• 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!

Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare

cpwill said:
:) Well then in that case, no one will be surprised to find out what it costs when/if SCOTUS takes away the subsidies, and the ACA's satisfaction level will remain roughly where it's currently at.
Click to expand...

My point is that you're misunderstanding the purpose of the subsides (and the exchanges themselves) and how they work. They're not to obscure the underlying cost of the plan. You have to know both the amount of your subsidy and the full price of a health plan while shopping--which is why both are prominently displayed. As another poster already pointed out, the consumer has to decide how much, if any, of the subsidy they're eligible for they want to apply in advance and how much they want to get back through their tax rebate in the subsequent tax season. You can't do that without having the complete financial picture of what you're doing.

Exchanges are there to provide information, not hide it.

cpwill said:
It was an incentive to force the states on-board:
Click to expand...

Find a single piece of federal guidance for states (and there was a lot, particularly in those early days shortly after the ACA passed) saying the tax credits were contingent on the state setting up an exchange. You won't be able to find it because it doesn't exist.

The subsidies were never, ever used as an inducement to push states into building exchanges. Nor did that (non-) consideration enter into any state's decision-making about whether to establish an exchange. I remember those days well and I remember the deliberations states were going through with respect to exchanges. Nobody was talking about forgoing tax credits by defaulting to the federal exchange because everyone--states, the CBO, lawmakers--understood that the tax credits were available to people in all states.

Trying to retcon the story to imply there was some attempted arm-twisting of states that failed is silly, since that never happened. That story also doesn't make any sense, both in the context of the rest of the law and in that it fails to offer any rationale for there even being a federal fallback option if states fail to establish exchanges.

It doesn't surprise me that ACA opponents are inventing this revisionist history in their last ditch attempt to land a blow on the law; what is surprising is that some of you actually seem to believe this made-up history. Sorry, that just isn't how it was.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
WATCH: Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare



Farkin weasel.
:shock:

If only they hadn't tried to call it "Obamacare", maybe they could get on the winning side of the issue. But no, "ACA" wasn't villifiable enough.

As SCOTUS Decision Looms, Obamacare Satisfaction Reaches 86 Percent - Forbes



06ULAoy.jpg
Click to expand...
Republicans in general oppose government healthcare.Why would they want to replace one government healthcare with another instead of just dismantling it? It would be like if a republican pushed through laws or programs that only republicans like and then someone hassling a democrat candidate if they are going to come up with a program equal to what the republicans have.
 
jamesrage said:
Republicans in general oppose government healthcare.Why would they want to replace one government healthcare with another instead of just dismantling it? It would be like if a republican pushed through laws or programs that only republicans like and then someone hassling a democrat candidate if they are going to come up with a program equal to what the republicans have.
Click to expand...

Ryan himself put out a plan based on state-based exchanges, advanceable tax credits to help people buy insurance, and baseline consumer protections in the insurance market back in 2009.

The kneejerk opposition to the ACA's approach (which came out a few month's after Ryan's bill) is posturing, not policy. The standard "we're not allowed to like an idea if Obama does too" junk.
 
Greenbeard said:
Ryan himself put out a plan based on state-based exchanges, advanceable tax credits to help people buy insurance, and baseline consumer protections in the insurance market back in 2009.
Click to expand...
That explains why Mitt Romney picked him as his running mate.


The kneejerk opposition to the ACA's approach (which came out a few month's after Ryan's bill) is posturing, not policy. The standard "we're not allowed to like an idea if Obama does too" junk.
Click to expand...
Some might support tax credits and some might support consumer protections.But most republicans do not support forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
 
jamesrage said:
Republicans in general oppose government healthcare.
Click to expand...

You're right James. That's exactly why they came up with Obamacare in the first place.

jamesrage said:
But most republicans do not support forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

mmmmmmm, I think I misunderstood your first point. I beginning to think you think Obamacare is govt healthcare because you don't seem to know that republicans came up with the idea of mandates and supported it for 15 years until President Obama supported them. How do you not know that republicans came up with mandates and supported them for 15 years until President Obama supported them?
 
bubbabgone said:
Like I've said before but have to keep repeating, if you read anything that says there are 16 million people with health insurance now who didn't have it before and it doesn't mention the millions who lost their insurance because of Obamacare, you can stop reading because it'll be a skewed piece written solely to defend Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Bubba, your post makes me laugh. Maybe it's just me but people who have a definition of LIV bait in their posts really shouldn't post LIV bait. Millions didn't lose coverage. a few million simply had to pick a new plan. I know this is news to you but plans got cancelled every year. I realize your radio masters don't trust with this knowledge but once a plan started paying out more than it collected, insurance companies simply cancelled that plan. They did have to offer existing policy holders a new plan but the new plan came at a higher price. Sick people knew they couldn't shop around and either paid more or lost coverage.

and bubba, people who believe the president was born in Kenya, his birth certificate was a forgery, is a secret muslim, wants to kill old people, etc. just don't get to put "esp liberal" in their LIV bait definition.
 
Vern said:
Bubba, your post makes me laugh. Maybe it's just me but people who have a definition of LIV bait in their posts really shouldn't post LIV bait.
Millions didn't lose coverage. a few million simply had to pick a new plan. I know this is news to you but plans got cancelled every year.
Click to expand...
I realize your radio masters don't trust with this knowledge but once a plan started paying out more than it collected, insurance companies simply cancelled that plan. They did have to offer existing policy holders a new plan but the new plan came at a higher price. Sick people knew they couldn't shop around and either paid more or lost coverage.

and bubba, people who believe the president was born in Kenya, his birth certificate was a forgery, is a secret muslim, wants to kill old people, etc. just don't get to put "esp liberal" in their LIV bait definition.
Click to expand...

Millions were told they could keep their plans ... they couldn't ... having Insurance Companies cancel a plan for their reason is a helluva lot different than the Federal Government cancelling it for theirs ... and then counting those millions in the total of millions newly covered is misleading ... especially since you're suggesting they never really lost anything.
 
Vern said:
Bubba, your post makes me laugh. Maybe it's just me but people who have a definition of LIV bait in their posts really shouldn't post LIV bait. Millions didn't lose coverage. a few million simply had to pick a new plan. I know this is news to you but plans got cancelled every year. I realize your radio masters don't trust with this knowledge but once a plan started paying out more than it collected, insurance companies simply cancelled that plan. They did have to offer existing policy holders a new plan but the new plan came at a higher price. Sick people knew they couldn't shop around and either paid more or lost coverage.

and bubba, people who believe the president was born in Kenya, his birth certificate was a forgery, is a secret muslim, wants to kill old people, etc. just don't get to put "esp liberal" in their LIV bait definition.
Click to expand...

What's funny is you people whined and cried for 8 years about a supposed " liar " and then you went and elected an ACTUAL LIAR to be President.

Twice..
 
Here is a good replacement for Obamacare:

Just repeal it.


We were better off before.
 
Vern said:
mmmmmmm, I think I misunderstood your first point. I beginning to think you think Obamacare is govt healthcare because you don't seem to know that republicans came up with the idea of mandates and supported it for 15 years until President Obama supported them. How do you not know that republicans came up with mandates and supported them for 15 years until President Obama supported them?
Click to expand...

Yea the Republicans love the idea of Obamacare so much that zero of them voted for it. What are you exactly trying to prove with your post?


Liberals are so proud of Obamacare because children and feelings...yet run to blame Republicans for the failings? Good grief, get it through your damn skull, Republicans had NOTHING to do with Obamacare.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
WATCH: Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare



Farkin weasel.
:shock:

If only they hadn't tried to call it "Obamacare", maybe they could get on the winning side of the issue. But no, "ACA" wasn't villifiable enough.

As SCOTUS Decision Looms, Obamacare Satisfaction Reaches 86 Percent - Forbes



06ULAoy.jpg
Click to expand...
Its called Obamacare. If the SC shoots it down, why is it the republicans obligation to replace it? Its Obamas mess, let him clean it up.
 
Fletch said:
Its called Obamacare. If the SC shoots it down, why is it the republicans obligation to replace it? Its Obamas mess, let him clean it up.
Click to expand...


Because the 5-10M people who will instantly be dropped and uninsurable again will be fuxxed.
 
Last edited:
roughdraft274 said:
It's not their job to save it. But if your going to pull health insurance from millions of people without offering them any kind of substitute and making it go back to where people were constantly worried of getting dropped by their health insurance company then they need to own it. When asked, they can answer with "they'll lose their insurance and it's up to them and go find it elsewhere. They're better off without it." or something like that (I understand that isn't the best way to put it).


Also, those polls are asking people if they are happy with their current health insurance. It leaves out all together people that don't have health insurance. Most people didn't see much of a change with their health insurance policies from ObamaCare. But it did help people to obtain health insurance.

I'm only more satisfied with my insurance after ObamaCare. It got rid of my million dollar lifetime cap and premium hikes have been minimal.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so help the people who don't have insurance, which all politicians agreed with; and don't force the entire country into a plan they don't want.
 
American said:
Yeah, so help the people who don't have insurance, which all politicians agreed with; and don't force the entire country into a plan they don't want.
Click to expand...

so the 2 options to do that are


1) socialized national 'medicare' for all

2) mandate insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions at a loss.

neither seem like "conservative" philosophies.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
so the 2 options to do that are


1) socialized national 'medicare' for all

2) mandate insurers cover those with pre-existing conditions at a loss.

neither seem like "conservative" philosophies.
Click to expand...

So you know what the only two options are?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
I'm all ears if you have others.

hint: solution must satisfy within reason the constraint that median household income is ~50k.
Click to expand...

You falsely believe you're entitled to a solution quickly thought up on the Internet. You want to create false choices as a debate ploy, find someone else. The replacement for Obamacare that I would support must be well thought out, unlike Obamacare which has thrown together in secrecy and voted for by paid off Democrats.
 
American said:
You falsely believe you're entitled to a solution quickly thought up on the Internet. You want to create false choices as a debate ploy, find someone else. The replacement for Obamacare that I would support must be well thought out, unlike Obamacare which has thrown together in secrecy and voted for by paid off Democrats.
Click to expand...
The heritage plan has been out for over 20 years. More than enough time to come up with a solution to replace it
 
SlevinKelevra said:
The heritage plan has been out for over 20 years. More than enough time to come up with a solution to replace it
Click to expand...

So? Did you want the Heritage Plan or what?
 
American said:
Yeah, so help the people who don't have insurance, which all politicians agreed with; and don't force the entire country into a plan they don't want.
Click to expand...

The entire country into a plan they don't want?

Hmm, I can tell you that after signing up my father for health insurance he's switched his mind. He's very happy with what he has. Maybe you should learn what your talking about.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Every congressman that has talked on the matter has said that the intention was that the federal exchange would recieve subsidies. No one anywhere has said that the intention was to not allow subsidies. Even Republican congressmen have said this.
Click to expand...

yeah they said it after the fact. they should have wrote it into the bill. they didn't write it into the bill.
they knew from the get go that subsidies were only to go to states that setup their own exchanges not the federal ones. it was a measure to coerce the states
into setting up their own exchanges. of course those exchanges are underwater and starting to fail.

I know that you don't care about that, but the supreme court does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
Click to expand...

yep the intent of the bill was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges. when they realized that more than half the states were not going to do this the IRS illegally changed the law and re-wrote it. that is what is being challenged in court. the IRS doesn't have the authority to re-write the law.

I just told you that I helped my dad sign up for health insurance through the exchange. It gave us all the information on the full price of the plan and then it gave us what it would be after his subsidy.

You're wording is retarded. They won't be as happy because they will have to pay more, not because they'll "see the cost of their portion".
Click to expand...

they will be paying what they should pay instead of the subsidy that they get. they will realize the full cost of obamacare.

And if they supreme court rules subsidies illegal and Republicans refuse to alter anything, thats on them. ObamaCare is already passed. We are over that. At that point we would be facing the dilemma of "should we give these people subsidies that they should have recieved anyways or should we say **** em?" And the two parties can pick what they want.
Click to expand...

nope it is still on democrats for making the bad bill to begin with. it isn't up to republicans to bail out democrats on their failure of a bill. they should have read it before they passed it.


They are elected officials in the government. It is their job to govern. If they think the right choice is to leave subsidies out of the law then that is their choice. But this stupid "well its not our job" **** is something you'd hear from a child. They can make a choice, but they have to defend their choice.
Click to expand...

they don't have to defend anything. democrats have to defend passing this crap bill to begin with.

Also, comparing this to a bomb is silly. I get that the conservative elders have been spoon feeding you that talking point but ti makes you look silly.
Click to expand...
actually it is not silly at all and a perfect example.

For starters, your intellectual integrity would have to be worth something for you to sell it.

But again you don't understand. If ObamaCare doesn't work, it's not the republicans fault. If Republicans vote to reinstate the subsidies if they get removed, and then obamacare doesn't work, it's still not their fault. But if a typo results in people losing their subsidies and the Republican stance is "**** em, it's not our fault" then they shouldn't be in government anyways. Even if the law wasn't theirs its still their job to govern.
Click to expand...

it wasn't a typo. it was a intended coercion of the states to get them to setup their own exchanges. they are governing. by not fixing a POS bill that should have never been passed to begin with, but was passed with shady closed door meeting and illegal procedures.
 
roughdraft274 said:
The entire country into a plan they don't want?

Hmm, I can tell you that after signing up my father for health insurance he's switched his mind. He's very happy with what he has. Maybe you should learn what your talking about.
Click to expand...

Why didn't your father have healthcare, how old is he?
 
American said:
Why didn't your father have healthcare, how old is he?
Click to expand...

58.

Because he thought it was a waste of money. Until my mother got cancer and passed away two years ago and racked up over a million dollars of medical bills in about three months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom