that the government has to borrow even more money from China to pay for.
Click to expand...

I am interested in your argument. How will this increase expenses?

As a courtesy: I promise not to respond to your argument as long as your argument contains more than 4 sentences. I honestly want to hear this side of it. How does it cost more than it costs now? I honestly don't see it. All I am hearing is that everybody is getting screwed but I am open to hear your observation.

Please explain it to me. (or don't)
 
vasuderatorrent said:
If the government wanted to spend more money and control everybody's medical choices, they used the wrong method. All they had to do was expand Medicaid to every single American Citizen. The law would have fit on one page. The infrastructure was already in existence and had several decades of experience behind it. They chose not to go that route. Do you have any idea why?

I have explained my position thoroughly. How does this cost the government more money? Explain it to me. (or don't)

P.S. As a courtesy I promise not to respond if you promise to use more than 4 sentences to explain your case. Deal?
Click to expand...

Ahhh...I see. In your mind, since the government didn't go the universal heathcare route...which would have cost even MORE money...they are "saving" money by going the Obamacare route. It seems to me that I've heard that kind of logic somewhere before. Oh...that's right...it's the same kind of logic that says if we project a certain level of increased spending...but actually increase spending at a lower level...we are, therefore, decreasing spending.

LOL!!

P.S. I don't care if you respond to me or not, so no deal. I will use as many sentences as is required. No more...no less.
 
Mycroft said:
Ahhh...I see. In your mind, since the government didn't go the universal heathcare route...which would have cost even MORE money...they are "saving" money by going the Obamacare route. It seems to me that I've heard that kind of logic somewhere before. Oh...that's right...it's the same kind of logic that says if we project a certain level of increased spending...but actually increase spending at a lower level...we are, therefore, decreasing spending.

LOL!!

P.S. I don't care if you respond to me or not, so no deal. I will use as many sentences as is required. No more...no less.
Click to expand...

My question should have been worded like this: Why does Obamacare cost more than the current system? Please explain that to me. (or don't)
 
Mycroft said:
Ahhh...I see. In your mind, since the government didn't go the universal heathcare route...which would have cost even MORE money...they are "saving" money by going the Obamacare route.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have been comparing the current system to the Affordable Care Act the entire time. Don't feel pressured. You don't have to explain to me why Obamacare costs the government more than the current system. You can just ignore the question entirely and pretend that I didn't ask it.

Does that sound fair? I don't want to stress you out by making you think.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
My question should have been worded like this: Why does Obamacare cost more than the current system? Please explain that to me. (or don't)
Click to expand...

Obamacare costs more than the current (actually not current anymore) system because it expands government control of our healthcare system. Because it adds government programs. Because it INCREASES the deficit. (that would be the increased spending of money the government doesn't have)

If you want a good explanation of HOW MUCH Obamacare is costing us, I invite you to read this analysis: How much does Obamacare actually cost? | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Nope. I have been comparing the current system to the Affordable Care Act the entire time. Don't feel pressured. You don't have to explain to me why Obamacare costs the government more than the current system. You can just ignore the question entirely and pretend that I didn't ask it.

Does that sound fair? I don't want to stress you out by making you think.
Click to expand...

Take your patronizing attitude and shove it up your ass.

I'm done with you.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
My question should have been worded like this: Why does Obamacare cost more than the current system? Please explain that to me. (or don't)
Click to expand...

It costs more because it insures millions of people who would have otherwise utilized the private sector system. It costs more because it mandates numerous additional coverages that the pre-Obamacare system was not required to cover--coverages that many people neither wanted nor needed but are now required to have. It costs more because never in the history of the world has government done anything as economically, efficiently, or effectively as that which can be done by the private sector. It costs more because of the huge new taxes and tens of thousands of pages of new regulations imposed on individuals and the private sector. It costs more because of the massive huge expensive bureaucracy that will have to be expanded or created to manage it--a bureaucracy that will consume more and more of available resources just to feed itself. It costs more because of the massive bribes/reimbursements etc. funneled to insurance companies to get them to participate.

This was form the GAO report something over a year ago. And the situation has worsened since then:

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false. . .
GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online​
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
It costs more because of the massive huge expensive bureaucracy that will have to be expanded or created to manage it--a bureaucracy that will consume more and more of available resources just to feed itself.
Click to expand...

That is certainly something to consider. I appreciate your response.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, Obamacare only helps TWO groups. The insurance companies and big government proponents. The insurance companies have a government-mandated market they can play around in and they don't even have to compete with each other. The big government proponents have succeeded, in one more area, in being allowed to tell people what they MUST do...whether they want to or not. That's the only reason Democrats are in bed with the insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Just a few other constituencies of note: It will also help those with pre-existing conditions that previously were uninsurable; it will help the working poor that made too much for medicaid, but could not afford insurance; it will ease the $116B spend each year to provide medical coverage to those that were uninsured; and, it will encourage entrepreneurship as no longer is one tethered to an employer because that is the only place (s)he can get health insurance...
 
upsideguy said:
Just a few other constituencies of note: It will also help those with pre-existing conditions that previously were uninsurable;
Click to expand...

Yeah...if they can afford Obamacare insurance.

it will help the working poor that made too much for medicaid, but could not afford insurance;
Click to expand...

Yeah...if they can afford Obamacare insurance.

it will ease the $116B spend each year to provide medical coverage to those that were uninsured;
Click to expand...

Uh-huh...while it increases the cost to the taxpayers for the increases in Medicaid.

and, it will encourage entrepreneurship as no longer is one tethered to an employer because that is the only place (s)he can get health insurance...
Click to expand...

LOL!! You REALLY think so? I'm sure you don't have any numbers to support that contention. I'm guessing that's going to go down as a Utopian dream.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It costs more because it insures millions of people who would have otherwise utilized the private sector system. It costs more because it mandates numerous additional coverages that the pre-Obamacare system was not required to cover--coverages that many people neither wanted nor needed but are now required to have. It costs more because never in the history of the world has government done anything as economically, efficiently, or effectively as that which can be done by the private sector. It costs more because of the huge new taxes and tens of thousands of pages of new regulations imposed on individuals and the private sector. It costs more because of the massive huge expensive bureaucracy that will have to be expanded or created to manage it--a bureaucracy that will consume more and more of available resources just to feed itself. It costs more because of the massive bribes/reimbursements etc. funneled to insurance companies to get them to participate.

This was form the GAO report something over a year ago. And the situation has worsened since then:

Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released today.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who requested the report, revealed the findings this morning at a Senate Budget Committee hearing. The report, he said, “confirms everything critics and Republicans were saying about the faults of this bill,” and “dramatically proves that the promises made assuring the nation that the largest new entitlement program in history would not add one dime to the deficit were false. . .
GAO Report: Obamacare Adds $6.2 Trillion to Long-Term Deficit | National Review Online​
Click to expand...

We appreciate the attempt to support your position with 3rd party evidence, however, the $6.2T is a pile of crap, essentially made up by Jeff Sessions to fuel distain for the PPACA. If you read your article carefully, it says "under one set of assumptions" and the $6.2T number was created by a Senate aide, not the GAO. Conveniently, the articles link to the actual GAO report is a deadlink

GOP Senator Knowingly Distorts GAO Report He Commissioned To Launch Most Dishonest Attack On Obamacare To Date - Forbes

The actual GAO report says the actual results could vary between budget deficit reduction and budget deficit increase, depending on whether cost containment is attained.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf
 
I voted other.

A necessary foot in the door.

I am hoping that one day that both sides can get their heads out of their butts and the big businesses and unions out of their pockets and figure out a way for all Americans can get decent health care.

I think the foot in the door is the pre-existing condition clause and a few other assurances made by ACA. I think these issues will make repeal of ACA impossible and unpopular.
 
year2late said:
I voted other.

A necessary foot in the door.

I am hoping that one day that both sides can get their heads out of their butts and the big businesses and unions out of their pockets and figure out a way for all Americans can get decent health care.

I think the foot in the door is the pre-existing condition clause and a few other assurances made by ACA. I think these issues will make repeal of ACA impossible and unpopular.
Click to expand...

Yeah...unfortunately, that pre-existing condition clause is one of the poison pills embedded in Obamacare that probably will saddle us with this massive entitlement program...or worse, UHC...for decades to come.
 
Mycroft said:
Yeah...unfortunately, that pre-existing condition clause is one of the poison pills embedded in Obamacare that probably will saddle us with this massive entitlement program...or worse, UHC...for decades to come.
Click to expand...

If you have any better ideas...I am all ears, but the bottom line is that insurance companies have been screwing over people for years. And people working 3 jobs to barely make ends meet who had to consider health insurance a luxury are not only screwed over, but demonized as people making bad choices because they do not have insurance. ( as if every person is able to get fully benefitted jobs - seriously it boggles the mind.

The only thing I heard from the right for years before ACA was tort reform, vouchers and such. Not really gonna ado it.
 
year2late said:
If you have any better ideas...I am all ears, but the bottom line is that insurance companies have been screwing over people for years. And people working 3 jobs to barely make ends meet who had to consider health insurance a luxury are not only screwed over, but demonized as people making bad choices because they do not have insurance. ( as if every person is able to get fully benefitted jobs - seriously it boggles the mind.

The only thing I heard from the right for years before ACA was tort reform, vouchers and such. Not really gonna ado it.
Click to expand...

The ideas from the right, at least, offered a solution for a significant number of people without massively increasing government control, taking away the right and responsibility of people to choose for themselves and without adding massive amounts of additional spending to a government that can't keep up with the bills it already had.

UHC will only take all that crappy stuff from Obamacare and kick it up about a hundred notches.
 
upsideguy said:
We appreciate the attempt to support your position with 3rd party evidence, however, the $6.2T is a pile of crap, essentially made up by Jeff Sessions to fuel distain for the PPACA. If you read your article carefully, it says "under one set of assumptions" and the $6.2T number was created by a Senate aide, not the GAO. Conveniently, the articles link to the actual GAO report is a deadlink

GOP Senator Knowingly Distorts GAO Report He Commissioned To Launch Most Dishonest Attack On Obamacare To Date - Forbes

The actual GAO report says the actual results could vary between budget deficit reduction and budget deficit increase, depending on whether cost containment is attained.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know whether Sessions 'cooked the books' or not and if he did, shame on him. BUT. . . .if he is right re the carnage if the promised 'cost containment is not attained', then we're in trouble. For the federal government has NEVER. . . and I emphasize NEVER contained costs in my ever more lengthy lifetime, and it certainly gives no sign of any kind of change of heart about that. And given that so little promised in Obamacare has turned out the way it was sold to us, can you say you have any confidence that costs will be contained in this one instance when it just isn't happening anywhere else?
 
Mycroft said:
The ideas from the right, at least, offered a solution for a significant number of people without massively increasing government control, taking away the right and responsibility of people to choose for themselves and without adding massive amounts of additional spending to a government that can't keep up with the bills it already had.

UHC will only take all that crappy stuff from Obamacare and kick it up about a hundred notches.
Click to expand...

A solution? Give me a break.
 
year2late said:
A solution? Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Well, obviously not a solution YOU would like...being a progressive and all...but a solution nevertheless.
 
Mycroft said:
Yeah...unfortunately, that pre-existing condition clause is one of the poison pills embedded in Obamacare that probably will saddle us with this massive entitlement program...or worse, UHC...for decades to come.
Click to expand...

its disgusting that CJ Roberts decided he wanted to prove he was more clever than the other justices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom