• 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!

Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

Bronson said:
Hc premiums are rising faster under Obama than they ever did under the scapegoat Bush. Obama promised they'd go down 2500 if his garbage hc bill was passed. He lied.

You are reduced to buffoonery because you can't refute facts. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

Teach him t,o borrow republican ideas! :lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
Employers will use any excuse they can get away with. However, if we were concerned about the effects of healthcare on business, we would remove it from employment and go with UHC.
Click to expand...

You are so anti-rich, anti-business, anti-corporate you can't form a objective decision that's makes any sense concerning health care. You've let a personal issue get in the way of a logic based decision.

It's not the fault of millions of Americans that are suffering now that some Boss chewed your ass out, or that you got layed off, or that you didn't win the lotto or whatever's got your panties in a knot.


You are incapable of making a intelligent analysis with proof being your suggestion of UHC because employers are somehow innately selfish and evil. How on earth would we pay for UHC for 300 million people ? Tax the rich more ?

So we can all be unemployed and dependent on the Government ? This is why it's so easy to deal with you liberals on these forums and YES anyone who carries a personal chip on their shoulder and uses it to make what should be objective decisions should abstain from voting.
 
Boo Radley said:
Mind doubled before Obama was even elected. Damned Obamacare!!!
Click to expand...

And your solution was to elect the least qualified candidate who would sign into legislation a law to QUADRUPLE IT ?
 
Fenton said:
You are so anti-rich, anti-business, anti-corporate you can't form a objective decision that's makes any sense concerning health care. You've let a personal issue get in the way of a logic based decision.

It's not the fault of millions of Americans that are suffering now that some Boss chewed your ass out, or that you got layed off, or that you didn't win the lotto or whatever's got your panties in a knot.


You are incapable of making a intelligent analysis with proof being your suggestion of UHC because employers are somehow innately selfish and evil. How on earth would we pay for UHC for 300 million people ? Tax the rich more ?

So we can all be unemployed and dependent on the Government ? This is why it's so easy to deal with you liberals on these forums and YES anyone who carries a personal chip on their shoulder and uses it to make what should be objective decisions should abstain from voting.
Click to expand...

I'm not anti any of those things. Can you address the points made?
 
Fenton said:
And your solution was to elect the least qualified candidate who would sign into legislation a law to QUADRUPLE IT ?
Click to expand...

The man running against him supported everything but the way to pay for it. So, I'm not why you think he was more qualified.
 
Boo Radley said:
The man running against him supported everything but the way to pay for it. So, I'm not why you think he was more qualified.
Click to expand...

Right, you thought Obama, who was essentially a community activist and a left wing radical was more qualified than a Man who was essentially a expert in turning bad economic situations around ?

I understand now why your'e a liberal.
 
Fenton said:
Right, you thought Obama, who was essentially a community activist and a left wing radical was more qualified than a Man who was essentially a expert in turning bad economic situations around ?

I understand now why your'e a liberal.
Click to expand...

As Romney was basically the same, why did you support him? On each position, there was little difference.
 
Fisher said:
It doesn't matter what the cause is. Healthcare is a huge burden on employers. If the rates go up because of a shortage of Band-Aids, it has the same effect on employment as the same raise in rates because of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

So make it a single payer system and be done with it that way no employer is invovled with the Healthcare part of it. Pretty simple !
 
TaraAnne said:
So make it a single payer system and be done with it that way no employer is invovled with the Healthcare part of it. Pretty simple !
Click to expand...

I am not opposed to single payer system if we are going to have a system. Putting Medicare, Medicaid, VA and all this into a single system makes more sense than having 3 insolvent government systems and another one sitting on the backs of corporations as a not-so hidden tax just without the IRS middleman.
 
TaraAnne said:
So make it a single payer system and be done with it that way no employer is invovled with the Healthcare part of it. Pretty simple !
Click to expand...

If that were so "simple" then even Reid, Pelosi and Obama would have done it. Note that PPACA passed without a single republicant vote, so it was the demorats alone, not the republicants, that gave us PPACA instead of UHC. Think before you drink, even Koolaid. The problem with UHC is that private medical care insurance disappears, doctors (and other medical care providers) get paid by the gov't (take the offered reimbursement or else!) and that gov't rationing of care is assured. The "rich" will seek, and get, superior care (paying market rates), as they now do, and the poor will be served at "gov't" clinics and care centers, which will accept the gov't rates offered for services rendered.
 
Bronson said:
Its always the same with you progressive Marxists

Businesses have 'evil motives'. Everyone doesn't 'care' except Obama and the democrats. Obama's intentions are as pure as the wind driven snow or something

Cult like behavior from worshipers. Not reasonable people. You've traded God for Obama and Big Government
Click to expand...

I think most Liberals believe business is amoral hence the need for society to decide what moral guidlines they should operate by. You go ahead and beat up your strawman with a baseball bat...we wouldn't want you to actually deal with reality and ruin your black and white fabricated reality.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If that were so "simple" then even Reid, Pelosi and Obama would have done it. Note that PPACA passed without a single republicant vote, so it was the demorats alone, not the republicants, that gave us PPACA instead of UHC. Think before you drink, even Koolaid. The problem with UHC is that private medical care insurance disappears, doctors (and other medical care providers) get paid by the gov't (take the offered reimbursement or else!) and that gov't rationing of care is assured. The "rich" will seek, and get, superior care (paying market rates), as they now do, and the poor will be served at "gov't" clinics and care centers, which will accept the gov't rates offered for services rendered.
Click to expand...

You are inaccurate on a couple of points.

1. Democrats could not realistically push UHC without more support, including from republicans. There is much more work to do on that argument before it can be realistically passed.

2. Second, UHC is not a single limited system. There are many forms of of UHC, many of which do not do away with insurance, where government isn't the only payer, and while "rationing" is the wrong word, there is no need to be anymore limitations than we see with our current system. Remember, if you can't afford something, you can't have it. Insurance companies say they will only pay for so much. None of this changes. Nor does it change that you are free to buy anything you can afford, including insurance and medical care.
 
Boo Radley said:
You are inaccurate on a couple of points.

1. Democrats could not realistically push UHC without more support, including from republicans. There is much more work to do on that argument before it can be realistically passed.

2. Second, UHC is not a single limited system. There are many forms of of UHC, many of which do not do away with insurance, where government isn't the only payer, and while "rationing" is the wrong word, there is no need to be anymore limitations than we see with our current system. Remember, if you can't afford something, you can't have it. Insurance companies say they will only pay for so much. None of this changes. Nor does it change that you are free to buy anything you can afford, including insurance and medical care.
Click to expand...

1. Prove this, as ZERO republicant votes were required for PPACA, and only then will I entertain your other fantasies. This is one thing that cannot be laid upon Bush or the republicants at all. I am tired of the "you just do not understand" defense of PPACA. I fully realize that many desired forms of UHC could exist and that PPACA is not one of them. To assert that PPACA does not alter what is "legal" for insurance (as of 2014) is a blatant lie, unless you count paying for both "current" insurance and a fine or tax as "reasonable".

2. BTW the bolded statements that you made are clearly proof that you have no clue what the PPACA law requires.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1. Prove this, as ZERO republicant votes were required for PPACA, and only then will I entertain your other fantasies. This is one thing that cannot be laid upon Bush or the republicants at all. I am tired of the "you just do not understand" defense of PPACA. I fully realize that many desired forms of UHC could exist and that PPACA is not one of them. To assert that PPACA does not alter what is "legal" for insurance (as of 2014) is a blatant lie, unless you count paying for both "current" insurance and a fine or tax as "reasonable".
Click to expand...

It's how it works. You need serious public support to pass something this huge absent the other party. Nor is anyone I know of blaming Bush.

Now, two errors you make in your response:

1. I did not say PPACA doesn't change insurance. It does set some standards, and make a change in preexisting conditions. it does not eliminate insurance. However, I didn't address PPACA at all. I said democrats couldn't pass UHC "realistically."

2. BTW the bolded statements that you made are clearly proof that you have no clue what the PPACA law requires.
Click to expand...

2. Thye second was also not talking about PPACA. I clearly stated UHC as the topic and not PPACA.

I mention this because something that doesn't address what I said can not really be handled in rebuttal. If you want to concede my point and change the subject, we can. But the switch must be clear.
 
I just detest when people call this the public "option". It's as much an option as cutting your leg out of a bear trap to avoid death.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's how it works. You need serious public support to pass something this huge absent the other party. Nor is anyone I know of blaming Bush.

Now, two errors you make in your response:

1. I did not say PPACA doesn't change insurance. It does set some standards, and make a change in preexisting conditions. it does not eliminate insurance. However, I didn't address PPACA at all. I said democrats couldn't pass UHC "realistically."



2. Thye second was also not talking about PPACA. I clearly stated UHC as the topic and not PPACA.

I mention this because something that doesn't address what I said can not really be handled in rebuttal. If you want to concede my point and change the subject, we can. But the switch must be clear.
Click to expand...

Considering the bolded, you are talking about a fantasy dream (theroy?) of yours, while I am talking about the law of the land, PPACA as passed by only demorats. To assert that PPACA was not advertised as a form of UHC is absurd, what else is a universal mandate for buying "gov't approved" medical care insurance? To ignore reality, the current PPACA law, and say that this thread "is really about some other UHC system" is changing the subject. Get real!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Considering the bolded, you are talking about a fantasy dream (theroy?) of yours, while I am talking about the law of the land, PPACA as passed by only demorats. To assert that PPACA was not advertised as a form of UHC is absurd, what else is a universal mandate for buying "gov't approved" medical care insurance? To ignore reality, the current PPACA law, and say that this thread "is really about some other UHC system" is changing the subject. Get real!
Click to expand...

You brought up UHC, and I pointed out that you were wrong in your assumptions. PPACA is not UHC. Nor is it advertised as such. nor does it ration. Republicans and tea party folks calling it UHC is not equal to it being advertised as such. Kind of like when republicans call Obama "The One," that is not equal to any significant number of those voting for him seeing him that way. Not good to confuse the two.
 
TaraAnne said:
So make it a single payer system and be
done with it that way no employer is invovled with the Healthcare part of it. Pretty simple !
Click to expand...

Yea simple.....

Its the fundamental premise of every liberals decision making process. " Simple"..

How exactly would we pay for it ?
 
Fenton said:
Yea simple.....

How exactly would we pay for it ?
Click to expand...
To be clear, I don’t think implementing it (or getting it even passed as law) would be ’simple’ and setting aside your BS “fundamental premise of every blah blah blah” assertion:

For a replacement that gets the job done at less expense that want it is replacing, given the levying powers afforded a government, the issue of how to pay for the replacement system tends to provide the solution itself when approached with a clear, rational head, and without malice in heart, and with the understanding that eventually you pay to get that job done (or pay for it not getting done) one way or another.
 
Boo Radley said:
You brought up UHC, and I pointed out that you were wrong in your assumptions. PPACA is not UHC. Nor is it advertised as such. nor does it ration. Republicans and tea party folks calling it UHC is not equal to it being advertised as such. Kind of like when republicans call Obama "The One," that is not equal to any significant number of those voting for him seeing him that way. Not good to confuse the two.
Click to expand...

PPACA is often said to grant "universal access to health care". I realize that is not absolutely equating PPACA and UHC, but far too often the words universal and PPACA appear in close proximity, this is no mere accident - the implication is quite clear.

The primary aims of the PPACA are twofold: 1) to reign in the spiraling cost of health care and 2) to expand access to health care with the ultimate goal of achieving universal access (i.e., access that is not dependent on a person’s ability to buy health insurance or pay for medical services).
Click to expand...

Above quote taken from: Column - Access, affordability and health care reform - Opinion - The Daily Athenaeum - West Virginia University


the existence of universal access to healthcare under the PPACA
Click to expand...

Above quote taken from: Risk & Insurance Online - What Impact Will PPACA Have on Workers' Compensation?

PPACA achieve its central policy goal of universal access to health care
Click to expand...

Above quote taken from: Obama Wins: The Morning After–Prospects for the PPACA (aka Obamacare) | SpringBoard
 
Fenton said:
Yea simple.....

Its the fundamental premise of every liberals decision making process. " Simple"..

How exactly would we pay for it ?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm lets see we could have used the Bush Tax cuts, the two unpaid for wars, and the doughnut hole that were unpaid for to get it done! I find it funny that so called conservatives always want thing s paid for unless it a big corporate give away, a war, or something to do with God.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yet, despite his support for it, you and others supported him. Don't you see the problem here?
Click to expand...

yeah, and you supported obama correct? Therefore you agree with everything he does, including the drone attacks ?? If not then I see the same problem with you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom