• 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!

House Bill Defunds Health Care

funny thing is you actually believe that
you also prolly believe if you don't have medical insurance
YOU WILL DIE!
well sonny yer SO wrong, its no wonder insurance companies get so bloody rich
I went into an ER in the 90's after losing a fight with a circular saw
they said: do you have insurance? I said no I have CASH!
Then I proceeded to ask them 'what is the price' they hadn't a clue.
If you went to the grocery store, the car dealership, barbershop or anywhere else
and they couldn't tell you what the product or service cost what would your reaction be?

My wife still laughs about it: your getting stitched up @ 1:00 O'Clock in the morning, complaining WTF is the price!

It was just over 500 bucks for some stitches Tell you what That was a total flippin' rip off for sure

One interesting thing bout us old guys, angry or not: We've learned to throw BS so well that it appears to be chocolate syrup.

But, there is a good point in all that hooey: If the patient had to pay out of pocket for minor procedures, he would ask the price. As it is, the patient doesn't even know what the real price is, only what the copays are.
 
I wish someone would explain to me what is so difficult about answering the question I posed, that you, and the other poster to whom it was originally addressed would keep dodging it?

Here it is again:

It's irrelevant if anyone thinks Medicare "works" - frankly though, there's a host of arguments which could be posed that would vehemently deny that - but that's not the point. The point is the Democrat premise that the only proper entity to run our health care system is the federal government. I've yet to find someone who can (or will, apparently) explain why that is a valid premise. And the thing is - it's NOT a valid premise. But Democrats persist in clinging to it. Why?

The non-useful idiots of the Dem party don't want to admit that it is much, much less about healthcare and much more about the ability to control peoples lives. The rest of the Dem party, the useful idiots, are just stumped. Their handlers haven't told them how to lie about such a question.
 
I wish someone would explain to me what is so difficult about answering the question I posed, that you, and the other poster to whom it was originally addressed would keep dodging it?

Here it is again:

It's irrelevant if anyone thinks Medicare "works" - frankly though, there's a host of arguments which could be posed that would vehemently deny that - but that's not the point. The point is the Democrat premise that the only proper entity to run our health care system is the federal government. I've yet to find someone who can (or will, apparently) explain why that is a valid premise. And the thing is - it's NOT a valid premise. But Democrats persist in clinging to it. Why?

Government health care is the only viable alternative for those who can't afford their own health care. The other choice is to let them die in the street.
 
I wish someone would explain to me what is so difficult about answering the question I posed, that you, and the other poster to whom it was originally addressed would keep dodging it?

Here it is again:

It's irrelevant if anyone thinks Medicare "works" - frankly though, there's a host of arguments which could be posed that would vehemently deny that - but that's not the point. The point is the Democrat premise that the only proper entity to run our health care system is the federal government. I've yet to find someone who can (or will, apparently) explain why that is a valid premise. And the thing is - it's NOT a valid premise. But Democrats persist in clinging to it. Why?

Edwin, I'll take a shot. Power. The more control the government takes, the more power representatives get. The more power they get, the more easily they are elected. Half of the country pays no income tax and the more that half sees democrats giving them free stuff, the more electoral power they will grant themselves. They already buy our votes with our money and they know it. i think term limits is a bad idea whose time has come.
 
The President of the United States, in moves many have suggested are not allowed by law, has delayed important and critical parts of Obamacare for another year. These waivers and wave offs were caused by the problems business owners and other groups are having trying to implement the program.

The CBO has stated the waive off of the employer mandate will add $10's of billions to the cost of Obamacare. Rational people see Obamacare as deeply flawed, and as not meeting the original objective.

Democrats who control the Senate, and the President, have it within their power to keep the government running by passing the bill that originated in the House. Instead, they are going to put the welfare of the country and others in need, on the back of Obamacare, which is so flawed, the President is doing favors for his benefactors to keep them from being hurt by it's provisions.

How is this a Republican issue?

Greetings, ocean515. :2wave:

It has never been a Republican issue, since not one Republican voted for it! Not one! The Dems totally own this mess, including the bribes and arm-twisting that it took to get it passed! In their haste to avoid taking the blame for this "trainwreck," the Dems are overlooking the fact that those members of the House who are spearheading the effort for change are doing what their constituents voted them in to do! Facts are damned inconvenient sometimes, but that doesn't change just because someone says otherwise! More than a majority of Americans wants Obamacare repealed and replaced with something workable!

And now the CBO states that it's going to add tens of billions of dollars in cost to Obamacare? C'mon, that picture is much too disgusting to consider, but it is the icing on a cake few want to eat! :thumbdown:
 
- Creates the Health Insurance Marketplace, a new way for individuals, families, and small businesses to get health coverage
Where's this place at? What's the secret handshake to get in this place? What page in the yellow pages is it shown on?

Congratulations. You have finally engaged in the correct debate: the debate of the features, advantages and benefits of the ACA vs. its cost. Unfortunately, this was the correct debate four years ago. The ACA is the law of the land and just now getting into debate over the FAB v Cost is moot.

If you don't understand healthcare exchanges, your don't understand the ACA. Its a bit difficult to have intelligent debate when you don't know what you are talking about.... But every state was to set up an exchange: a marketplace where persons can buy individual insurance products that conform to ACA standards. Every state has one (oh, except those red states that threw a hissy after the ACA was passed and said they would not participate). Here is the one from my state:

Home | Connect for Health Colorado

The primary purpose of the ACA is to expand healthcare coverage to all (or as close to all as possible). One of the tenants of making healthcare affordable (to the extent we can actually have affordable healthcare in a system that is the most expensive in the world) is to pool individuals seeking coverage with other individuals seeking coverage. The marketplace helps to do that.

- Requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing health conditions
And people can enroll when? Oh that's right, there will be windows from Oct to Dec. So that's when you better get sick or no insurance for you. Why it's almost exactly like the wait times requited now for people with pre-existing conditions.

- Holds insurance companies accountable for rate increases
How? They already have demonstrated what they will do if required to lose money. They don't offer insurance.

- Requires insurance companies to devote 80-85% of premiums to benefit payments or rebate the difference to its customers
That a way government. Force companies out of business because they can't cover a bad year. Decreasing completion has what effect on cost? Hint, hint, your wallet gets lighter.

- Makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick
And if they do, what? Oh, you'll have to get a lawyer just like now.

- Covers young adults under 26
Good thing too. Because of this law, many (an ever increasing many) of them won't be able to land a job, much less one that provides insurance. To bad for them when they turn 26, they still won't be able to land a good job because of this law.

- Provides free preventive care
Are there people out there that still believe something is free? The dumb remain dumb if so. Costs go up for everybody.

- Ends lifetime and yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits
And this effects everybody else's insurance cost how? Uh, I know the answer, do you?

- Guarantees your right to appeal should coverage be denied
What's changed here? Not much if anything. You get to go whine to a nameless government employee and hire your own lawyer.

The fundamental axiom behind the ACA is that preventive medicine is cheaper than emergency room medicine. A main operating assumption is that we, as a society, are paying for the coverage of the uninsured at the cost of $116B per year; the taxpayers (you and I) currently pay $75B of that and the rest ($42.7B) gets absorbed by the providers. As you aptly pointed out, there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. Well, that someone are those that buy insurance. Do you know that the average families health insurance premiums include about $1,000 per year to pay the costs of the uninsured?

Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com

Not only that, you are paying for the most expensive type of care: emergency room care. With nearly 46 million people without health insurance coverage, most are excluded from the preventive side of medicine. Much like spending $19.95 on your oil change next week could save you a much more expensive new engine in five years, dictating that insurance plans provide free preventative will save those insurance companies (and medicaid) a fortune in 20 years. That is why the benefits of the ACA will be realized in the long-term rather than currently. Similarly, the idea of getting EVERYONE in the system, particularly the young through the individual mandate broadens the insurance pool and shifts the emphasis to the much cheaper prevention, which shall reap benefits over the long-run. Yes, we have some front end costs by suddenly ending pre-existing condition waivers and allowing insurance companies to terminate you because you are too expensive. This will have some short-run costs for a long-run benefit that exceeds this cost.

Now, to put this somewhat in context, since you seem to be pleading the case of the marginally profitable, oppressed private insurance companies.... first, they are not. They stand to gain the most from this, as they have a mandate new market of the highly profitable young many of whom are uninsured. Moreover, the concept of "for-profit" medicine in this country is fairly new. Prior to 1980, most private health insurance was provided by the "Blues" (Blue Cross-Blue Shield), which were highly regulated not-for-profit entities; and most hospitals in the US were also non-profit charitable organizations.

I have not done the research comparing the privatization of healthcare in this country with cost, but I am going to. I would be very surprised if you could not draw a relationship that strongly suggests that since privatization our healthcare has become increasingly more expensive and less efficient. We do know that right now it is the most expensive and less efficient in the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/



- Through cost control and greater participation by the general public in preventative medicine, should reduce the deficit over the first 10 years by $114B and the next 10 years by $1T.
You put this in for laughs right? Should. LOL. LOL. LOL.......

No, from the CBO. But, given how uninformed you are on the rest of this, I guess I shouldn't expect you to know that either.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf
 
Last edited:
Government health care is the only viable alternative for those who can't afford their own health care. The other choice is to let them die in the street.
...and yet it's more expensive than what one could purchase privately. How do you explain that?
 
When I die, I want to go peaceably in my sleep, like my grandpa.


Not yelling and screaming like his passengers in his car!
 
I understand what you have been told to believe. The fact is, the Herritage Foundation abandoned their plan as unworkable, and the plan in Massechusetts looks nothing like Obamacare.

It seem apparent nobody has told you the connections don't work. But it's certainly a lazy way to not make a point.

The plan in Mass is working and the people like it. Please tell me what the difference is. I thought is was like the ACA. I need facts. Thank you
 
...and yet it's more expensive than what one could purchase privately. How do you explain that?
It covers things private insurance doesn't. Stupid things like gender changes and condoms probably.
 
The President of the United States, in moves many have suggested are not allowed by law, has delayed important and critical parts of Obamacare for another year. These waivers and wave offs were caused by the problems business owners and other groups are having trying to implement the program.

The CBO has stated the waive off of the employer mandate will add $10's of billions to the cost of Obamacare. Rational people see Obamacare as deeply flawed, and as not meeting the original objective.

Democrats who control the Senate, and the President, have it within their power to keep the government running by passing the bill that originated in the House. Instead, they are going to put the welfare of the country and others in need, on the back of Obamacare, which is so flawed, the President is doing favors for his benefactors to keep them from being hurt by it's provisions.

How is this a Republican issue?

Instead of trying to work together on the ACA republicans just want to end it. It's the law and their attempts are futile. Even if the government is shut down it will not acheive their purpose of ending the ACA. Plain stupid IMO
 
Congratulations. You have finally engaged in the correct debate: the debate of the features, advantages and benefits of the ACA vs. its cost. Unfortunately, this was the correct debate four years ago. The ACA is the law of the land and just now getting into debate over the FAB v Cost is moot.

If you don't understand healthcare exchanges, your don't understand the ACA. Its a bit difficult to have intelligent debate when you don't know what you are talking about.... But every state was to set up an exchange: a marketplace where persons can buy individual insurance products that conform to ACA standards. Every state has one (oh, except those red states that threw a hissy after the ACA was passed and said they would not participate). Here is the one from my state:

Home | Connect for Health Colorado

The primary purpose of the ACA is to expand healthcare coverage to all (or as close to all as possible). One of the tenants of making healthcare affordable (to the extent we can actually have affordable healthcare in a system that is the most expensive in the world) is to pool individuals seeking coverage with other individuals seeking coverage. The marketplace helps to do that.



The fundamental axiom behind the ACA is that preventive medicine is cheaper than emergency room medicine. A main operating assumption is that we, as a society, are paying for the coverage of the uninsured at the cost of $116B per year; the taxpayers (you and I) currently pay $75B of that and the rest ($42.7B) gets absorbed by the providers. As you aptly pointed out, there is no free lunch. Someone has to pay. Well, that someone are those that buy insurance. Do you know that the average families health insurance premiums include about $1,000 per year to pay the costs of the uninsured?

Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com

Not only that, you are paying for the most expensive type of care: emergency room care. With nearly 46 million people without health insurance coverage, most are excluded from the preventive side of medicine. Much like spending $19.95 on your oil change next week could save you a much more expensive new engine in five years, dictating that insurance plans provide free preventative will save those insurance companies (and medicaid) a fortune in 20 years. That is why the benefits of the ACA will be realized in the long-term rather than currently. Similarly, the idea of getting EVERYONE in the system, particularly the young through the individual mandate broadens the insurance pool and shifts the emphasis to the much cheaper prevention, which shall reap benefits over the long-run. Yes, we have some front end costs by suddenly ending pre-existing condition waivers and allowing insurance companies to terminate you because you are too expensive. This will have some short-run costs for a long-run benefit that exceeds this cost.

Now, to put this somewhat in context, since you seem to be pleading the case of the marginally profitable, oppressed private insurance companies.... first, they are not. They stand to gain the most from this, as they have a mandate new market of the highly profitable young many of whom are uninsured. Moreover, the concept of "for-profit" medicine in this country is fairly new. Prior to 1980, most private health insurance was provided by the "Blues" (Blue Cross-Blue Shield), which were highly regulated not-for-profit entities; and most hospitals in the US were also non-profit charitable organizations.

I have not done the research comparing the privatization of healthcare in this country with cost, but I am going to. I would be very surprised if you could not draw a relationship that strongly suggests that since privatization our healthcare has become increasingly more expensive and less efficient. We do know that right now it is the most expensive and less efficient in the world.

21 graphs that show America’s health-care prices are ludicrous





No, from the CBO. But, given how uninformed you are on the rest of this, I guess I shouldn't expect you to know that either.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf

Nice try but no sale. It is difficult to have intelligent debate when you don't lay all the cards on the table. But it's no surprise as when the bill was rammed down the throats of Americans, who didn't want this bill to pass, the same tactic was employed.

States were allowed to set up their own exchanges. But the law says states don't have to if they don't want to and the federal government will have to do it. The only fit being throw is by the feds because they are required to in states that don't want to carry the water for them. The feds of course have failed. No surprise there.

Like people that live in the other 49 states (or is it 56), I don't care what Colorado does, I don't live there. (Thank goodness).

Obamacare is not going to stop people from going to the ER for healthcare. There is not enough Doctors in America for everybody to have a personal care physician. I suppose the feds will try to get around that by requiring people to see a Nurse or somebody with a first aid badge from the boy scouts but people are still going to head to the ER. So there goes that make believe savings. The only difference is the taxpayers will get stung twice instead of once for the same ER visit.

Studies have already shown that having health insurance has little positive effect on a persons health. I think it was the state of Oregon that disproved that theory. So wave good by to that money we're supposed to saving. Funny how government programs have that happen all the time.

$1,000 a year to pay for the uninsured? I haven't seen the figure before but lets say it's true. Now deduct the cost of Obamacare . Opps, it was cheaper for everybody not to have this law. No cost savings there. Last week I saw an interview with this Obamacare guru on TV and she laid it out plain. It would have been much cheaper to leave everybody alone except for the people that didn't have health insurance and for the feds just to buy it for those that didn't. That didn't happen of course as the real purpose behind this law is not health care or health insurance but controlling peoples lives to the Dems satisfaction.

If the insurance companies have so much to gain why are some dropping coverage in some places? That's right, there is nothing for them to gain but plenty for them to lose. But this is what the Dems wanted anyway. Providing health insurance was just a lie to get them to a position where they can falsely claim a single payer system is the way to go.

CBO? LOL. Remember the cost of Obamacare was only to cost 1 Trillion for ten years when the Dems were telling their lies to the American people. Last I saw it is now 2 Trillion. CBO did both estimates. The way you keep your head in the sand on Obamacare I wouldn't expect you to point that out.

This law is a disaster.
 
I've been shouting for congress to grow some balls. Now they have. and a new tactic to keep the 'king' in check. Defund! Defund! Defund the justice dept. Defund EPA. Defund Homeland security. Defund illegal wars. Defund the WhiteHouse. :D I'm ENJOYING this!
 
Instead of trying to work together on the ACA republicans just want to end it. It's the law and their attempts are futile. Even if the government is shut down it will not acheive their purpose of ending the ACA. Plain stupid IMO

Then why are you crying, if it won't matter?
Sounds to me, all the libs crying about it, it catches them by the short and curlies and yanks em viciously! :D
 
Then why are you crying, if it won't matter?
Sounds to me, all the libs crying about it, it catches them by the short and curlies and yanks em viciously! :D

Because their threat to shut down the government! Duh!
 
When I die, I want to go peaceably in my sleep, like my grandpa.


Not yelling and screaming like his passengers in his car!

Now that was funny! :thumbs:

Greetings, yobarnacle! :2wave:
 
...and yet it's more expensive than what one could purchase privately. How do you explain that?

I think at this point ... "It's not even in effect yet" ... is the answer you should expect.
And then ...
After it goes into effect and costs go even higher the answer will be ... "You have to give it time"
And then ...
When it's worked it's way into full irreversible entitlement status, costs have soared, & you can't find a doctor the answer will be "We can fix it all with Single Payer".
 
The plan in Mass is working and the people like it. Please tell me what the difference is. I thought is was like the ACA. I need facts. Thank you

Look up how it's funded, for starters. When you read people suggesting the two are not similar, rather than dismissing the claim because of prejudice, why not check it out yourself?
 
Instead of trying to work together on the ACA republicans just want to end it. It's the law and their attempts are futile. Even if the government is shut down it will not acheive their purpose of ending the ACA. Plain stupid IMO

Obamacare is such a mess, the Obama Adminstration has had to issued waivers, and even delay the employer mandate for a year. The costs aren't what they said they would be, and states like California are reporting there will be an acute shortage of medical care.

Republicans weren't involved in the final months of negotiation, and they didn't cast a single vote for Obamacare. What was invented is absurd. Why fund something that is a joke, just because it's politically wise to do so? Would you vote for a single Republican because they did?
 
I think at this point ... "It's not even in effect yet" ... is the answer you should expect.
And then ...
After it goes into effect and costs go even higher the answer will be ... "You have to give it time"
And then ...
When it's worked it's way into full irreversible entitlement status, costs have soared, & you can't find a doctor the answer will be "We can fix it all with Single Payer".
I think you nailed it.

We know these people so well, their every excuse is obvious before it's even needed.
 
The plan in Mass is working and the people like it. Please tell me what the difference is. I thought is was like the ACA. I need facts. Thank you
Well for one, it's run by the state of Massachusetts, not by the federal government - which makes it not one iota like the ACA.
 
Obamacare is such a mess, the Obama Adminstration has had to issued waivers, and even delay the employer mandate for a year. The costs aren't what they said they would be, and states like California are reporting there will be an acute shortage of medical care.

Republicans weren't involved in the final months of negotiation, and they didn't cast a single vote for Obamacare. What was invented is absurd. Why fund something that is a joke, just because it's politically wise to do so? Would you vote for a single Republican because they did?

Greetings, ocean 515. :2wave:

I wonder how BHO feels because it's apparent that this is becoming a symbol of DC ineptness and a general laughingstock, and his name is on it! Having to delay implementation because no one understands it and few want it in any event, coupled with the over 1000 waivers already granted doesn't sit well with most Americans because it's unfair! With an ego the size of his, it's got to be a problem! Maybe he feels it will be his turn to laugh at the chaos this promises to bring to America, since no other explanation makes sense! What happens to the millions of people who still won't be covered, which was the reason/excuse given for changing our old healthcare system? :doh: :thumbdown:
 
well for one thing we are ALL gonna die regardless
(sorry to break the bad news to you)
If you think you have to pay mountains of cash in insurance premuims over the course of your lifetime to guarantee immortality then that's perfectly within your right to live your life that way but you've no right to enforce at the point
of a gun such stupid belief system on your fellow countrymen? No wait I take that back now with the ACA
that is precisely what we have? How I fund my hip replacement or cold medicine is no concern of yours.

When my mom had terminal cancer someone talked her into getting a second opinion hah guess what
she died and so will everyone else.

I like how you keep chopping out parts of posts you have no response to.
 
Back
Top Bottom