• 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!

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

You have some very strange, wrong ideas. Typically, the patient is going to go into debt with the hospital.

Have you ever been in debt to a Hospital? Are you aware what takes place? Ever been to the Dentist and need that expensive work? What do they tell you?
 
Adopting the Center for American Progress line of BS I see....This lie has been debunked over and over since it was first uttered by the likes of Chris Matthews, Nancy Pelosi, and the like....



So, the meme is simply not true.
I don't care whether heritage had anything to do with it or not. Look at what is does. It is not a leftist plan, as an objective matter. It is a centrist plan, leaning right. A leftist plan would have meant universal healthcare.
 
Have you ever been in debt to a Hospital? Are you aware what takes place? Ever been to the Dentist and need that expensive work? What do they tell you?

I am not interested in talking about my personal life. But if you think you can't go into debt to a hospital or a dentist you are very wrong.
 
I don't care whether heritage had anything to do with it or not.

:lamo What the?....YOU JUST SAID:


You clearly tried to tie it to Heritage from the Clinton era, like every other dishonest lib/progressive. Now when called on it, you deny it.....Typical.


...A leftist plan would have meant universal healthcare.

That is exactly the goal of this monstrosity, job killing, disaster....It was passed on a partisan line, in the middle of the night, against the will of the people, and only upheld by some real dishonest interpretation of the SCOTUS. To say that Obamacare's path doesn't lead to UHC, is a lie.
 
:lamo What the?....YOU JUST SAID:



You clearly tried to tie it to Heritage from the Clinton era, like every other dishonest lib/progressive. Now when called on it, you deny it.....Typical.




That is exactly the goal of this monstrosity, job killing, disaster....It was passed on a partisan line, in the middle of the night, against the will of the people, and only upheld by some real dishonest interpretation of the SCOTUS. To say that Obamacare's path doesn't lead to UHC, is a lie.

No, I am not clearly trying to tie it to heritage. I was actually tying it to RomneyCare. By in any event, what the plan actually does is center-right, not leftist.
 
No, I am not clearly trying to tie it to heritage. I was actually tying it to RomneyCare. By in any event, what the plan actually does is center-right, not leftist.

That is only if you believe that Romney was center right.....In addition, although Obama, and progressives in congress tried very dishonestly to craft just enough of the law as to make comparisons to the Mass. law, that was only done to run cover for the unpopularity of what this 3,000 page disaster actually does.
 
That is only if you believe that Romney was center right.....In addition, although Obama, and progressives in congress tried very dishonestly to craft just enough of the law as to make comparisons to the Mass. law, that was only done to run cover for the unpopularity of what this 3,000 page disaster actually does.

Your problem is that you are not looking at what the plan actually does, you are mindlessly applying labels based on faction. As categorical matter, both Romney Care and PACA are center-right. They are only "left" from the point of view of the extreme right.
 
So then, why would you put forth this premise?



So, you say that the ACA will 'control' costs, because you think that everyone will be forced to carry insurance so that the costs of things like band aid's in hospitals will no longer have to be inflated to cover those without insurance that don't pay, yet when called on that statement you play like you never said anything of the kind, and admit that it is not in the ACA to do that....

Because you don't seem to actually see the premise I'm putting forth. Not that there is a law or force, but that it should be the by product of having more people covered.

It is? where?

Other throughout this thread, including me, have shown the innovation coming about due to this legislation. I don't have time to repeat it this morning, but you should be able to find it.


In some cases I guess they very well could be "greedy bastards", but I never said that. I mean there is probably some of that when a surgical procedure in one hospital costs $7000. and down the road 10 mi. the same procedure cost $52,000. You tell me.

But I don't think that this bill does anything to seriously address that problem, and isn't meant to...That isn't the purpose of the law.

As I've told you many times, the bill has more than one purpose. Increasing access is another purpose. It does that better than controlling costs, but there are some cost improvements likely.



I am not a health care professional, even though I have a family member that is, and my daughter is in nursing school now....But I do know that you are making the mistake of "either/or" thinking.
===============================
On opening up markets:

First, that's not what I'm doing. Second, I asked for you to give me another reason. This allows for the possibility of more than two. Can you give me another reason?


It doesn't? Tell me how health care is different from any other service that makes it not susceptible to market forces?

For what, the 10th millionth time? There is a different relationship between provider and patient. Your daughter will learn this if she hasn't already. The leverage is all in the hands of the provide, especially in life threatening of changing situations. It would kind of be like negotiating with the police while you're being mugged or the fire department while your house is burning.

This runs contrary to free markets, and what we know to be the truth in how it works from experience in this country...So, I would have to ask that you prove this ridiculous statement.

You're mistaken about what we actually know. What you're spouting is what you believe. We know that the market has issues when it comes to things like medicine.

So, more choice, and less legal thievery will not bring down costs? You make no sense.

First, choice has not been done away with and likely won't. And how you get less theft should be interesting to hear.

:lamo I gave you links showing you to be wrong years ago. Not sure why you continue to keep taking this absurd line of thinking.

I can't help what you think you've done, but everything you've ever presented has always been countered. Sorry. ;)
 
Your problem is that you are not looking at what the plan actually does, you are mindlessly applying labels based on faction. As categorical matter, both Romney Care and PACA are center-right. They are only "left" from the point of view of the extreme right.

Forcing a label on someone because they don't agree with a plan or proposal that you back is not any indication of level of ideology, as much as it is telling about the tact that supporters of a law that was rammed through on a partisan line, with no compromise from dissenting voice, and even at least in two cases outright bribery of members of the majority passing it, against the will of the people, in the middle of the night, under NO review before passage. And yet, you still use terms like "extreme" to label those whom disagree with you on this....Sorry Guy, that just isn't right.
 
Because you don't seem to actually see the premise I'm putting forth. Not that there is a law or force, but that it should be the by product of having more people covered.

For many reasons, this law may pay lip service to that notion, but doesn't actually get it done...Remember you still have some 30 million that are left uncovered by this.

Other throughout this thread, including me, have shown the innovation coming about due to this legislation. I don't have time to repeat it this morning, but you should be able to find it.

That's a dodge. I don't care if the points you want to make were in 100 other threads, at 100 different points in time in the past. You make the claim, you back it up.

As I've told you many times, the bill has more than one purpose.

It's main purpose is to lead to UHC....Both Nancy Pelosi, and Tom Harkin said so.

First, that's not what I'm doing. Second, I asked for you to give me another reason. This allows for the possibility of more than two. Can you give me another reason?

First, that is what you are doing. Second, it isn't up to me to define what you are defending. I know what my opinion is about it, and what yours is. What we are seeing unfold is a disaster.

For what, the 10th millionth time? There is a different relationship between provider and patient. Your daughter will learn this if she hasn't already. The leverage is all in the hands of the provide, especially in life threatening of changing situations. It would kind of be like negotiating with the police while you're being mugged or the fire department while your house is burning.

Does that mean that you would trust the federal government to run your local police, or fire dept?

You're mistaken about what we actually know. What you're spouting is what you believe. We know that the market has issues when it comes to things like medicine.

And you are doing differently? Nah, I don't think so...We are both offering opinions here on what we think is going to unfold...Unless you have some sort of crystal ball or something....

First, choice has not been done away with and likely won't. And how you get less theft should be interesting to hear.

Sure it has...wait and see. And the theft I am speaking of is in terms of freedom to choose.

I can't help what you think you've done, but everything you've ever presented has always been countered. Sorry.

Unfortunately for you, many of the counters you offer are weak, and rely largely on your opinion as if that is fact, so, no need for apology, just start being more honest in your argument, and everything should be fine.
 
Forcing a label on someone because they don't agree with a plan or proposal that you back is not any indication of level of ideology, as much as it is telling about the tact that supporters of a law that was rammed through on a partisan line, with no compromise from dissenting voice, and even at least in two cases outright bribery of members of the majority passing it, against the will of the people, in the middle of the night, under NO review before passage. And yet, you still use terms like "extreme" to label those whom disagree with you on this....Sorry Guy, that just isn't right.

You're projecting. I don't support the law, but I recognize it for what it is: center-right. You, on the other hand, opposing the law and want to apply a false label to it because you don't want to associate with it, therefor you call a right wing plan a left wing plan. This is intellectual dishonesty on your part.
 
You're projecting. I don't support the law, but I recognize it for what it is: center-right. You, on the other hand, opposing the law and want to apply a false label to it because you don't want to associate with it, therefor you call a right wing plan a left wing plan. This is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

How many "right wingers" were involved in the construction of Obamacare? Not the Romney plan for MA, not the Heritage plan, not anything other than Obama care....How many?
 
For many reasons, this law may pay lip service to that notion, but doesn't actually get it done...Remember you still have some 30 million that are left uncovered by .

I have neither the time nor the patience for the sentence by sentence response.



The law has reduced unjustified overpayments to private Medicare Advantage plans, which enroll more than a fifth of all beneficiaries, and despite fears to the contrary, Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by 10 percent and enrollment has risen by 28 percent since the

(Snip)

BETTER QUALITY OF CARE One of the most promising aspects of the health reform act is its focus on improving quality. The percentage of Medicare patients requiring readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge dropped from an average of 19 percent over the past five years to 17.8 percent in the last half of 2012, an improvement due in large part to penalties imposed by Medicare for poor performance and financial incentives paid by Medicare to providers to encourage better coordination of care after a patient leaves the hospital.

A number of pilot programs in Medicare and Medicaid have been started to reward quality, to encourage doctors and hospitals to coordinate care, and to lower costs. If enough of these experiments pan out, they could transform not only Medicare but the entire health care system.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html?_r=0

Some measures have already taken effect. HHS has started to reward hospitals for providing good care, rather than lots of it.

Health-care reform: The 12-month countdown | The Economist

Just a couple. There's more if you want.
 
How many "right wingers" were involved in the construction of Obamacare? Not the Romney plan for MA, not the Heritage plan, not anything other than Obama care....How many?
You appear to be ignorant of the fact that Obama himself is a center right politician.
 
april fools:

Unable to meet tight deadlines in the new health care law, the Obama administration is delaying parts of a program intended to provide affordable health insurance to small businesses and their employees — a major selling point for the health care legislation.

The law calls for a new insurance marketplace specifically for small businesses, starting next year. But in most states, employers will not be able to get what Congress intended: the option to provide workers with a choice of health plans. They will instead be limited to a single plan.

The choice option, already available to many big businesses, was supposed to become available to small employers in January. But administration officials said they would delay it until 2015 in the 33 states where the federal government will be running insurance markets known as exchanges. And they will delay the requirement for other states as well.

The promise of affordable health insurance for small businesses was portrayed as a major advantage of the new health care law, mentioned often by White House officials and Democratic leaders in Congress as they fought opponents of the legislation.

Supporters of the law said they were disappointed by the turn of events.

The delay will “prolong and exacerbate health care costs that are crippling 29 million small businesses,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana and the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

In the weeks leading up to the passage of the health care legislation in 2010, Ms. Landrieu provided crucial support for the measure, after securing changes to help small businesses.

The administration cited “operational challenges” as a reason for the delay. As a result, it said, most small employers buying insurance through an exchange will offer a single health plan to their workers next year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/u...health-plan-delayed.html?target=comments&_r=0

you're so busy talking about obamacare, you've never even heard of shop

but it's a biggie, its abatement is what broke baucus (you knew that)

promises, promises...
 
zero neanderthals in the house, zero knuckledraggers in the senate

House passes health-care reform bill without Republican votes - WaPo

Senate passes health care bill - USATODAY

live it, libs, love it, it's all yours

No, you should have said: Live it Americans, love it, it's all yours.

But I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this. When Obama is finished his second term and the racist hate starts to fade back into the background of the deep south, some repub will do what they've known is absolutely necessary and that is, fix the US health care mess. And it will be pretty much what Obama has tried to do right from the start. Only it won't stick in their racist craws!
 
In the universe where people understand political theory and categorization.

No that would be the opposite of what you said. I guess you think there is some mirror image universe where up is down, Obama is to the right and Rush is to the left. Would make an interesting place to vacation from reality!
 
No that would be the opposite of what you said. I guess you think there is some mirror image universe where up is down, Obama is to the right and Rush is to the left. Would make an interesting place to vacation from reality!

No, Obama is center-right whether you understand it or not. We dont really have true leftist politicians in this country, except Bernie Sanders. Francois Hollande is a leftist. Obama is a centrist who leans right. Romney is also center right. Somebody like Gingrich is more pure rightist. Rush is a radio personality.

Do yourself a favor and read up a bit on political theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom