• 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!

Senate Republicans pitch ObamaCare alternative on eve of presidential address

Its an excellent criticism that the ACA was not passed with sufficient time to review the entire law, I would not want to see that happen again because its bad governance. Now do you want the Republicans to actually allow their bill to be fully examined or do you want to just rush it through in the exact same manner which the Dems did?

In other words I'm asking if you have any real standards, or just bias

Did you read my post? Because your reply is surreal.
 
Did you read my post? Because your reply is surreal.

I took "codified in legislation" to mean once the law is passed, since that's what codification means to be published in the US Code, if that must be done to fully understand the law then that's no different than what the Dems did.
 
Well, I think we will have to see the specifics to know. Right now all we have is the opening sales pitch...And if Harry Reid won't even consider letting the bill be debated, then we will never know will we? That has been his tactic all along.

After three years Republicans don't even have a solid idea. After three years of scrambling to find an alternative to the ACA all Republicans have is a sales pitch. You don't even realize how ridiculous they sound sometimes.
 
People have GOT to take some responsibility for their well-being. Healthcare isn't and shouldn't be free. The problem is with the swath of Americans who don't believe they should have to spend a red cent of their own money on pretty much anything, nor should they be responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing themselves.

Until we address willing codependency, there is no viable solution for these folks.

Also no one should get healthcare until we uncover what REALLY happened in Benghazi!
 
If the GOP plan has good ideas and would save money and make a better PPACA, I say let's get it done.
I think we already know.
I started as a moderate GOP in 1972 based on Lincoln, IKE, and TR; the party of Grands Ideas.
This doesn't mean I don't support what FDR and Truman did, as I call them moderate DEMs.
 
It may not be a fix all, but it is a start, and a return to allowing American's to make the choice, not some government official....And further, it is something that American's want a return to, with nearly every measurement polled of the President's performance, from O-care, to trustworthiness Obama's, and democrat governance is coming in with approvals in the high 30s, and disapproval in the near 60% range....

Americans want to pay a 35% tax on the cost of their premium, pay deadbeats up to $8K per year in tax credits, and allow insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of a pre-existing condition again? Those are the lovely little details of this hair-brained Republican idea that Fox News didn't publish.
 
Americans want to pay a 35% tax on the cost of their premium, pay deadbeats up to $8K per year in tax credits, and allow insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of a pre-existing condition again? Those are the lovely little details of this hair-brained Republican idea that Fox News didn't publish.

Yeah? Well what the hell do they have now with the ACA? Premiums over $700. per month, and deductibles as high as $15,000 when before they may have had premiums of $300, and deductibles of $4000. You're insane if you think that this is bringing costs down.

Plus, in the aggregate there MORE people uninsured today, then before they forced this turd on us, with more to come.
 
Yeah? Well what the hell do they have now with the ACA? Premiums over $700. per month, and deductibles as high as $15,000 when before they may have had premiums of $300, and deductibles of $4000. You're insane if you think that this is bringing costs down.

Plus, in the aggregate there MORE people uninsured today, then before they forced this turd on us, with more to come.

The cost of equivalent plans is lower in the new competitive marketplaces than in the employer-sponsored group world:

jzw503.jpg


And uninsurance this month is lower than it's been in a couple years. The spike in uninsured the GOP was predicting never materialized.

y0o_hh_kd0cuwvrfkpz9ra.png
 
The cost of equivalent plans is lower in the new competitive marketplaces than in the employer-sponsored group world...

Nice graph...Kaiser has been a proponent of the ACA, as are hospital groups and others that stand to benefit from it, like say, the AARP. I gave you what I found in looking on HC.gov, so while you may be able to find a source that you agree with, and you think backs up your personal feeling on the subject, it is less productive to be drawn into dueling tainted sourcing wouldn't you agree?

I am telling you, that these plans on the exchange are costing more, and more people in net so far, are uninsured....

I mean something that should have you questioning your own charts here, is the simple fact that 5 million were kicked off their plans, and the ACA if you believe the administration says they've signed up 3 million so far, that is a net minus of 2 million more people uninsured....This is common sense stuff.
 
Yeah? Well what the hell do they have now with the ACA? Premiums over $700. per month, and deductibles as high as $15,000 when before they may have had premiums of $300, and deductibles of $4000. You're insane if you think that this is bringing costs down.

Plus, in the aggregate there MORE people uninsured today, then before they forced this turd on us, with more to come.

And raising my income taxes will bring the deductible down?
 
And raising my income taxes will bring the deductible down?

I'm not for raising anyone's income taxes. I think that the government already takes too much of our money...What would make you think I was saying that?
 
As an addendum to Greenbeard's post, since he wanted to use Kasier to bolster his accounting that the ACA is making things better, this from Kasier appeared yesterday....

As the deadline for 2014 enrollment nears, Obamacare is increasingly growing unpopular, especially among the uninsured. A new Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that about twice as many uninsured people have an unfavorable view of the health-care law than have a favorable one.

Among the uninsured, 47 percent view Obamacare in a negative light versus the 24 percent who view it favorably. That’s a change from 43 percent who viewed it unfavorably last month, and 36 percent who viewed it favorably. Overall, half of Americans view Obamacare unfavorably, while just over one-third have a positive take on the law. ​

More of the uninsured also said Obamacare made them worse off (39 percent) than improved their situation (26 percent), according to the poll.

Obamacare's Unpopularity Rises Among Uninsured | National Review Online

Now this begs the question of why the conflicting information? Could it be that supporters of the ACA are cherry picking information to bolster their case? Nah, I'm sure that couldn't be it.....;)
 
As an addendum to Greenbeard's post, since he wanted to use Kasier to bolster his accounting that the ACA is making things better, this from Kasier appeared yesterday....



Now this begs the question of why the conflicting information? Could it be that supporters of the ACA are cherry picking information to bolster their case? Nah, I'm sure that couldn't be it.....;)

What Green beard posted are facts and figures of the cost of medical insurance premiums. What you've posted is the results of a survey of how people feel about the ACA. This is simply an apples to road apples comparison.
 
I'm not for raising anyone's income taxes.
I am for raising taxes, on a mean-tested basis.
I pay only 10% federal tax on my public pension and zero state income tax, insanity.
Before you rightist meme me on give it back then, it takes a Nation of people who want it to work together, not just me.
 
What Green beard posted are facts and figures of the cost of medical insurance premiums. What you've posted is the results of a survey of how people feel about the ACA. This is simply an apples to road apples comparison.

All I am saying is that we can 'cherry pick' til the cows come home, doesn't mean a thing when the perception in the public turns sour....And this law in its rolled out glory is pissing people off.
 
I am for raising taxes, on a mean-tested basis.
I pay only 10% federal tax on my public pension and zero state income tax, insanity.
Before you rightist meme me on give it back then, it takes a Nation of people who want it to work together, not just me.

Yeah, run with that...I am sure it will be popular among the sandals crowd....It always is popular to attack someone that has more than you.
 
Yeah, run with that...I am sure it will be popular among the sandals crowd....It always is popular to attack someone that has more than you.

Tell me where I attacked those who have more than I. Don't tell me you're having the 1% meltdown. Alice Cooper wrote of you "Billion Dollar Babies" 4 decades ago. Once they have all the money, the game's over .
 
Nice graph...Kaiser has been a proponent of the ACA, as are hospital groups and others that stand to benefit from it, like say, the AARP. I gave you what I found in looking on HC.gov, so while you may be able to find a source that you agree with, and you think backs up your personal feeling on the subject, it is less productive to be drawn into dueling tainted sourcing wouldn't you agree?

I quoted two things: 1) a PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis of premiums in the exchanges vs. in the employer-based group markets, and 2) Gallup's uninsurance poll.

Which one is it you're not liking?

j-mac said:
I am telling you, that these plans on the exchange are costing more, and more people in net so far, are uninsured....

I mean something that should have you questioning your own charts here, is the simple fact that 5 million were kicked off their plans, and the ACA if you believe the administration says they've signed up 3 million so far, that is a net minus of 2 million more people uninsured....This is common sense stuff.

Plans on the exchanges aren't costing more than comparable coverage. If you compare the average employer-based plan to equivalent (i.e., gold and platinum level plans) in the exchanges, which is what PwC did, you find that exchange plans are cheaper.

What you're referring to is people who were in the individual market buying skimpier plans and are now buying more generous plans. In the pre-ACA world, those markets were most heavily populated by what would be considered "tin" (or sub-bronze) plans. The PwC study touches on this:

Prior to the ACA, individual insurance coverage was more limited than employer insurance, and, on average, comparable to bronze plans purchased on the ACA's exchanges. Some of the sticker shock noted among enrollees in the new exchanges is due to more comprehensive insurance coverage in the exchange plans. More than half the people in the individual market had coverage below the bronze level of 60%, the lowest level in the exchanges.

You can compare tin to bronze and find that tin was cheaper, that doesn't tell us anything interesting. But if you compare gold/platinum in the new competitive marketplaces to gold/platinum in the employer-based plans that most privately insured people have, you do find something interesting--the gold/platinum plans are cheaper in the new marketplaces. Apples-to-apples comparisons of comparable plans are showing that exchange plans are cheaper.

As for the enrollment numbers, those millions losing insurance numbers are inflated by 1) ignoring those who were able to extend their existing plans through this year, and 2) forgetting that many people with canceled policies were either auto-enrolled in off-exchange plans or otherwise bought individual plans off-exchange (and thus don't show up in the exchange counts). You also ignore here that not only are there more than 3 million people who've signed up for private insurance through an exchange, there are over 7 million who've enrolled in Medicaid plans. That means even if your 5 million number wasn't inflated, the number of newly insured people likely outpaced that marker already anyway.

Which is why Gallup didn't see a surge in uninsured people this month but instead actually saw the uninsured rate dropping.
 
All I am saying is that we can 'cherry pick' til the cows come home, doesn't mean a thing when the perception in the public turns sour....And this law in its rolled out glory is pissing people off.

You can cherry pick, and you can compare what people believe with what is actually happening. In politics, what people believe, true or not, is what matters. You're right that they believe that the ACA is ramping up costs and costing people their health insurance. The reality is that, while still a flawed program, the costs have leveled off and people who couldn't get insurance before now can.

What people believe at the time of the next couple of elections will have an impact on those elections. What that will be, who knows?
 
Tell me where I attacked those who have more than I. Don't tell me you're having the 1% meltdown. Alice Cooper wrote of you "Billion Dollar Babies" 4 decades ago. Once they have all the money, the game's over .

Wrong. Money/wealth is not a static pie.
 
Back
Top Bottom