• 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!

Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Absentglare said:
That is complete bull****.

A dutch study found that among three groups (1) obese (2) smokers (3) healthy people, the healthy are the most expensive in the long run.

That's because they live the longest, so they need more services like costly joint replacement surgeries. It turns out that old people are the most expensive and healthy people generally grow older.

Sorry, but this is just another red herring for the ignorant, just like tort reform.
Click to expand...

Our young people put a different priority on healthcare. We have lots of young people, and more who can't afford insurance than in Europe.
 
Absentglare said:
What the **** are you even talking about???

You don't believe the reality of healthcare in other countries? Single payer is invariably a hybrid system where the rich can still pay for additional care.
Click to expand...

The whining of Obamacare is sickening. Learn to pay for your own ****, and you won't be coming here whining and complaining about what people like me say.
 
American said:
Our young people put a different priority on healthcare. We have lots of young people, and more who can't afford insurance than in Europe.
Click to expand...

We are the wealthiest nation in the world. All these dramatically poorer nations have absolutely no problem providing universal healthcare to their entire populations.

The result is that many of our youth are being forced to choose between their health and bankruptcy. This is a really ****ty Sophie's choice to give to the next generation, especially since all the baby boomers set themselves up to have government health insurance, now that they're retiring, and they're telling the working millennials that they shouldn't have government health insurance because (1) that government health insurance is bad (even though medicare/medicaid/VA are all far superior to uninsured) and (2) that they don't deserve it. (1) is a lie and (2) is just selfish.
 
Absentglare said:
We are the wealthiest nation in the world. All these dramatically poorer nations have absolutely no problem providing universal healthcare to their entire populations.

The result is that many of our youth are being forced to choose between their health and bankruptcy. This is a really ****ty Sophie's choice to give to the next generation, especially since all the baby boomers set themselves up to have government health insurance, now that they're retiring, and they're telling the working millennials that they shouldn't have government health insurance because (1) that government health insurance is bad (even though medicare/medicaid/VA are all far superior to uninsured) and (2) that they don't deserve it. (1) is a lie and (2) is just selfish.
Click to expand...

Give me a ****ing break.
 
American said:
Give me a ****ing break.
Click to expand...

? What do you take issue with?

What's wrong with government run health insurance? What does taking money away from Americans and handing it out to health insurance CEOs actually buy us?
 
Greenbeard said:
A very common talking point, but not accurate.



It's almost as if the ACA did that.
Click to expand...

didnt do a very good job. the yale hospital group is still more profitable than any business around, as evidenced by their continued rapid expansion and monopolization
 
KevinKohler said:
didnt do a very good job. the yale hospital group is still more profitable than any business around, as evidenced by
their continued rapid expansion and monopolization
Click to expand...

The ACA doesn't set prices; there's no political appetite that I'm aware for the federal government to step in and do that.
 
I don't know how else it's possible to view it, when 19 states - almost all republican - refused the medicaid expansion even though the fed covers 100% of the cost, solely to stick it to Obama. They want it to fail from the start and don't give a damn about the lives involved

However, despite all the opining by republicans for the good old days of "preexisting conditions" and 40 million uninsured, i highly doubt they'll repeal anything. The backlash from tens of millions of redneck voters who now depend on the ACA would be enormous
 
Absentglare said:
We are the wealthiest nation in the world. All these dramatically poorer nations have absolutely no problem providing universal healthcare to their entire populations.

The result is that many of our youth are being forced to choose between their health and bankruptcy. This is a really ****ty Sophie's choice to give to the next generation, especially since all the baby boomers set themselves up to have government health insurance, now that they're retiring, and they're telling the working millennials that they shouldn't have government health insurance because (1) that government health insurance is bad (even though medicare/medicaid/VA are all far superior to uninsured) and (2) that they don't deserve it. (1) is a lie and (2) is just selfish.
Click to expand...

Actually it's now 10th in GDP per capita, but yeah, easily affordable and in fact, single payer is cheaper due to removing the insurance profits. So the only reason not to do it is hatred of 'leechers' and politicians in bed with HMOs

But yeah, they have to choose just like they're being forced to choose between education and bankruptcy. But this has been the case for a long time, and the republican "vision" is to...what, just go without health care and education? So either we have an unhealthy and stupid country or one totally sunk by debt. Either way, the idea this will "make America great again" would be laughable if it weren't so tragic
 
Absentglare said:
That is complete bull****.

A dutch study found that among three groups (1) obese (2) smokers (3) healthy people, the healthy are the most expensive in the long run.

That's because they live the longest, so they need more services like costly joint replacement surgeries. It turns out that old people are the most expensive and healthy people generally grow older.

Sorry, but this is just another red herring for the ignorant, just like tort reform.
Click to expand...

That's true, but i doubt the study accounted for the amount the healthy put into the system (what we call medicare tax here), because they can live to work longer
 
chromium said:
Actually it's now 10th in GDP per capita, but yeah, easily affordable and in fact, single payer is cheaper due to removing the insurance profits. So the only reason not to do it is hatred of 'leechers' and politicians in bed with HMOs

But yeah, they have to choose just like they're being forced to choose between education and bankruptcy. But this has been the case for a long time, and the republican "vision" is to...what, just go without health care and education? So either we have an unhealthy and stupid country or one totally sunk by debt. Either way, the idea this will "make America great again" would be laughable if it weren't so tragic
Click to expand...

The latest assessment i saw was that the US was 6th in GDP per capita, but that rather betrays the scope. The five "nations" above the US are all far smaller- the largest has a population around 8 million to the US's 325 million.
 
chromium said:
That's true, but i doubt the study accounted for the amount the healthy put into the system (what we call medicare tax here), because they can live to work longer
Click to expand...

The study was trying to assess whether a society saves money by fighting smoking and obesity. It could have been a practical incentive for a public health campaign, but instead they found the opposite result.

It did not assess what impact smoking and obesity had on productivity, only on costs.
 
Greenbeard said:
The ACA doesn't set prices; there's no political appetite that I'm aware for the federal government to step in and do that.
Click to expand...

Never the less...you say the ACA set limitations on not for profits, yet it didn't actually succeed.
 
Absentglare said:
The study was trying to assess whether a society saves money by fighting smoking and obesity. It could have been a practical incentive for a public health campaign, but instead they found the opposite result.

It did not assess what impact smoking and obesity had on productivity, only on costs.
Click to expand...

Yeah i can see the campaign now, "Encourage smoking and obesity so people die young and don't need chronic health treatment"
 
KevinKohler said:
The affordable care act did not address one single aspect of high health CARE costs.
Click to expand...

True. I would have it compliance was 100% but that never happened.
 
KevinKohler said:
So...when you go to a hospital, and they charge you 50 dollars for an aspirin that cost them .06 cents to buy, it's because it's really high tech?
Click to expand...

I think that's to subsidize the uninsured who show up at the ER to save their lives.
 
Mithros said:
Do you mean like the pay for performance programs in Obama Care where compensation to doctors becomes outcome based rather than procedure based. Granted these cost savings measures were aimed at the medicare side of the fence and not the private side, but they are in there.

The In-Patient Value-Based Purchasing Program, began in 2012- reduces Medicares diagnosis-related group payments to all hospitals, then redistributes the savings based on hospital performance.
The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, phased in 2012-2014 penalizes hospitals with high 30day readmission rates.
The Physician Value-Based Payment Modifier, phased in from 2015-2017, adjusts the existing value based payment modifier.
Click to expand...

And don't forget the obvious. The ACA put a CAP on what an insurer may make from premiums, effective limiting their profits to 18%. It is still too much for just cutting checks to providers but previously they were taking as much a 50% profit from customers.
 
Smeagol said:
- Making non-compliance too easy. Proof of health coverage should be required to get utilities turned on, open a bank account, get your driver's license/tag renewed.
Click to expand...

:shock:

That is beyond insane and very creepy. How is a person to pay for healthcare without being allowed to bank? How is one to get to work to pay for the healthcare without mobility? Have you even thought this bad remedy to bad policy through? You could never force enough people to prop up a failed system with unsustainably increasing costs.

I am so glad totalitarians like you have no institutional power.
 
Absentglare said:
That wasn't my argument, no.

My argument is that lifestyle and demographics do not account for the cost of healthcare in our country.

9fd05e3e5828b21061b2a5381fe215e5.jpg


We aren't getting what we pay for. We are getting much less than what we pay for. That is a sign that ordinary market forces are not keeping costs in check. This makes sense because we all invariably need health care to survive: there is no limit to how much one would spend to survive. This is the fundamental problem with healthcare, it is a population-wide social problem that the government has exclusive authority and responsibility to address.
Click to expand...
The graph has nothing to do with lifestyle and demographics and therefore is irrelevant to your argument. It's also worthless data because countries measure life expectancies in different ways, making simplistic comparisons like this utterly meaningless.
 
Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Taylor said:
The graph has nothing to do with lifestyle and demographics and therefore is irrelevant to your argument. It's also worthless data because countries measure life expectancies in different ways, making simplistic comparisons like this utterly meaningless.
Click to expand...

Umm.. the graph shows how much less efficient our healthcare system is. There is no valid explanation for this phenomenon in terms of demographics. Japan has a large aging population but still manages to remain efficient. Obesity and smoking are red herrings.
 
Re: Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Absentglare said:
Umm.. the graph shows how much less efficient our healthcare system is. There is no valid explanation for this phenomenon in terms of demographics. Japan has a large aging population but still manages to remain efficient. Obesity and smoking are red herrings.
Click to expand...
Oh really? For starters, how many people die in fatal accidents in Japan vs. the United States, and precisely how does that affect life expectancy?

You haven't thought this through, which is exactly why you're posting simplistic garbage and latching onto it as if it held some sort of meaning.
 
Re: Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Taylor said:
Oh really? For starters, how many people die in fatal accidents in Japan vs. the United States, and precisely how does that affect life expectancy?

You haven't thought this through, which is exactly why you're posting simplistic garbage and latching onto it as if it held some sort of meaning.
Click to expand...

...?

You're grasping at straws. Feel free to provide some evidence instead of wild explanations for easy to understand phenomenon.

It's no mystery why our healthcare system is so expensive, administrators salaries are inflated by an order of magnitude.
 
Re: Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Absentglare said:
...?

You're grasping at straws. Feel free to provide some evidence instead of wild explanations for easy to understand phenomenon.

It's no mystery why our healthcare system is so expensive, administrators salaries are inflated by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
I'm not grasping at anything, merely pointing out that your data is far, far too simplistic to warrant any conclusions on the relative strength of health care systems.

You may as well plot the life expectancy of the average car in different nations and claim that it shows how well each one educates its mechanics.
 
Re: Is the "Repeal of Obamacare" partisan driven political semantics?

Taylor said:
I'm not grasping at anything, merely pointing out that your data is far, far too simplistic to warrant any conclusions on the relative strength of health care systems.

You may as well plot the life expectancy of the average car in different nations and claim that it shows how well each one educates its mechanics.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that the considerable discrepancy in health care administrator salaries is ultimately paid for by the consumer?

It sounds like you don't realize that an administrator's $6,000,000+/year salary must be paid for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom