• 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]

Again, you misrepresented the figures as being "through 2014," when they were only for the first half of that year.

>>The ACA subsidies to insurers for losses derived from Exchange plans will end in 2017. Do you think things will get better after that?

As always, the ACA will prove to be a disaster … next year.

Again, the numbers I gave cover the open enrollment and proved my point that the vast majority of newly insured came from Medicaid. If you think that the rest of 2014 dramatically changed those numbers then feel free to look them up.

You really should have just accepted the numbers I quoted from the end of open enrollment, though, since by the end of last year the HHS had to admit that those numbers were inflated. So the ratio of newly insured private plans to medicaid enrollment only got worse.
 
For some reason and over time personal responsibility is a lost cause for far too many. It doesn't seem to matter that the Federal Govt. has created an 18.2 trillion debt, more than our entire economy and people like you have no problem giving them more money to waste. Brilliant!!

Insurance, by definition, eschews personal responsibilty
 
I stated that SS and Medicare funds have been used to fund the daily operating expenses of the govt. The unified budget confirms that reality.

No, it doesn't. Money is borrowed from the Fund and paid back with interest. If it's simply "used to fund the daily operating expenses of the govt," then why is interest paid?

>>Rather sad that you still believe what you are told

I believe it because it's true.

>>you said I was wrong and that was a lie. Where is your apology?

You are wrong. You are a liar. No apology.

>>You answered wrong

Explain it to me.

>>So tell me again why FICA which is a pay as you go system is used in the general fund as part of the unified budget?

Because money is borrowed and paid back with interest.

>>you don't have a problem with your SS and Medicare contribution being used to fund the daily operating expenses of the govt.

Not if it's paid back with interest.

>>and generating an unfunded liability

There is no unfunded liability.

>>showing again that once indoctrinated it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong

I don't know why you can't admit that yer wrong. Some sort of personalty disorder, I suppose. Maybe just neurotic.

>> so if it is being paid back with interest why is there trillions in unfunded liabilities?

There aren't any unfunded liabilities. It's pay-as-you-go.

>>Keep digging that hole deeper and showing everyone else here how poorly informed you are

:)

>>The Trust fund cannot fund the unfunded liabilities created by the Federal Govt.

There are none.

>>What do you call it when you fund someone else's retirement and someone in the future funds yours?

Social Security.

>>the question is when will you get tired of being made a fool of by the liberal elites

The question is when will I finally realize that it's pointless to keep on refuting the lies and distortions of a serial spammer of ideological nonsense. It's the old teaspoon-ocean thing.

>>Got it, results, facts don't matter and are trumped by what you want to believe

That does seem to be yer attitude.

>>You really don't understand the budget at all, do you.

I understand it a little. Iow, a lot more than you do.

>>We are running deficits now so where is the surplus going to come from to pay back the money the govt. stole from you?

Growth, I'm sure without a surplus.

>>No children? Great, best news of your posts

I wouldn't want them exposed to someone like you, that's for sure.
 
Again, the numbers I gave cover the open enrollment and proved my point that the vast majority of newly insured came from Medicaid. If you think that the rest of 2014 dramatically changed those numbers then feel free to look them up.

Let me try to move this along. Your household needs to be within 138% of the poverty line to qualify for Medicaid. Under the ACA subsidy rules, you can be within 400%. I don't care how many newly insured are covered by Medicaid compared to how many enroll for subsidies. They all get insured or get help being insured. Good for them and for the country.
 
No, you simply adamantly refuse to recognize the lag effect involved. Yer a foolish, blind ideologue. There are time lags all around you. Pull yer head out of yer butt and you'll see them.

>>I post the BLS chart and that makes me a liar and an idiot?

You always post ugly piles of cut-and-paste. Numbers by themselves don't prove anything. You need to use them to make an argument. Yer arguments are without substance.

>>I really feel sorry for you

And I continue to say that you should save yer compassion for yerself.

My, my, what passion you have for your ideology. It seems facts, logic, and common sense have no place in your world. Most can see the difference between a liberal and conservative by simply watching your posts. There is a reason apparently that so many conservatives are successful and liberals relying on the govt. failures.

You see, I look at the employment numbers of December 2007 as the base upon which to work and to get back to those numbers. There were 146 million working Americans in December 2007 and a labor force of 154 million. The employment today is 149 million and labor force is 157 million. Apparently in the liberal world there was no population growth, no people turning into working age, and apparently no understanding of economic growth or in Obama's case the lack of significant growth in the private sector.

Why would anyone claim Obama created 12 million jobs when the reality is jobs lost aren't created they are recovered, most in the private sector in spite of Obama and many due to part time work created by the Obama economy. Why would anyone claim that Obama inheriting 142 million working Americans, passing a stimulus program of 842 billion for shovel ready jobs and having 139 million working 2 years later that the stimulus was a success and trumpet Obama performance?

You take numbers in put a liberal spin on them because you have such low expectations which is another difference between liberals and conservative. I apparently have much higher expectations than you which is why I didn't vote for Obama and your low expectations motivated your vote probably twice.
 
A public option is automatic enrollment with no premiums, because they are embedded in your normal tax rate. Because of that, there is no need for subsidies to offset the cost.

At no time has anyone suggested the federal government start a health insurance company, offering plans to the general public through the exchanges or otherwise.

And you are mistaken.

The so-called "public option" has taken several forms in several different health care bills this year in Congress. All of the proposals, however, would create a federal health care plan, something like Medicare, but for persons under age 65. Individuals and small businesses would be able to buy such a plan just as they would purchase a health care plan from a private insurance company.
Proponents of a public option say it would create more competition for the private companies, holding prices down for everyone.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/public-option-vs-single-payer/



Medicare costs money.
Most of the time workers receive enough SS to cover their premium but if not they can ask for subsidies.
 
Last edited:
Sure, also reasonable. It's like a laundry list. The states can pick laws they want to follow and ignore the others. Sounds great, and shouldn't lead to any problems at all when laws are optional.

Isnt that the example being set by the federal govt?
 
No, very few think that.
How many is very few?

Just as very few think that "interstate highways are irrelevant." How many spaceships have you visited?
How many spaceships would I need to visit? I mean I'm just enjoying you make up nonsense using vague terms like "many" and "very few" and basing it on absolutely nothing. Quite entertaining.

Wrong. You can't afford to pay for the U.S. Marine Corps.
I never claimed to pay for the U.S. Marine corps. Nice strawman.png If you believe I benefit by your pay, then provide me a receipt for what you paid for me.

This goes back to my saying that "the Internet grew out of federal spending."
And still irrelevant.

No. Figure it out for yerself.
What!? No vague meaningless term like "somewhat more"??? I'm disappointed.

Experts can offer useful opinions.
Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one. I'm more into facts and hypotheticals never of a future that can never be is not factual.


For all we know, frogs can fly.
Actually it's frogs with wings - not frogs that can fly.


It's common sense. Well, common to most people.
Nothing you've posted is common sense but it's funny you think it is.


This goes back to yer claim that the taxes other people pay don't benefit you because they are required by law. All I can do is alugh at such nonsense.
No this goes back to how I'm supposed to thank people for paying taxes which they are required to do by law and hence, somehow people pay for things that I "enjoy". People don't pay for anything I enjoy. I pay my share you pay your share under the law and if you or I do not, we go to prison. What I laugh at is somehow you pay for me - you don't pay anything for me as I've already stated.


[To go to prison rather than pay taxes.] What does it matter if it's reasonable?
It matters if you claim it's a choice... now you don't want to answer! :lamo

The point is that the taxes other people pay BENEFIT YOU.
I benefit by what taxes I pay sweetie, not what you pay because what you pay benefits you. You still have failed to provide any evidence that I benefit from anything you pay, which is not surprising at all.


Humourous to an eight-year-old, perhaps.
And factual as an adult.
 
Let me try to move this along. Your household needs to be within 138% of the poverty line to qualify for Medicaid. Under the ACA subsidy rules, you can be within 400%. I don't care how many newly insured are covered by Medicaid compared to how many enroll for subsidies. They all get insured or get help being insured. Good for them and for the country.

Which brings me back to my original point: The Democrats could have simply expanded Medicaid and not touched my insurance and gotten essentially the same results. All the trumpeting of the success of ACA has everything to do with an expansion of welfare and little to do with the rest of the law that screwed over everyone else in the process.

You challenged my point and now admit I'm right. For all the bulls*** with exchanges and new mandatory coverages health insurance is more expensive to everyone but Medicaid recipients, and OOP is through the roof for anyone with a job even while the Government is still subsidizing insurers losses.
 
Last edited:
I think you leftist socialists should start voting for Republicans, they seem to do more for you than the people you elect.

You have a SC with more Republican appointees than Democrat ones. Yet, they have ignored the Constitution on these two big issues. And not once, but twice on Obamacare (now SCOTUScare). Not only ignoring the Constitution, but doing legal backflips in order to justify their baseless decisions.

Then, the Republican Congress that you so hate. They have the power to defund Obamacare and stop it dead in it's socialist tracks. They refuse to do it, and go ahead and fully fund it.

Fast track trade power? No problem, here you go! Debt ceiling raised? Coming right up, spend all you want!

The Iran deal. This could easily be stopped. Instead, not only did they do nothing to stop it, they came up with a bill that (Unconstitutionally) gives all of their power to the president and leaves them with none!

I could go on, but this is getting sickening.
 
My how clever, never read that analogy before.

Considering how many Dead Ends that "D" has driven people into, it's a good thing there is an "R" to allow people to back the hell out of the mess they were put in.

I have admit that was a well done retort....
 
If...? I doubt you will see any of this happen.

Continued Repub control of the House is certain. Repubs have at least a 50/50 chance to hold the Senate. If Hillary is the Dem POTUS nominee and the Repubs nominate one of their better candidates then their odds for POTUS are also no worse than 50/50.
 
Most can see the difference between a liberal and conservative by simply watching your posts.

I'm sure any true conservative would not want to be associated with yer posts.

>> conservatives are successful and liberals rely on the govt. failures.

Yer a failure as a human being.

>>I look at the employment numbers of December 2007 as the base upon which to work

Because you don't know what yer doing. Those are bubble highs. That's what led to the crash.

>>in Obama's case the lack of significant growth in the private sector.

The data clearly show that to be false.

>>jobs lost aren't created they are recovered

Semantic nonsense.

>>part time work created by the Obama economy.

I posted the numbers. Yer lying. Again.
 
I'm sure any true conservative would not want to be associated with yer posts.

>> conservatives are successful and liberals rely on the govt. failures.

Yer a failure as a human being.

>>I look at the employment numbers of December 2007 as the base upon which to work

Because you don't know what yer doing. Those are bubble highs. That's what led to the crash.

>>in Obama's case the lack of significant growth in the private sector.

The data clearly show that to be false.

>>jobs lost aren't created they are recovered

Semantic nonsense.

>>part time work created by the Obama economy.

I posted the numbers. Yer lying. Again.

I don't normally report people but if you don't stop with the personal attacks I will change my position on doing just that. the data you post is biased, partisan and full of holes. The problem is you couldn't sell your position to the electorate which is why Obama lost the Congress. Seems that only people like you in need of another taxpayer funded entitlement buys the Obama and liberal rhetoric. You have no understanding of basic economics, no understanding of the role of the govt. and as has been shown no understanding of the taxes you pay or their purpose.

Such passion you have for liberalism as results don't matter as much as the opinion of others. You want to believe what you are told but have no concept of reality living in your own little dream world. I stand by my numbers

December 2007 146 million working Americans
January 2009 142 million working Americans
January 2011 139 million working Americans

January 2009 10.6 trillion in debt
Current 18.2 trillion in debt

GDP when Bush took office 10.2 trillion, the end of 2008 it was 14.7 trillion. Obama adds 842 billion in tax funded stimulus that added to the debt but showed some GDP growth, none of which was sustainable or felt by the electorate. Obama loses Congress

Since you blame Bush for the recession wonder why the Democrat Controlled Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 didn't stop him??
 
How many is very few?

Only the extremely stupid. People like you.

>>I'm just enjoying you make up nonsense using vague terms like "many" and "very few" and basing it on absolutely nothing. Quite entertaining.

You'll have to return to yer usual activity of playing with yerself. I won't waste any time after this post responding to yer childish twatery.

>>I never claimed to pay for the U.S. Marine corps.

It's Corps. And you say you pay for everything you get. They protect yer sorry ass and you suck on the federal teat in receiving that protection.

>>And still irrelevant.

Only to morons.

I'm disappointed.

Yer disappointing.

>>Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one.

And you are one.

>>Actually it's frogs with wings - not frogs that can fly.

They would use them to fly or else have no need for them.

>>Nothing you've posted is common sense but it's funny you think it is.

Some of it is common sense. You wouldn't recognize that. The rest of is informed opinion or fact. You wouldn't be able to comprehend that.

>>People don't pay for anything I enjoy.

Yes, they do.

>>I pay my share you pay your share

Perhaps you do. Yer share doesn't foot the bill.

>>What I laugh at is somehow you pay for me

I find it kinda sad. Maybe ISIL would settle down if we handed you over to them.

>>you don't pay anything for me as I've already stated.

Oh yes, you've stated it. Yer wrong. Yer an idiot.

>>It matters if you claim it's a choice

I can choose to ignore you, and I will from now on.

>>now you don't want to answer!

I have "many" better things to do.

>>I benefit by what taxes I pay sweetie

"Sweetie"? Yer confusing me with the man yer currently sleeping with.

>>what you pay benefits you.

It (sadly) benefits you as well. Yer too stupid to see that.

>>You still have failed to provide any evidence that I benefit from anything you pay

I provided it right at the beginning. You benefit from the Marines. You don't pay the cost of that institution. No individual does.

>>And factual as an adult.

I'd say you've got a long way to go.
 
Anyone who's invested in ACA is an unlikely Repub voter.

Exactly and that is why repeal is a losing stand to take and will only get progressively more so. The polls keep narrowing and now they are nearly equal.

8704-figure-4.png
 
Continued Repub control of the House is certain. Repubs have at least a 50/50 chance to hold the Senate. If Hillary is the Dem POTUS nominee and the Repubs nominate one of their better candidates then their odds for POTUS are also no worse than 50/50.

Considering the Cons must win ALL of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Colorado (with either NH, IA or NV).... win them ALL to win the Presidency and the Dems need just ONE of those states, I would say the odds of a Repub win of the White House are no better than remote.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

The White House is at, to beyond, the outstretched fingertips of the Republicans, while the Dems have a reasonable grip on it.... (not impossible, just improbable)
 
Anyone who's invested in ACA is an unlikely Repub voter.

... or they do not realize they are "invested", dependent or otherwise beneficiaries thereof, which most people do not...
 
Considering the Cons must win ALL of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Colorado (with either NH, IA or NV).... win them ALL to win the Presidency and the Dems need just ONE of those states, I would say the odds of a Repub win of the White House are no better than remote.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch

The White House is at, to beyond, the outstretched fingertips of the Republicans, while the Dems have a reasonable grip on it.... (not impossible, just improbable)

That kind of overconfidence can lead to defeat.

Mapping the 2016 Electorate: Demographics Don't Guarantee a Democratic White House
 
The Democrats could have simply expanded Medicaid and not touched my insurance and gotten essentially the same results.

No, that's not true. What about all the households that qualify for subsidies but not Medicaid? How would they have be provided the help they require to pay for adequate insurance?

>>All the trumpeting of the success of ACA has everything to do with an expansion of welfare and little to do with the rest of the law that screwed over everyone else in the process.

It has nothing to do with the expansion of "welfare." It has everything to do with making high-quality, affordable health insurance available to as many Americans as possible. And how are others "screwed over"? Society benefits.

>>You challenged my point and now admit I'm right.

I'm pointing out yer error. Will you admit that yer wrong?

>>For all the bulls*** with exchanges and new mandatory coverages health insurance is more expensive to everyone but Medicaid recipients, and OOP is through the roof for anyone with a job even while the Government is still subsidizing insurers losses.

You offer no evidence to back that up.
 
Back
Top Bottom