• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gallup Poll just in

It has been amusing to see the far right throw their wet panties against the wall to see which ones stick.

Confiscate your tax return to pay the penalty if you don't have health insurance??? Not much of a refund if that is the case :roll:

The right wingnuts are bipolar, first a majority of Americans hate 'mandates' now it's Americans don't like thinking or doing for themselves. :roll:

Take our country back or now content to wear the Gubmint yoke.

It is fun to watch the right wing sing. But this is a needed first step, hopefully more reform to follow. The Germans didn't surrender after D-Day, we had to fight all the way to the Roosians before it ended, the ACA will need changes but we are on the beach...
 
AdamT said:
You don't get it. If insurance companies have to accept people who are already sick, and there's no penalty for being uninsured, then there is no reason for anyone to buy insurance before they get sick. Thus, the only people who are insured are sick people. Insurance companies lose money on sick people. What do you think that does to insurance premiums? They would probably have to go up 500 - 1000%.
Click to expand...

yup. and considering that it is significantly cheaper to pay the mandate than purchase the insurance... that is what will happen :).
 
notquiteright said:
It has been amusing to see the far right throw their wet panties against the wall to see which ones stick.

Confiscate your tax return to pay the penalty if you don't have health insurance??? Not much of a refund if that is the case :roll:

The right wingnuts are bipolar, first a majority of Americans hate 'mandates' now it's Americans don't like thinking or doing for themselves. :roll:

Take our country back or now content to wear the Gubmint yoke.

It is fun to watch the right wing sing. But this is a needed first step, hopefully more reform to follow. The Germans didn't surrender after D-Day, we had to fight all the way to the Roosians before it ended, the ACA will need changes but we are on the beach...
Click to expand...

They'll come to accept it eventually. :)

The Five Stages of Grief - Elisabeth Kübler-Ross & David Kessler | Grief.com ~ David Kessler
 
cpwill said:
or this one: WOULD YOU LIKE FOR YOUR ANNUAL INCREASE IN HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS TO SKY ROCKET EVEN HIGHER?
Click to expand...

False argument. Health insurance premiums were increasing before the PPACA became law and would have increased even if Congress had done nothing. To blame the premium increases on this law that HAS NOT even gone into full affect yet other than for medical facilities to begin making preparations to implement electronic health records is foolish.

The private sector (medical industry nor businesses large or small) haven't had to pay any additional taxes yet because of the law. If insurance companies are raising premium rates it's of their own accord. You could say they're doing it in advance of the law going into full effect by 2014 just to pad their bottom line possibly in anticpation of a having to offset the cost of those new clients with pre-existing conditions, but that's of their own doing not because the law mandated new pricing on health services or that any new taxes have been implemented.
 
cpwill said:
yup. and considering that it is significantly cheaper to pay the mandate than purchase the insurance... that is what will happen :).
Click to expand...

Then what are you complaining about? By your own admission, you'd save money by paying the tax penalty rather than buy health insurance. So, you'd better have your bank account number ready to give to Uncle Sam when you file your federal income tax retur in 2014. Sounds to me like you want to put more money in the government's pocket rather than "keep more of what you earn". :roll:
 
Objective Voice said:
False argument. Health insurance premiums were increasing before the PPACA became law and would have increased even if Congress had done nothing. To blame the premium increases on this law that HAS NOT even gone into full affect yet other than for medical facilities to begin making preparations to implement electronic health records is foolish.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I am arguing that the mandate Obama Healthcare Tax is too weak to provide an incentive to purchase health insurance for those who know that they are effectively covered anyway. This "solution" exacerbates the problem it was intended to address.
 
Objective Voice said:
Then what are you complaining about? By your own admission, you'd save money by paying the tax penalty rather than buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

.... I would rather not destroy the private health insurance market in the United States? I would rather not exacerbate the third party dependence and it's associated cost nightmares in our health insurance market?

So, you'd better have your bank account number ready to give to Uncle Sam when you file your federal income tax retur in 2014. Sounds to me like you want to put more money in the government's pocket rather than "keep more of what you earn". :roll:
Click to expand...

:shrug: For FY 2014 Uncle Sam will probably be taking a chunk out of my flesh already.
 
haymarket said:
This poll shows that certain components of the law are very popular and enjoy a high level of support. Every national Democrat running this fall should make the popular components of the Health Care law a key issue in their campaigns. They should stand tall and proud and ask over and over and over again to the people before them

DO YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR KIDS INSURED TO AGE 26?

DO YOU WANT PROTECTION FROM BEING CUT OFF WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS?

DO YOU WANT PROTECTION FROM SPENDING CAP LIMITS DICTATED BY GREEDY INSURANCE COMPANIES?

and so on and so on.
Click to expand...


Forgot one.

DO YOU WANT STUFF FOR FREE!
 
Kal'Stang said:
I would, but why should I? The quote from you in my sig makes it known what you think about ethics. You'd lie the second you thought it would benefit you. So not really worth debating you at all.
Click to expand...

NO - I would not adopt your tactics.

Thank you for admitting you are impotent to explain the tax situation. That is refreshing.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
on constitutionality. not on favorability. probably the ruling will move that indicator up a tic. but to where it is anything but a net loss for Obama? doubtful.
Click to expand...

the poll shows that only 31% favor the GOP position of repealing the law. That leaves a big majority who either favor the entire law or parts of it.
 
cpwill said:
or this one: WOULD YOU LIKE FOR YOUR ANNUAL INCREASE IN HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS TO SKY ROCKET EVEN HIGHER?
Click to expand...

Based on what? The purpose of the mandate is to ensure everyone is in the pool, including the young. A broader, healthier pool will hold down costs.

You are forgetting the annual unpaid tab of American hospitals is about $50B per year (or look at as 5% of our running deficits). This is picked up by taxpayers and the insured for the benefit of the uninsured. The mandate ensures everyone's (at least much broader) participation in this cost.... you know, the personal responsibility thing.

Unpaid hospital tab $49B each year - USATODAY.com

Granted, it would have been much easier to simply have a tax, or better yet, expand medicare... but the powers to be thought a better course would be to have the existing, most expensive and inefficient medical system in the world simply absorb it. When we really want to cut costs, then we can expand medicare.

Health Care Spending
 
wbcoleman said:
A vote for "not Romney" is a vote for Obama.
Click to expand...

Not really..... a vote that would have gone from Romney that now goes to Obama is worth two votes (one less for Romney and one more for Obama). A vote that goes from Romney to staying at home ofr to a 3rd party candidate is just one less vote for Romney. If you don't like either candidate and can live with either, the strongest vote you can make is for a 3rd party candidate that closely reflects your views. IF that block is big enough, future candidates will seek to court that block.
 
AdamT said:
No, they could not. You cannot tell insurance companies that they can't reject people who have preexisting conditions unless you implement some mechanism to insure that people don't wait until they have a condition to buy insurance.
Click to expand...

But I often heard ‘insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition’ being a benefit of the ACA (Nancy Pelosi JUST said exactly that on Melissa Harris-Perry). You are presuming that all with PEC’s are not desiring to participate in the insurance pool because they don’t want to. The tax will not motivate those ‘who don’t want to’ any more than disallowing PEC’s coverage. Further even if they wait AND then get into the pool it is better than prior to the law where they just stayed out of the pool and HI policy holders carried the expense. Noting has changed.
 
upsideguy said:
Based on what? The purpose of the mandate is to ensure everyone is in the pool, including the young. A broader, healthier pool will hold down costs.
Click to expand...

No, having more people in the pool will not do anything about costs. It will merely increase the money in the pool to allow for equally high or higher costs.
 
AdamT said:
You don't get it. If insurance companies have to accept people who are already sick, and there's no penalty for being uninsured, then there is no reason for anyone to buy insurance before they get sick. Thus, the only people who are insured are sick people. Insurance companies lose money on sick people. What do you think that does to insurance premiums? They would probably have to go up 500 - 1000%.
Click to expand...

Except that what is going to happen is there will be people that don't get insurance until tax time rolls around to where they can say that yes they have it and show the proof of it. Then drop it like a hot potato after they file their taxes. Insurance companies will fold.
 
haymarket said:
NO - I would not adopt your tactics.
Click to expand...

Of course you wouldn't. The quote of you in my sig says that you would stoop far far lower.

haymarket said:
Thank you for admitting you are impotent to explain the tax situation. That is refreshing.
Click to expand...

If I am its only because I know that you will do anything to "prove me wrong"...including lying.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Based on what? The purpose of the mandate is to ensure everyone is in the pool, including the young. A broader, healthier pool will hold down costs.
Click to expand...

Except that the only way that this POS legislation has of making people have HCI is based on tax season...one day out of the year. How are they going to make sure that people keep thier insurance the rest of the 364 days of the year?
 
upsideguy said:
Based on what? The purpose of the mandate is to ensure everyone is in the pool, including the young. A broader, healthier pool will hold down costs.
Click to expand...


Except that that's not what we are going to get.

Insurance for a family of four: $11,000 a year
Health Insurance Tax: $600 a year

Paying $600 a year knowing if anyone get's sick the insurance agency can't refuse to pay for your preexisting condition? $10,400 a year.

If the tax was the equivalent of the cost of insurance, then you would have an incentive to buy. As it is, paying the mandate is simply the cheap way out while staying effectively insured. I can cover little 40 dollar things here and there while saving beaucoup dollars, and wait until I am sick or injured to get insurance.

This program exacerbates the problem it was supposed to fix.
 
haymarket said:
the poll shows that only 31% favor the GOP position of repealing the law. That leaves a big majority who either favor the entire law or parts of it.
Click to expand...

mw9tnxwe6eeuh0i_-yycgg.gif


Independents net disagree with the SCOTUS, with 3% undecided. What is interesting is that Democrats actually have the largest "undecided" of this data set.

_yf6icfrzughukud-xffwq.gif


...31% say they would repeal the law entirely and 21% would keep the law in place but repeal parts of it. A quarter of Americans swing in the other direction, saying they would like Congress to pass legislation to expand the government's role in healthcare beyond what the current law does. Thirteen percent want to keep the law in place and do nothing further...​


Like I said, public opinion still makes this a net loss for Obama.
 
washunut said:
Forgot one.

DO YOU WANT STUFF FOR FREE!
Click to expand...

Free is good, that is the liberal way, and it's those dirty bastards that actually work for a living having to pay for it. And I might add those dirty bastards have a 16 trillion debt to start paying now.
 
cpwill said:
Except that that's not what we are going to get.

Insurance for a family of four: $11,000 a year
Health Insurance Tax: $600 a year

Paying $600 a year knowing if anyone get's sick the insurance agency can't refuse to pay for your preexisting condition? $10,400 a year.

If the tax was the equivalent of the cost of insurance, then you would have an incentive to buy. As it is, paying the mandate is simply the cheap way out while staying effectively insured. I can cover little 40 dollar things here and there while saving beaucoup dollars, and wait until I am sick or injured to get insurance.

This program exacerbates the problem it was supposed to fix.
Click to expand...

It's higher than that, for a family of four it's $1,500 a month: making for $18,000 a yr.
 
cpwill said:
Except that that's not what we are going to get.

Insurance for a family of four: $11,000 a year
Health Insurance Tax: $600 a year

Paying $600 a year knowing if anyone get's sick the insurance agency can't refuse to pay for your preexisting condition? $10,400 a year.

If the tax was the equivalent of the cost of insurance, then you would have an incentive to buy. As it is, paying the mandate is simply the cheap way out while staying effectively insured. I can cover little 40 dollar things here and there while saving beaucoup dollars, and wait until I am sick or injured to get insurance.

This program exacerbates the problem it was supposed to fix.
Click to expand...
Ooops! You calculated the penalty for an individual and used the same number.....for a household.
 
cpwill said:
:) alright. what's the number?
Click to expand...

The average cost of a family policy is around $14000, but the exchanges will provide a variety of less expensive options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom