• 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?'

True enough. That being said, the bottom line remains the same; someome living in fear of the high cost of medical care (low income - like myself) is better off (financially) paying for their needed medical care out of pocket, and doing all in their power to stay healthy, rather than being forced to pay 2% of their income (off the top) plus up to $6K in added out of pocket costs. I spend about $15 for my monthly blood work and medicine and about $50 every three months for a doctor visit, or $380/year, much less than the cost of what any PPACA insurance plan would cost me even if my added out of pocket costs were then slightly reduced for the doctor visits.

They would only be better off if they were too stupid to understand that health care costs aren't a constant thing. Just because you are currently paying 380 a year, it doesn't mean it will remain at that point. It differs ear to year. You have no idea if you are going to go to the hospital next week, need an x-ray etc. At which point that health insurance will seem like a good deal.

Your entire plan is based off the idea that you don't make enough to afford health insurance, and that if you get majorly sick you can just go to the emergency room and you don't HAVE to pay the bills, it's just bad credit. Libertarian? Hardly. Sounds more like one of those mooching liberals that your side is always screaming about.
 
They would only be better off if they were too stupid to understand that health care costs aren't a constant thing. Just because you are currently paying 380 a year, it doesn't mean it will remain at that point. It differs ear to year. You have no idea if you are going to go to the hospital next week, need an x-ray etc. At which point that health insurance will seem like a good deal.

Your entire plan is based off the idea that you don't make enough to afford health insurance, and that if you get majorly sick you can just go to the emergency room and you don't HAVE to pay the bills, it's just bad credit. Libertarian? Hardly. Sounds more like one of those mooching liberals that your side is always screaming about.

Ah! But that is the beauty of PPACA. I cannot be turned away should I choose to buy an exchange policy at any time. I can then simply bop on down to the federal PPACA exchange (or mybe just apply online) and get a "gold plan" whenever I feel the need, get the required expensive treatment that I desire and then cancel the policy. Once you have removed that pesky "pre-existing condition barrier" (gone as of 1/1/2014) there is no reason not to do so. Mooching liberals want the gov't to do the subsidizing, but who needs a subsidy for 2 months of medical insurance premiums per year? That newfound ability to "rent" medical care insurance for a short term, in and of itself, is an 84% discount, is it not?
 
I didn't say there was going to be one. I said we'd adjust. The retirements are not that huge a problem as they are too few. But with moves towards using other providers and encouraging more doctors, we will adjust. I think your mistake is thinking it is static. Instead, it is a fluid situation.

So then tell me Joe, How are you going to entice new doc's into the field when their education alone is a mountain of debt for them, and once they get out of school, residency, and all that goes into becoming a doc, they are told that they have to accept the low rates that the government masters dictate?
...
Answer: They'll become engineers, or lawyers instead
 
So then tell me Joe, How are you going to entice new doc's into the field when their education alone is a mountain of debt for them, and once they get out of school, residency, and all that goes into becoming a doc, they are told that they have to accept the low rates that the government masters dictate?
...
Answer: They'll become engineers, or lawyers instead

Oh, don't exaggerate. They are not going to go broke. They're aren't even going to notice a significant change. I think my brother-law said he'd likely go from 300 k to 298 k. I don't know how he'll survive. Btw, he paid his loans off rather fast with the money he was making.

Hell, they would possibly even do better if we went single payer. Doctors enjoy good livings nearly everywhere.
 
Ah! But that is the beauty of PPACA. I cannot be turned away should I choose to buy an exchange policy at any time. I can then simply bop on down to the federal PPACA exchange (or mybe just apply online) and get a "gold plan" whenever I feel the need, get the required expensive treatment that I desire and then cancel the policy. Once you have removed that pesky "pre-existing condition barrier" (gone as of 1/1/2014) there is no reason not to do so. Mooching liberals want the gov't to do the subsidizing, but who needs a subsidy for 2 months of medical insurance premiums per year? That newfound ability to "rent" medical care insurance for a short term, in and of itself, is an 84% discount, is it not?

As I've pointed out numerous times, how would you go and sign up for health insurance while in the back of an ambulance? It's a stupid argument. Yes people could wait unitl they are sick to get insurance, and if too many people do that then we'll have to bump up the penalty for not buying to counteract that effect. And even then that only prevents you from paying for something that can wait. It won't protect you from paying for emergency services.

You live in a fairy tail if you actually believe the crap your spewing.
 
As I've pointed out numerous times, how would you go and sign up for health insurance while in the back of an ambulance? It's a stupid argument. Yes people could wait unitl they are sick to get insurance, and if too many people do that then we'll have to bump up the penalty for not buying to counteract that effect. And even then that only prevents you from paying for something that can wait. It won't protect you from paying for emergency services.

You live in a fairy tail if you actually believe the crap your spewing.


:roll: :doh I see that you have plans for PPACA part two even before it has taken effect. :roll:

BTW just who is included in "we'll"? PPACA received no support of any Republican in congress, and the Medicaid expansion mandate portion was rejected outright by the SCOTUS as balckmailing the states. Perhaps you dream of some transformation to UHC, but that is not what PPACA is or ever will be. Face it that PPACA was cobbled together in an extreme rush to get it passed when the make-up of congress allowed it. Much of it was written long after the initial bill (largely unread) was passed.

Ask "your friend" if he/she was denied needed emergency services or if they feel that their life's credit is now ruined. Most poor folks have neither a decent chance at getting credit nor the expectation of using it. Lack of money/assets is all it takes prevent actually paying for any emergency medical care received, with or without PPACA or Medicaid.
 
As I've pointed out numerous times, how would you go and sign up for health insurance while in the back of an ambulance? It's a stupid argument. Yes people could wait unitl they are sick to get insurance, and if too many people do that then we'll have to bump up the penalty for not buying to counteract that effect. And even then that only prevents you from paying for something that can wait. It won't protect you from paying for emergency services.

You live in a fairy tail if you actually believe the crap your spewing.

So what happens to the person who doesn't buy health insurance and gets sick? Do they get taken care of anyway or do we just leave them to die?
 
Oh, don't exaggerate. They are not going to go broke. They're aren't even going to notice a significant change. I think my brother-law said he'd likely go from 300 k to 298 k. I don't know how he'll survive. Btw, he paid his loans off rather fast with the money he was making.

Hell, they would possibly even do better if we went single payer. Doctors enjoy good livings nearly everywhere.

Well, I am happy for your Bro in Law....But, contrary to his anecdotal, and my guess less than genuine proclamation of dropping only $2k off some substantial salary he is making, or making up, I have supplied you with many articles, studies, and government based predictive tools that show that the rate of incoming doctors to general practice is way down, and of those doctors currently practicing many are likely to get out when this ramps up....Thus, leaving a shortage.

Now you try to shrug it off because your brother in law, whom may or may not exist, supposedly tells you that all is well so you say, eh, it's true because he said so? Get outta here.....:roll:
 
:roll: :doh I see that you have plans for PPACA part two even before it has taken effect. :roll:

BTW just who is included in "we'll"? PPACA received no support of any Republican in congress, and the Medicaid expansion mandate portion was rejected outright by the SCOTUS as balckmailing the states. Perhaps you dream of some transformation to UHC, but that is not what PPACA is or ever will be. Face it that PPACA was cobbled together in an extreme rush to get it passed when the make-up of congress allowed it. Much of it was written long after the initial bill (largely unread) was passed.

Ask "your friend" if he/she was denied needed emergency services or if they feel that their life's credit is now ruined. Most poor folks have neither a decent chance at getting credit nor the expectation of using it. Lack of money/assets is all it takes prevent actually paying for any emergency medical care received, with or without PPACA or Medicaid.

1. The healthcare bill was the most widely disseminated, widely studied bills that's ever passed. There are plenty of very large bills that pass every year that garner much less attention. To act as though it was rushed through after over a year of debate is silly at best.

2. Yes, no republicans voted for it. That doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant and not make it better in the future. Look at all the GOP governors tat understand how that medicaid expansion would help out their states.

3. Emergency surgeries weren't denied but his credit will be ruined. And that doesn't seem like a big deal til he goes out to try to buy a house or a car. The simple truth is he'd be better off if this were 2014 and he had insurance or was on medicaid.
 
So what happens to the person who doesn't buy health insurance and gets sick? Do they get taken care of anyway or do we just leave them to die?

Where have I ever argued to change the current law and let people die?

Yes, they get taken care of, but at least they've paid extra taxes to make up for the hospital losing money on their treatment.
 
1. The healthcare bill was the most widely disseminated, widely studied bills that's ever passed. There are plenty of very large bills that pass every year that garner much less attention. To act as though it was rushed through after over a year of debate is silly at best.

2. Yes, no republicans voted for it. That doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant and not make it better in the future. Look at all the GOP governors tat understand how that medicaid expansion would help out their states.

3. Emergency surgeries weren't denied but his credit will be ruined. And that doesn't seem like a big deal til he goes out to try to buy a house or a car. The simple truth is he'd be better off if this were 2014 and he had insurance or was on medicaid.

You keep harping on this Medicaid expansion, as being part of PPACA, but have yet to supply any link to substanciate it. I have shown you that in Texas, and I am sure many other states, that you must have dependents, be disabled or be a senior citizen to get any Medicaid benefits. I have also shown you that the PPACA law does not apply to anyone making under 100% (133% in some states) of the federal poverty level. 27 states have refused to play the PPACA exchange game yet you make it sound like all will get some benefit from PPACA.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2012 on the constitutionality of the PPACA allows individual states to opt out of expanding Medicaid under the law.
 
You keep harping on this Medicaid expansion, as being part of PPACA, but have yet to supply any link to substanciate it. I have shown you that in Texas, and I am sure many other states, that you must have dependents, be disabled or be a senior citizen to get any Medicaid benefits. I have also shown you that the PPACA law does not apply to anyone making under 100% (133% in some states) of the federal poverty level. 27 states have refused to play the PPACA exchange game yet you make it sound like all will get some benefit from PPACA.

All that Congress or Obama can do is offer the expansion. If Texas is too retarded to take it, then fine. They'll take it down the road.

Every source I can find shows that it applies to 133% over the poverty line. And you get subsidies up to 400% of the poverty line on s sliding scale.
 
1. The healthcare bill was the most widely disseminated, widely studied bills that's ever passed.

Rewriting history already? I as well as many people in this country remember all of the different stories about the bill when it was being written, and "disseminated" to the people...

There are plenty of very large bills that pass every year that garner much less attention.

And that is a problem with progressive legislation...Each proposed action to change the lives of Americans through legislating law, should be held out there on its own merit, IMO. Not hidden in these massive piles of legal language that the congresspeople don't even read.

To act as though it was rushed through after over a year of debate is silly at best.

It's not silly, it is what happened. Remember this....



Or this:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform? Here’s a case study. On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.” The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.” I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill. In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.) Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu. How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.

The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - ABC News

The President said while running for the office, that he wanted 72 hours for any bill to be online so that congress, and the people could read it fully and understand it before any vote happened...That didn't happen with Obamacare. it was passed on Christmas eve, near midnight along a pure party line vote, IOW rammed through.

2. Yes, no republicans voted for it. That doesn't mean that they have to be ignorant and not make it better in the future. Look at all the GOP governors tat understand how that medicaid expansion would help out their states.

Oh please. Liberal progressives passed this turd, now you try the old, why can't we polish it? You seem to be under the delusion that once passed it is set in stone....Hint, things change.

3. Emergency surgeries weren't denied but his credit will be ruined. And that doesn't seem like a big deal til he goes out to try to buy a house or a car. The simple truth is he'd be better off if this were 2014 and he had insurance or was on medicaid.

Again, not true...If he were to go bankrupt, which is unfortunately where many in his position end up, with the right decisions he could buy a house within 2 years, and in today's climate, a car in probably the same amount of time...And although his personal position would have been better off if everyone else paid for what he needed and absolved any responsibility of his, for his own incurred costs, but at the same time he would have been better off had he owned a catastrophic policy that would have covered this sort of thing...But then again, how would that have made others pay for him....
 
Yes, they get taken care of, but at least they've paid extra taxes to make up for the hospital losing money on their treatment.

So really nothing changes from the current system, except maybe the person paid a $95 tax?
 
So really nothing changes from the current system, except maybe the person paid a $95 tax?

Have you ever actually read anything on the bill? Do you know anything about it?

The 95$ fee is for low income people, and for the first year. After that the tax goes up and up every year. It reaches I think, 2.5% of your income at the end. But if your poor, you can be put on medicaid since it has been expanded under obamacare. And if you make below 400% of the poverty level you get subsidies, depending on what you make. So with the rising fee for not having insurance, and the fact that insurance will be subsidized and be easier to get, much more people will get it.
 
Rewriting history already? I as well as many people in this country remember all of the different stories about the bill when it was being written, and "disseminated" to the people...

That's not rewriting history. It was widely debated in every little detail. You can't deny reality.
 
Have you ever actually read anything on the bill? Do you know anything about it?

Most of it but not all. How aobut you, gotten past page 10 yet?

So you are saying that for someone who is not insured and is below the subsidy threshold nothing will change regarding how they receive treatment if they do not have insurance when they get sick? And we needed to put this idiotic system in place to do the same thing that was already being done?
 
Most of it but not all. How aobut you, gotten past page 10 yet?

So you are saying that for someone who is not insured and is below the subsidy threshold nothing will change regarding how they receive treatment if they do not have insurance when they get sick? And we needed to put this idiotic system in place to do the same thing that was already being done?

I didn't ask have you read the bill. I asked have you read anything on the bill. Kind of proves my point. You're foaming at the mouth so much that you can't bother yourself to read what I've written.

And if you're below the threshold for subsidies then you will be put on medicaid as the bill is written with the medicaid expansion. A number of states are still fighting the medicaid expansion, but that's their problem. You can lead a horse to water as they say. Nothing will change how they receive care, but if you can get subsidized health insurance or pay an extra tax at the end of the year, and the insurance will prevent you from going bankrupt or ruining your credit down the road should you get really sick, it's a no brainer.

You're pretending that the bill because the original problem will be there. The problem with your argument is that the problem that stays is now a fraction of the size that it used to be. It greatly reduces the problem.
 
I didn't ask have you read the bill. I asked have you read anything on the bill. Kind of proves my point. You're foaming at the mouth so much that you can't bother yourself to read what I've written.

So you prefer to read about the bill as opposed to reading the bill to get your info? Figures.

No people who receive subsidies are not automatically put on Medicaid. Perhaps you should read about different parts of the bill instead of foaming on about how others don't anything about the bill.

The end result will be the same, people who don't have insurance will get treatment just like they do now. Get the foam out of your ears and try to keep up.
 
1.(So you prefer to read about the bill as opposed to reading the bill to get your info? Figures.

2.)No people who receive subsidies are not automatically put on Medicaid. Perhaps you should read about different parts of the bill instead of foaming on about how others don't anything about the bill.

Good lord...

1. Yes, it's better to read up on many different sources about the bill than actually read the bill. I'm not a lawyer and if I were to go through the bill I probably wouldn't understand the majority of it. I also didn't read my mortgage before I signed it or the full contract for my life insurance before I signed it. I trusted my realitor and lender and my insurance agent and did as much research I could before hand. That's just the truth.

2. I never said that people that are on subsidies are on medicaid. Here is what I typed:
"And if you're below the threshold for subsidies then you will be put on medicaid as the bill is written with the medicaid expansion."

So if you are below a certain level, you qualify for medicaid. If you are above that level then you buy your own insurance and qualify for subsidies unless you make over 400% of the poverty level.
 
Good lord...

Good lord, so you don't read the bill yet call out those who have for not understanding what it in it. You sound like Congress, let's pass it before reading it. Works out great every time huh.
 
Good lord, so you don't read the bill yet call out those who have for not understanding what it in it. You sound like Congress, let's pass it before reading it. Works out great every time huh.

You reading it did you little good apparently, so I stick by my statement.

Lets say you and I both sit down to learn about a mortgage before signing it. You read it, but I have a lawyer who deals exclusively with this stuff read it and explain it to me in detail. Do you think you'll know more than me? **** no. You'd be sitting there stuck on the third page wondering what the hell it's talking about. I would too. I have no problem with you reading it, go for it, have fun with it, go crazy, I wish you luck. But if you've already read most of it, then I stand by my comment, because you've shown pretty clearly here that you have no idea what's actually in it.
 
Good lord...

1. Yes, it's better to read up on many different sources about the bill than actually read the bill.

That explains how people can swallow things hook line and sinker.....

You accept someone else's understanding of things, without viewing the source yourself, much less on a subject you are trying to debate with 'facts'?

Good lord, indeed......
 
But if you've already read most of it, then I stand by my comment, because you've shown pretty clearly here that you have no idea what's actually in it.

So you know what you've been told and that's good enough for you huh. Well hope you have been told correctly because it's not what you've been told that counts but what it actually says that counts.
 
So you know what you've been told and that's good enough for you huh. Well hope you have been told correctly because it's not what you've been told that counts but what it actually says that counts.

Have you read every mortgage, contract and major piece of legislation that you've ever signed or has ever been passed through congress? Do you read every letter, every time, before you click accept on your computer?

You don't have to play stupid. If there was a section in the healthcare bill that was outrageously different than how it was advertised then we'd have heard about it before it was passed. The best the average person could do is listen to those educated on the matters and take in as many sources as possible. If you have a problem with that then have fun spending day and night reading.
 
Back
Top Bottom