• 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.

FLOTUS: Obamacare keeps women from dying of cancer, but GOP would repeal it [W:80]

Fishstyx said:
"Do we want these reforms to be repealed? Because there are those who do. Or do we want the people we love to have the care they need? That’s the choice we face.”

She cited the examples than said this. This is implies that those problems will go away if Obamacare is aloud to remain.
Click to expand...

My grandmother had all the care she needed, she still died of cancer. Where is it stated as universal truth that if one has the medical care one needs, one can't have cancer or die from it?

And my question was: Where does she say it can't happen under Obamacare? I don't need your spin/lie, I want to see the evidence that she said what you claimed she said. If what she said was "Or do we want the people we love to have the care they need?", it is a lie to claim that she said "all that can't happen under Obamacare". Will you now stop lying?
 
Last edited:
CONSagainROMNEY said:
Even a Conservative like myself sees that ObamaCare has saved lives. This country needed someone to step forward and put a stop to this idea that insurance companies could deny coverage to folks with pre-existing conditions. I am against Obama's social experiment and I will not vote for him, but I must applaud his courage for standing up for those who the insurance companies would not insure and saving the lives of so many folks.
Click to expand...

You dont sound very conservative. What happened to free markets? What sense does it make for an insurer to insure someone who they know will take out more than they pay in? Thats the exact opposite of how insurance works.
 
Fishstyx said:
Thats dutch door action though. Not repealing it will cost thousands of people their health and/or lives. Why? Simply the currently "amount" of healthcare available cannot support the additional millions of people that will flood into the system.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Waiting an extra week or two for an appointment is not the same as never having an appointment. Our system is not so overloaded that it can't accommodate these new insureds.
 
AdamT said:
Nonsense. Waiting an extra week or two for an appointment is not the same as never having an appointment. Our system is not so overloaded that it can't accommodate these new insureds.
Click to expand...


Nonsense? Take the blinders off man. Right now there is a doctor and an even bigger specialized doctor shortage (neuro, cardio, etc). An extra week or two? More like a an extra 3-6 months.
 
Fishstyx said:
Nonsense? Take the blinders off man. Right now there is a doctor and an even bigger specialized doctor shortage (neuro, cardio, etc). An extra week or two? More like a an extra 3-6 months.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I thought the main conservative argument for our health care system was that we did NOT have a doctor shortage. I thought it was those OTHER countries that had that problem?

In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that it's three months for a non-emergency appointment. So what? Am I going to tell someone else that they can have NO preventive care because I don't want to wait three months to get my physical? No, I'm not going to say that.
 
AdamT said:
Funny, but I thought the main conservative argument for our health care system was that we did NOT have a doctor shortage. I thought it was those OTHER countries that had that problem?

In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that it's three months for a non-emergency appointment. So what? Am I going to tell someone else that they can have NO preventive care because I don't want to wait three months to get my physical? No, I'm not going to say that.
Click to expand...

Im ok with that. If you can afford to see a doctor now, and a doctor is willing to see you now, why not? Why should you have to wait because a doctor is forced to see 10 non paying patients before you?
 
AdamT said:
Funny, but I thought the main conservative argument for our health care system was that we did NOT have a doctor shortage. I thought it was those OTHER countries that had that problem?

In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that it's three months for a non-emergency appointment. So what? Am I going to tell someone else that they can have NO preventive care because I don't want to wait three months to get my physical? No, I'm not going to say that.
Click to expand...

So what? So now not only do I have to pay a drastically higher premium, but now I have to wait exponentially longer?

Yeah no reason why anyone would be upset with that.
 
jonny5 said:
You dont sound very conservative. What happened to free markets? What sense does it make for an insurer to insure someone who they know will take out more than they pay in? Thats the exact opposite of how insurance works.
Click to expand...

"Free markets" lead to things like The Great Depression and our current Depression

"What sense does it make for an insurer to insure someone who they know will take out more than they pay in? Thats the exact opposite of how insurance works"
This is literally implying that you think if a person is sick they should just go and die...or we should foot the bill for them-which one is it?
Anyways this is not how insurance works.
Insurance companies know on average that most people will pay in to them more than they take out. They run their business platform like this and rake in the billions in the process
 
nonpareil said:
"Implications" made up by people who want to put the worst interpretation possible on it for political advantage are usually the equivalent of lies. You are the one playing stupid for the sake of attacking her and her husband.
Click to expand...

Scroll down a few posts and you see AdamT making the SAME argument, that getting rid of Obama care will mean people will lose their health coverage and die. So whatever, your willful blindness is not a substitute for non-partisanship.
 
Aberration said:
So what? So now not only do I have to pay a drastically higher premium, but now I have to wait exponentially longer?

Yeah no reason why anyone would be upset with that.
Click to expand...

No, you will have to pay a lower premium and wait a little longer. But we should let thousands of people die so you don't have to suffer that indignity.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Actually what it says is that Obamacare will prevent them from dying of cancer and the GOP wants to repeal that, implying they are on the hook for the deaths. But you know this, willful ignorance doesnt suit you.
Click to expand...

So what is the truth then? What is the GOP plan to prevent deaths from lack of insurance coverage?
 
AdamT said:
Funny, but I thought the main conservative argument for our health care system was that we did NOT have a doctor shortage. I thought it was those OTHER countries that had that problem?
Click to expand...

I never said that, you're discussing this me.

AdamT said:
In any case, let's say for the sake of argument that it's three months for a non-emergency appointment. So what? Am I going to tell someone else that they can have NO preventive care because I don't want to wait three months to get my physical? No, I'm not going to say that.
Click to expand...


Why do you assume that long waits for non-emergency care is just a "meh?" 3-6 months wait to see a cardiologist for bypass surgery can kill you. In essence, that would be "non-emergency care" to treat a chronic problem.
 
CONSagainROMNEY said:
Even a Conservative like myself sees that ObamaCare has saved lives. This country needed someone to step forward and put a stop to this idea that insurance companies could deny coverage to folks with pre-existing conditions. I am against Obama's social experiment and I will not vote for him, but I must applaud his courage for standing up for those who the insurance companies would not insure and saving the lives of so many folks.
Click to expand...

You left one important item out, COST, everyone loves a hand out, free stuff, gimme, gimme, it's all for the good of mankind. I need a free house or I will die, so given them a house. You are not a conservative if your not facial responsible. 16 trillion in debt and growing, and what is that going to do to the next generations that have to pay it back? But we are greedy bastards and we want it all and we want it delivered.
 
Fruityfact said:
"Free markets" lead to things like The Great Depression and our current Depression

"What sense does it make for an insurer to insure someone who they know will take out more than they pay in? Thats the exact opposite of how insurance works"
This is literally implying that you think if a person is sick they should just go and die...or we should foot the bill for them-which one is it?
Anyways this is not how insurance works.
Insurance companies know on average that most people will pay in to them more than they take out. They run their business platform like this and rake in the billions in the process
Click to expand...

If they cant afford care, they should go an die, obviously. Same as any product or service. If you cant pay for it, you cant have it.
 
iguanaman said:
So what is the truth then? What is the GOP plan to prevent deaths from lack of insurance coverage?
Click to expand...

The GOP plan is to continue medicare, medicaid, schip. That has nothing to do with insurance though. Medicare is a social program, not insurance. You get it whether you pay for it or not.
 
AdamT said:
No, you will have to pay a lower premium and wait a little longer. But we should let thousands of people die so you don't have to suffer that indignity.
Click to expand...

How do you get lower premiums when they have been going up and up. And then we have to wait a little longer, while we all wait people die. Good one.
 
Born Free said:
How do you get lower premiums when they have been going up and up. And then we have to wait a little longer, while we all wait people die. Good one.
Click to expand...

Lower in comparison to where they would otherwise be.
 
AdamT said:
It implies -- correctly -- that those problems will be worse if Obamacare is repealed and better if it is not.

I can understand why some people may not like Obamacare, but let's not stupidly pretend that repealing it won't cost thousands of people their health and/or lives.
Click to expand...

That is a undocumented statement, in fact it could be said that because of Obamacare the health and/or lives will be lost because of it. Wait times for a specialist will be long, death panels will prevail, medical care will become substandard. All adding to less health care and more early deaths. This says nothing of the cost of a failed program. You on the left always try and point to gift that government is giving you, but never talk about the cost. Why because you don't care whit it cost. You don't care how that added cost is going to effect their lives. For you if a person says I need a house or I will die. You jump up and give them a house, with no consideration of the cost.
 
AdamT said:
Lower in comparison to where they would otherwise be.
Click to expand...

You want to site some real evidence to back that up. How you get lower premiums while taxing people that don't want it, is beyond me, their cost goes up. Because of Obamacare every service and product you buy cost more. You on the left never figure the total cost of anything.

One last little tid pit, Obama said insurance cost would go down. It's going up, not down. Another false claim by Obama
 
Born Free said:
You want to site some real evidence to back that up. How you get lower premiums while taxing people that don't want it, is beyond me, their cost goes up. Because of Obamacare every service and product you buy cost more. You on the left never figure the total cost of anything.

One last little tid pit, Obama said insurance cost would go down. It's going up, not down. Another false claim by Obama
Click to expand...
That's because the mandate doesn't kink in until Jan 1, 2014.

https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf
 
jonny5 said:
If they cant afford care, they should go an die, obviously. Same as any product or service. If you cant pay for it, you cant have it.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious?
 
Born Free said:
You want to site some real evidence to back that up. How you get lower premiums while taxing people that don't want it, is beyond me, their cost goes up. Because of Obamacare every service and product you buy cost more. You on the left never figure the total cost of anything.

One last little tid pit, Obama said insurance cost would go down. It's going up, not down. Another false claim by Obama
Click to expand...

You get lower premiums by increasing the size of the insurance pool, and by creating an overall healthier pool of insureds, and by increasing competition, which is what Obamacare does.

Can you document where Obama said that insurance premiums would go down?
 
Born Free said:
That is a undocumented statement, in fact it could be said that because of Obamacare the health and/or lives will be lost because of it. Wait times for a specialist will be long, death panels will prevail, medical care will become substandard. All adding to less health care and more early deaths. This says nothing of the cost of a failed program. You on the left always try and point to gift that government is giving you, but never talk about the cost. Why because you don't care whit it cost. You don't care how that added cost is going to effect their lives. For you if a person says I need a house or I will die. You jump up and give them a house, with no consideration of the cost.
Click to expand...

There are no "death panels", the quality of care won't fall in any meaningful way, and no one will have to wait for emergency treatment. OTOH, 30 million people will have access to preventive care who don't have it now, meaning that thousands of curable conditions will be detected early, thousands of cases of diabetes will be prevented or treated, thousands of people with high blood pressure will get treatment for the first time, thousands of people with high cholesterol will get medication for the first time. There will be no lifetime limits so no one will have there medical care cut off when they get sick. People won't be rejected because they have preexisting conditions, so those people will continue to get the care they need and care for conditions that arise in the future.

But you know ... probably not worth making you wait a couple weeks for an appointment. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
There are no "death panels", the quality of care won't fall in any meaningful way, and no one will have to wait for emergency treatment.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that rather matter of factly. Do you have anything to support it? Is there some magical way to bridge the gap on doctor/specialist shortage which significantly worsen by adding 30 mil people to the demand? Hope you have something other than...."because I say so."

There is a ton of write ups out there, from all types of sources including left leaning ones that have raised the issue of adding this much more demand to an already stressed supply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom