• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Unsubstantiated. More Fentonian bull****, I expect.



Same thing. Just story-telling. Zero evidence.



Sounds good. Maybe we can get a beer hall putsch going.



One of yer more convincing arguments.



Hey, it goes back to 2008. When do you think "unemployment started rising"?



After six years of conflict and divisiveness based on irresponsible, right-wing temper tantrums, …

>>you now have, according to that, slightly less than 45 million people without coverage.

According to what?

New federal data released Tuesday reveal that 36 million people in the United States were uninsured in 2014. That number marks a significant drop from the 48.6 million Americans without insurance in 2010, the year the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.

The new data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) are based on interviews with 111,682 people. The findings show that the number of uninsured Americans of all ages dropped to 36 million in 2014 from 44.8 million in 2013. "That's pretty sharp," says study author Robin A. Cohen, a statistician at the NCHS.

"This is another set of data tracking what I think has become a pretty broad consensus that the Affordable Care Act is having a significant impact on reducing uninsurance," says Sabrina Corlette, a senior research fellow and project director at the Center for Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University (who was not involved with the research.) — "The Number of Uninsured Americans Continues to Drop," Time, June 23, 2015​


Here's a report on another survey: "America's Uninsured Rate Is Down To 10% - And Falling," Forbes, June 16, 2015

Hey, at least ObamaCare is a " free market " solution to health......LOL !!

Its such a fantastic bit of legislation that Democrats avoided it like the plague in 2014... and then they lost.

Keep posting your propaganda bull ****, and the American voter will keep voting out the low lifes that voted for this abomination.
 
:lamo

You see, that is the reason why I don't want to see Republicans touch Obamacare. This meme about "republican approach" has been used for years to try to avoid blame for the mess Democrats caused throught their unilateral actions.

If Republicans were to take up any Obamacare issues, they would then own the entire effort.

It's best to let the spotlight shine on the best effort of the Democrats who unilaterally own Obamacare.
I may not agree with you politically, but I believe you are definitely right that it was fortuitous for their party, that the GOP Congress was not forced to take-up reforming healthcare leading into an election year.
 
Well, it's true.

Slower Premium Growth Under Obama

I think we can all see the side that lacks integrity here.

Your link shows slower premium growth, in case you don't understand that, it means the premiums are still growing, still rising.

Just like my ex wife who when told we couldn't afford to buy her more clothing right now just replied, "well then I'll buy them on sale, that way we SAVE money instead of spending it". :lamo
 
Being insured and being able to afford treatment are two separate things. That is why disapproval remains high.

If people can't use it or don't like it it doesn't matter how free it is.

There is no support for any of that. If you've got polling internals that illustrate your point, please cite it.

And healthcare for poor people will always be tough to afford. If you have a better plan, that increases coverage and is cheaper for those who need subsidies or are on the edge, then propose it. If you make the whole picture (premiums plus copays) cheaper, it just increases the cost to taxpayers, and you guys would complain about that. If we make it cheaper for taxpayers, it means fewer get coverage and/or their premiums and copays go up, and you whine about that. That's the problem with actually governing - it's easy for people to sit on the sidelines and throw bricks at people actually making these tough trade-offs, and then pretend that with your "to be named later" plan it will be sooo much better, better insurance, everyone covered, cheaper, we all get ponies! without any need to come up with a better alternative.
 
Your link shows slower premium growth, in case you don't understand that, it means the premiums are still growing, still rising.

Increasing at a slower rate. Apparently you don't understand that.
 
Well, it's true.

Slower Premium Growth Under Obama

I think we can all see the side that lacks integrity here.

Yea, the " side " that said we could keep our Dr's and Insurance.

The side that said premiums would fall by 2500 dollars.

The side that said we have to pass it to find out whats in it.

The side that said the law was written so that States who refused to provide exchanges could be attacked Politically.

The side that said the law would provide " affordable " insurance.

The side that tried to scam the American people into thinking tax increases would be obsorbed by the Insurance companiesm

The side that said it was a " free market " solution.

The side that passed the law is the side that cannot even bring it up as a accomplishment in election cycles for fear of losing their jobs. Thats the side that lacks credibility.
 
Increasing at a slower rate. Apparently you don't understand that.

:lamo

Still increasing, apparently YOU don't understand that.

Look, it's an easy lie to engineer. Choose the highest period of increase under another president's time and then you're able to state, see, I'm not half as bad as him!
 
I'm with you, justabubba -

An employment based healthcare system is asinine!

As I commented before: "In severe recession (like 2009), the rest of the civilized world suffers an economic crisis - but we suffer an economic crisis AND a healthcare crisis"!

Why?

And in other terms: Why would we want to stifle entrepreneurship by having employees unable to risk new ventures due to putting their families in jeopardy by lacking healthcare?

It's nonsense.

Amen brother! That's really the one thing that I never did get about the ACA opposition. The ACA removes a HUGE burden and obstacle to getting out from under some corporate yoke and starting your own business. I just couldn't understand why 'free market' types almost never mentioned it as a potential upside for the small business person. I at least expected it as, "sure, this is potentially a great deal for entrepreneurs, but...not worth the cost" or whatever. but I never saw the first part...
 
The language that you are referencing is four words out of a 900 page bill. Such minor mistakes in the language are extremely common and, in any other ordinary political climate, such a mistake would have been fixed as a rather routine practice. But given the Republican's antithesis to any remote resemblance of an attempt to work with the President on this issue (or nearly any other issue before the Trade Agreement), such a fix had to wait until it got all the way to the Supreme Court.

You fail to recognize how you change a law. Obamacare was passed within a very narrow time period, before and after which there is not enough support to pass it. If there is not support to make a change to the bill, it is not up to the SC to change it, it says what it says. Most of America, including Congress, does not want Obamacare.

It is Obvious, for some reason, the court has decided that they will not rule against this law, no matter what the Constitution says, or even what the bill itself says.

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think Republicans should abandon their beliefs and become liberals and support Obama. Why don't the Democrats just join the Republicans instead, and get rid of the bill? What's wrong with them? Why won't they work with Republicans? They seem to be very hostile to Republicans on this law.
 
Your link shows slower premium growth, in case you don't understand that, it means the premiums are still growing, still rising.

Just like my ex wife who when told we couldn't afford to buy her more clothing right now just replied, "well then I'll buy them on sale, that way we SAVE money instead of spending it". :lamo

Is there any wonder why the majority of these "fact check" operations are arms of the liberal/progressive machine?
 
You fail to recognize how you change a law. Obamacare was passed within a very narrow time period, before and after which there is not enough support to pass it. If there is not support to make a change to the bill, it is not up to the SC to change it, it says what it says. Most of America, including Congress, does not want Obamacare.

It is Obvious, for some reason, the court has decided that they will not rule against this law, no matter what the Constitution says, or even what the bill itself says.

Otherwise, I'm not sure why you think Republicans should abandon their beliefs and become liberals and support Obama. Why don't the Democrats just join the Republicans instead, and get rid of the bill? What's wrong with them? Why won't they work with Republicans? They seem to be very hostile to Republicans on this law.

People don't want Obamacare. They just want what's in it.
 
Your link shows slower premium growth, in case you don't understand that, it means the premiums are still growing, still rising.

Just like my ex wife who when told we couldn't afford to buy her more clothing right now just replied, "well then I'll buy them on sale, that way we SAVE money instead of spending it". :lamo

Actually, I do understand that quite well.

What I also understand is that no one ever said the ACA will lower overall premiums or health care costs.

The concept of 'bending the cost curve' was apparently too complicated for a lot of ACA opponents to understand.
 
:lamo

Still increasing, apparently YOU don't understand that.

Look, it's an easy lie to engineer. Choose the highest period of increase under another president's time and then you're able to state, see, I'm not half as bad as him!

Math is a tricky concept for some.

These are the people that claim a Government could and should borrow, print and spend their way into prosperity.

Of-course when that strategy crashes and burns, they blame the Banks, Creditors, Corporations and Bush.
 
Amen brother! That's really the one thing that I never did get about the ACA opposition. The ACA removes a HUGE burden and obstacle to getting out from under some corporate yoke and starting your own business. I just couldn't understand why 'free market' types almost never mentioned it as a potential upside for the small business person. I at least expected it as, "sure, this is potentially a great deal for entrepreneurs, but...not worth the cost" or whatever. but I never saw the first part...

No, it doesn't. The burden of paying for insurance still exists when starting your own business, in fact, it's more expensive now. Before Obamacare new business owners had a great field of group plans to choose from, including some very low cost plans that aren't allowed under Obamacare. Sure they weren't ideal, but they were affordable for the new business owner and beat not having any.
 
Well, it's true.

Slower Premium Growth Under Obama

I think we can all see the side that lacks integrity here.


Yeah, and the LeftWad can never get it back.....ever.




California (lack of affordability, 'tepid' enrollment): "After using most of $1 billion in federal start-up money, California's Obamacare exchange is preparing to go on a diet. That financial reality is reflected in Covered California's proposed budget, released Wednesday, as well as a reduced forecast calling for 2016 enrollment of fewer than 1.5 million people. The recalibration comes after tepid enrollment growth for California during the second year of the Affordable Care Act. The state ended open enrollment in February with 1.4 million people signed up, far short of its goal of 1.7 million. A number of factors contributed to the shortfall, but health policy experts said that some uninsured folks still find health insurance unaffordable despite the health law's premium subsidies."

Hawaii (abject failure): "Despite over $205 million in federal taxpayer funding, Hawaii’s Obamacare exchange website will soon shut down...According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser the Hawaii Health Connector will stop taking new enrollees on Friday and plans to begin migrating to the federally run Healthcare.gov. Outreach services will end by May 31, all technology will be transferred to the state by September 30, and its workforce will be eliminated by February 28. While the exchange has struggled since its creation, it is not for lack of funding. Since 2011 Hawaii has received a total of $205,342,270 in federal grant money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In total, HHS provided nearly $4.5 billion to Hawaii and other state exchanges, with little federal oversight and virtually no strings attached. Despite this generous funding, the exchange has underperformed from day one. In its first year, Hawaii enrolled only 8,592 individuals…" Hawaii joints Maryland, Massachusetts and Oregon among the states that wasted hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars on utterly failed exchanges. A reminder from Phil Kerpen:

Phil Kerpen ✔ ‎@kerpen Hawaii flushing $205M on failed Obamacare exchange does not dethrone the reigning champs: Oregon, $305M for a site that never even launched. 10:53 PM - 11 May 2015....snip~


Obamacare Updates: Tale of Fail from Coast to Coast - Guy Benson
 
why can't the conservative judges just vote in a sheep-like block like the liberal judges do on EVERY MAJOR DECISION? Why can't they sell out to their party's own political needs and ignore the constitution?

I will say this. If a republican wins the white house it will be because Obamacare is still an issue they can take out and beat the crap out of Hillary with(in a debate). this vote won't make it any more popular than it was this morning. keeping the issue alive helps the GOP in the race.
 
I think this is what the liberals / progressives call a successful program. Ticks all the right boxes:

  • Accomplishes nothing it claims to do, nothing it was sold to the electorate as
  • Increase costs on those that work
  • Gives away stuff to those who don't
  • Puts government more in control of it, determining winners and losers
  • Redistributes wealth from those who work for it to those that don't
  • Guts the middle class



Yep. Pretty much.

On the the "Accomplishes nothing it claims to do, nothing it was sold to the electorate as", you can count Dodd-Frank in that as well, 'cause it was sold on ending 'Too big to fail' and yet, it's cause little else beyond hastening bank mergers into too big to fail.

Yeah, a real 'win' there for the hard working electorate.



Add: Makes "enemies" look bad.

They been doing it here for 80 years.
 
Actually, I do understand that quite well.

What I also understand is that no one ever said the ACA will lower overall premiums or health care costs.

The concept of 'bending the cost curve' was apparently too complicated for a lot of ACA opponents to understand.

That bolded part is not compatible with the truth.
 
don't read the news do you.

Millennials
O-Care premiums to skyrocket | TheHill

and the big one for next year
Obamacare: 2016 sticker shock | WashingtonExaminer.com

so yes your post is irrelevant in the face of facts.

Obamacare Increases Large Employers' Health Costs - Forbes

yep your post is even more irrelevant.

In the handful of states where data is available (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont, Washington state and Washington, D.C.), Pearson says the majority of people buying health coverage on exchanges won't face serious sticker shock.

"We have seen that about 6 percent average rate increases are expected for 2016," Pearson says.

As Avalere looks at the less expensive plans, she says, "We're seeing anywhere from a 5 percent increase for the lowest-cost plan available, to a 1 percent increase for the second-lowest-cost plan available. So we're really looking at very modest increases — very consistent with what we saw from 2014 to 2015." — "Health Insurance Premiums Will Go Up In 2016, But By How Much?" NPR, June 12, 2015​

Look, it's an easy lie to engineer.

I'll defer to yer judgement on that. I don't have any personal experience as a liar.

>>Choose the highest period of increase under another president's time and then you're able to state, see, I'm not half as bad as him!

What happened? Did you suffer a serious concussion?
 
Bull****. Discounts Obama's closed door meetings with insurance execs and promising the act would not include single payer well BEFORE any congressional debate.
Do you have any sources for this, clownboy?

(and I'm not asking this in antagonism)

Because I too have been concerned with the President's early meetings, but have generally bought into the argument that the lesson learned from HillaryCare's failure was: "The insurance & hospital industries killed it, so they need to firstly be brought onboard this time". But I still have some skepticism, especially in light of some of the President's actions since then (the TPP not being the least).

A decision on no single-payer or public option in those meetings, if a true, would be heinous IMO, unless that was truly the only way forward. I don't believe that occurred due to seeing the public option come up for vote, and losing by only one vote (Sen Joe Lieberman - Hartford CT - insurance capital of the country).
 
I'll defer to yer judgement on that. I don't have any personal experience as a liar.

A statement you prove untrue as you employ yet another liar's tactic with this post - move those goalposts. If you read the sources you agree with that premiums are not rising as quickly as they were, you'd know they were using rises during certain quarters of President Bush's time as a contrast to determine that.
 
Yep, his decisions have led to some very entertaining Mid-term results.

He's keeping the Albatross alive and that means we get to look forward to another election cycle of Democrats avoiding ObamaCare like the plague....and then losing.

Hey, remember when the Democrats were going to turn Texas " Blue " ??

Lol ! We added more GOP seats. We're Redder than we were before.

I don't know if Texas will ever turn into a blue state or not; I don't see it happening anytime soon. One more good reason I'm moving to Colorado when my wife retires.
 
Do you have any sources for this, clownboy?

(and I'm not asking this in antagonism)

Because I too have been concerned with the President's early meetings, but have generally bought into the argument that the lesson learned from HillaryCare's failure was: "The insurance & hospital industries killed it, so they need to firstly be brought onboard this time". But I still have some skepticism, especially in light of some of the President's actions since then (the TPP not being the least).

A decision on no single-payer or public option in those meetings, if a true, would be heinous IMO, unless that was truly the only way forward. I don't believe that occurred due to seeing the public option come up for vote, and losing by only one vote (Sen Joe Lieberman - Hartford CT - insurance capital of the country).

Yeah, I posted them again and again during the Obamacare debate. It really was his first betrayal of the campaign promise of transparency.
 
Back
Top Bottom