• 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]

Oh, of course. It's all my fault. Instead of listening to someone who has been paying her insurance for decades without begging for someone else to assist her, let's listen to politicians who don't know anything about medicine or business, and let's listen to the people who can't afford to take care of themselves and their families. :roll: And if I cost shopped, it would all be affordable!

You can cheerlead the ACA to someone else, Greenbeard. You do it well, and I'm sure you can find someone else who needs help to pay his/her bills to high five and got Daddy Obama to do it. I'm not one of those people.

And those same politicians strangely exempt themselves from Obamacare.
 
The claim of prices rising more slowly is an outright DNC lie.

Actually, no, it has been confirmed by dozens of sources at this point.

While reform was needed, doing nothing at all would have been less damaging then obamacare.

In what regard? 15 million more people have access to healthcare. That doesn't even register with you as a big success? Costs have been rising more slowly, people with pre-existing conditions are no longer screwed, the deficit has been reduced... None of the Republican predictions have come true- not one.

And single payer is just "stupid". When you take the profit incentive out of medical care, you end up with very limited medical care and waiting lists and rationing follows.

We don't need to guess what happens. Virtually the entire developed world other than the US has single payer. The result is higher quality care, far better access to health care and far lower costs. That isn't something we need to speculate about at this point, it is just a measurable fact.
 
That is how all insurance pools work not just the ACA's. Young and "healthy" people get sick and injured all the time yet they game the system knowing they can't be turned away if the unthinkable happens. That's why we have the mandate. Ending pre-existing conditions requires that everyone be insured too.

The young and healthy have been getting sticker shock since obamacare passed. They had never expected insurance premiums to cost more then monthy car payments and mortgage payments. Yes I know about risk pools, however prior to obamacare, the risk was spread based on common sense. If you had bad habits such as smoking or heavy drinking, obesity, etc, you and others in your category shared the brunt of the risk. That's why health insurance companies offered lower rates for those with less bad habits.
 
Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?

You see, can kicking governments forget the negative legacy may backfire, in this case as the dues, as they say, come due, there will be pressure for change. This is the first chance since "You can keep your plan" for Americans to make their wishes known to a presidential candidate. If Obamacare does NOT become a major issue in this run, the Republicans do not deserve to be a political party.

In the meantime, were I a GOP candidate I would be talking about "reforming" it in "fairness" from the core out, as opposed to repealing it, as "the way it was has now become unacceptable". They will have to have a well defined and well thought out alternative.

You are correct. The employer mandate does not kick in for midsized employers until 2016. The moron president(Obama) will be in office until late Januiary 2017, however his leftwing soul mates in the democrat party will be the ones who will have to face the voters. And you are right...the GOP will have to unify around a well defined and well thought out option if they are motivated to repeal obamacare. The need to stop running from their own shadows as they did in the lead up to the latest supreme court decision.
 
Either that, or we are just way more informed than you are. Which do you think is more likely?

I am sure that is what you think but as we have seen liberals have zero credibility for results don't matter and are trumped by feel good rhetoric. I am a reformed liberal as I got tired of spending in the name of compassion and never getting compassionate results. You see, you think with your heart, judge everyone else by your own standards, and ignore the reality that there is evil in the world and even in the liberal ranks, evil looking to line their own pockets by keeping people dependent. without dependence there wouldn't be a need for liberalism.

If you truly believe in what you post please tell us all how having a 18.2 trillion dollar debt, over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance(excluding SS and Medicare), having a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. is compassionate? You see, liberal arrogance means spending more on compassionate programs whereas the other compassionate liberals didn't spend the money right in the first place.
 
I agree it will continue to be a hot potato, but rather than have the ACA rescinded and going back, it will be replaced or parts amended so that you move closer, not further away, to a single payer system. Your Supreme Court, in its two political rulings that ignored the constitution, has set in stone that you will not go back. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, which I hope happens, Republicans will own the problem.

The US Supreme Court Rulings have not set obamacare in stone. They merely prevented it's death by lawsuits. If the republicans maintain control of congress and elect a republican president, they can repeal obamacare. The court's decision does not prevent that. And the vast majority of Americans do not want a single payer system.
 
Actually, no, it has been confirmed by dozens of sources at this point.



In what regard? 15 million more people have access to healthcare. That doesn't even register with you as a big success? Costs have been rising more slowly, people with pre-existing conditions are no longer screwed, the deficit has been reduced... None of the Republican predictions have come true- not one.



We don't need to guess what happens. Virtually the entire developed world other than the US has single payer. The result is higher quality care, far better access to health care and far lower costs. That isn't something we need to speculate about at this point, it is just a measurable fact.

Only in the liberal world can you add millions and millions to the roles of the insured many of whom have health issues, drug problems, and other issues and lower costs. That is liberal logic and is why we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt
 
Kasich has made the moral case for embracing the ACA's Medicaid expansion. That's got to be a tough sell in a GOP primary.

In the primaries four years ago Rick Perry got himself into trouble by supporting compassion for immigrant children and charging that opponents of DREAM-esqe legislation are heartless ("If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart."). That didn't go over well with the base, as I recall.

Kasich has arguably gone further, implying opponents of Obama's Medicaid expansion are going to hell: "Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer." How are the poor-bashing, ACA-despising ogres in the base going to like it when he holds a mirror up to them?

Greetings, Greenbeard. :2wave:

He has already taken heat from the party bigwigs for daring to accept Federal money to help Medicaid recipients, but the people in Ohio agreed with him since it's not their fault! He has brought jobs here, and being a "rust-belt" State, that was very welcome and appreciated. He would have had to raise our taxes otherwise, but since the money was available from the federal government to help the poor pay for insurance, why not take it? We don't cut off our nose to spite our face around here for political reasons, and the "ACA-despising ogres" can take a flying leap! The ACA is the law of the land, and if it's here to stay, so be it! If it's not, time will tell, but the poor are being helped in the meantime!

I do know that he is so well thought of on how well he has governed our State that he carried 86 out of 88 counties in the midterms. He is trusted by both parties, because he is honest with us. If he tells us he hopes to accomplish something, we know it will be beneficial for all of us, and we all back him. I knew I approved of the job he has done, but even I was blown away by the results of the mid-term votes when I saw proof of how many other Ohioans felt the same way!
 
You are correct. The employer mandate does not kick in for midsized employers until 2016.

That's a roundabout way of saying it's already been in effect for 100+ million employees and will be in effect for the remaining 7-8 million within a few months. What a looming catastrophe!
 
Yet the only candidate the GOP can put up with a ghost of a chance against her is unlikely to make it through the hustings, even if he manages to lose his last name in the process..

As if you have the foggiest clue who does or does not have a chance against Hillary.
 
The GOP remains hellbent on electoral suicide, and the Democrat voter base is "stupid"? (why the " " ?)

Considering the fact that the GOP now controls the house, the senate, and the majority of the state legislatures, largely due to obamacare, I am quite amused that you think it's the republican party that is hellbent on electoral suicide.
 
Actually, no, it has been confirmed by dozens of sources at this point.

False.



In what regard? 15 million more people have access to healthcare. That doesn't even register with you as a big success? Costs have been rising more slowly, people with pre-existing conditions are no longer screwed, the deficit has been reduced... None of the Republican predictions have come true- not one.

Not when you consider that tens of millions more people now have health insurance that they cannot afford to use. And the 15 million more insured number is bogus anyway.


We don't need to guess what happens. Virtually the entire developed world other than the US has single payer. The result is higher quality care, far better access to health care and far lower costs. That isn't something we need to speculate about at this point, it is just a measurable fact.

Lower costs, yes, however the rest is 100% false.
 
I am sure that is what you think but as we have seen liberals have zero credibility for results don't matter and are trumped by feel good rhetoric. I am a reformed liberal as I got tired of spending in the name of compassion and never getting compassionate results. You see, you think with your heart, judge everyone else by your own standards, and ignore the reality that there is evil in the world and even in the liberal ranks, evil looking to line their own pockets by keeping people dependent. without dependence there wouldn't be a need for liberalism.

If you truly believe in what you post please tell us all how having a 18.2 trillion dollar debt, over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer assistance(excluding SS and Medicare), having a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. is compassionate? You see, liberal arrogance means spending more on compassionate programs whereas the other compassionate liberals didn't spend the money right in the first place.

This is where the "more informed" part comes in handy. The economy has consistently grow dramatically faster under Democrats, and in fact, most the worst offenders on the debt have been Republicans.

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by the Party Controlling the Federal Government
 
False.

Not when you consider that tens of millions more people now have health insurance that they cannot afford to use. And the 15 million more insured number is bogus anyway.

I mean, I am aware that Fox did a few segments where they interviewed people with horror stories about the ACA, but did you not hear that those turned out to be fake? Look at the statistics, don't just go off things you hear on Fox. Fox is just pretend.
 
Only in the liberal world can you add millions and millions to the roles of the insured many of whom have health issues, drug problems, and other issues and lower costs. That is liberal logic and is why we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt

Not to be overly blunt, but the problem is conservatives just don't think hard enough. You settle for the easy, catchy-sounding answer without really looking into things. That's why you guys always get everything wrong.

In fact, more people having access to healthcare does cost less. That happens because it is far, far, far cheaper to treat things up front before they become catastrophic. We were not just letting those people with health problems die before. What we were doing is denying them care until they were on death's door, then dumping insane amounts of money trying to fix problems, many of which could have been fixed for 1% of less of the cost if they'd been to a doctor 2 years earlier.
 
Only in the liberal world can you add millions and millions to the roles of the insured many of whom have health issues, drug problems, and other issues and lower costs. That is liberal logic and is why we have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt

Rather it is 'conservative' beliefs with little basis in reality.
 
This is where the "more informed" part comes in handy. The economy has consistently grow dramatically faster under Democrats, and in fact, most the worst offenders on the debt have been Republicans.

Which Party Is Better for the Economy?
Change in Debt as a Percentage of GDP by the Party Controlling the Federal Government

Looks like nothing is going to change your mind and you will always buy what you are told and will always been a closet socialist. Admit who you are!!!

When I see people like you I see people who are civics and economic challenged. Apparently you don't understand that we have a Congress and a President, Presidents make requests and Congress makes the laws. Posting bs like you just did serves no purpose other than to show that Gruber was right in describing the Democrat voter. Which party is better for the economy is determined by leadership and who is in charge of Congress. You will always ignore the GOP Congress in 2004-2006 and the Democrat Congress in 2007-2011. You will ignore the Reagan leadership working with Congress and the Obama arrogance. You will ignore the GOP Congress from 1995-2000 and the Contract with America which Clinton signed 60% of.

Debt as a percentage of GDP means exactly what? You really don't understand the private sector economy at all nor the reality of debt service. In your world 1.7 trillion in debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy is much worse than a 7.6 trillion dollar debt on a 17. trillion dollar economy because the percentage change is lower. How much debt service do the taxpayers pay on those two numbers??

Keep proving what most of us know, liberals have no understanding of economic numbers or civics.
 
Looks like nothing is going to change your mind and you will always buy what you are told and will always been a closet socialist. Admit who you are!!!

When I see people like you I see people who are civics and economic challenged. Apparently you don't understand that we have a Congress and a President, Presidents make requests and Congress makes the laws. Posting bs like you just did serves no purpose other than to show that Gruber was right in describing the Democrat voter. Which party is better for the economy is determined by leadership and who is in charge of Congress. You will always ignore the GOP Congress in 2004-2006 and the Democrat Congress in 2007-2011. You will ignore the Reagan leadership working with Congress and the Obama arrogance. You will ignore the GOP Congress from 1995-2000 and the Contract with America which Clinton signed 60% of.

Here is GDP growth incorporating control of Congress, all the way back to 1930:

48.gif

gdp by party

Any other excuses you want to try out?

Debt as a percentage of GDP means exactly what? You really don't understand the private sector economy at all nor the reality of debt service. In your world 1.7 trillion in debt on a 5.6 trillion dollar economy is much worse than a 7.6 trillion dollar debt on a 17. trillion dollar economy because the percentage change is lower. How much debt service do the taxpayers pay on those two numbers??

Yes, of course debt that is a smaller percentage of GDP is less bad. Duh. That's what determines how hard it would be to pay off, how much that debt service stings, etc. That you never learned that, and apparently never gave it enough thought to realize even something that obvious, belies all your ranting about how you think other people don't know about economics...
 
Here is GDP growth incorporating control of Congress, all the way back to 1930:

48.gif

gdp by party

Any other excuses you want to try out?



Yes, of course debt that is a smaller percentage of GDP is less bad. Duh. That's what determines how hard it would be to pay off, how much that debt service stings, etc. That you never learned that, and apparently never gave it enough thought to realize even something that obvious, belies all your ranting about how you think other people don't know about economics...

No what is hard is paying off an 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy. Obama has added almost as much debt as Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush combined but that reality escapes ideologues who buy the leftwing rhetoric. Debt as a smaller percentage of GDP in a private sector economy is irrelevant for what matters is the debt service which today is the fourth largest budget item.

Please don't go there as it shows complete ignorance and before you start again the fiscal year 2009 budget was signed by Obama in March 2009 thus when you sign a budget you accept responsibility for that budget.

You want to try and for the first time with any liberal be honest for a change? You voted for an incompetent and to prop him up you provide meaningless numbers.
 
It is time for the rubber to meet the road and for liberals to actually truly come out of the closet and actually admit that they are socialists and against the founding principles that this country was built on. I make no excuses for being a conservative and here are the values that I find to be driving principles. How about it, liberals, tell us which of these are extreme and radical which is a common term from liberals? I await your answer

Heritage Alliance: Checklist for Conservative Principles Guiding Legislation
 
No what is hard is paying off an 18.2 trillion dollar debt on a 17.5 trillion dollar economy.

Would it be easier if the GDP was $40t instead of $17.5t? Would it be harder if the GDP was $5t? Are you seriously taking the position that it would not?

Debt as a smaller percentage of GDP in a private sector economy is irrelevant for what matters is the debt service which today is the fourth largest budget item.

I don't get why you keep repeating "in a private sector economy." Why do you think that detail is relevant? The GDP determines how big of a deal debt is in every kind of economy...
 
tuhaybey;1064763157]Would it be easier if the GDP was $40t instead of $17.5t? Would it be harder if the GDP was $5t? Are you seriously taking the position that it would not?

You don't understand the economy at all. The govt. spends money and creates debt. The private sector creates wealth and taxes are paid on that wealth.

I don't get why you keep repeating "in a private sector economy." Why do you think that detail is relevant? The GDP determines how big of a deal debt is in every kind of economy...

Because you don't understand it and hopefully one of these days you will study it and understand how it works. GDP is made up of four components, figure them out and get back to me. Obama took over and economy that was 14.7 trillion dollars and it is now 17.5 trillion or 2.8 trillion in almost 7 years. Of that GDP Govt. there is the 842 billion dollar stimulus that was to create taxpayers but all it did was create debt. Bush took over an economy that was 10.2 trillion and left it at 14.7 trillion, 4.5 trillion in 8 years.

Truth or fiction-Obama took over with 142 million working Americans, two years after the stimulus there were 139 million working Americans.

Truth of fiction-Obama took over an economy that was under Democrat control and leadership and he was part of that Congress before taking office?

Truth or fiction-Bush had 16 million unemployed/discouraged during his term?

Truth or fiction-the 2009 budget was signed by President Bush?

Truth or fiction-the TARP program was 700 billion and Bush spent 350 billion of it which was paid back with interest but not credited against the deficit?

Let's see how honest and knowledgeable you are
 
Yeah, go figure. Maybe you reactionaries are so far out on the Right that yer policy preferences just can't be enacted. That's life in a democracy, I guess.

What's a "yer"? A year? a you? You better get a new keyboard, or make sure your not missing a few fingers!
 
Back
Top Bottom