• 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]

ObamacareFail said:
Start with repealing Obamacare. The goal should have been to make health insurance better...not worse. Obamacare has made it horribly worse.
Click to expand...

OK, so the great idea from the right wing is to go back to the incredibly flawed system that cost double the rest of the world and left 10s of million UNinsured, and 10s of millions more with inadequate insurance that would fail as soon as they actually needed actual insurance, and cost double the rest of the world..... That's why I don't vote for the GOP anymore.
 
TurtleDude said:
that has been the argument against the Courts rolling back the unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause from the FDR regime. Professor Steven Calabresi (NW Law school-a Scalia Disciple) noted at the University of Cincinnati Taft Lecture in the Fall of 2012 that Scalia and other "Faint hearted originalists" admit that most of the new deal was unconstitutional but also claim that ND jurisprudence has been around too long to overrule it. I am sure that a real conservative court may do the same thing with Obama care in say a decade.

one advantages the left has is that "conservative" justices tend to be loathe to overturn existing-even if clearly unconstitutional-precedent
Click to expand...

In another decade it will be even tougher to bring it down. Plus if Hillary wins next year there is good chance she can turn a right leaning to a left leaning court.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Be my guest. However taxes are not unconstitutional,.
Click to expand...

Lots of people disagree, and how does one determine this? If you look to the courts, then taxes are constitutional, but if you look to the courts so were both decisions made last week. Either the Constitutionality of something is determined by the SC or it's not. If it's not, then I don't see why we don't get to pick and choose what we decide is or is not. Like a laundry list. "I don't like it, or disagree with the SC on that issue, so, it must be unconsitutional and I don't have to follow it!!" That's what you suggested, and I'm just playing by the same rules.
 
pbrauer said:
In another decade it will be even tougher to bring it down. Plus if Hillary wins next year there is good chance she can turn a right leaning to a left leaning court.
Click to expand...

you already have a left leaning court. the four democrats always vote for the Administration and 2 of the "right wingers" actually aren't constrained by the party that appointed them
 
ObamacareFail said:
Every developed nation with any version of single payer also has waiting lists and rationing. And it's not cheaper. It merely costs the government less, because the government is providing less. And the results are not better.
Click to expand...

So, you have spent about zero time actually investigating healthcare in the rest of the world. Thanks for confirming that.

We have waiting lists and rationing. If you're poor, you don't GET ON any waiting list.

It is cheaper. We spend 16-17% of GDP government and private expenditures. The world average is about 8-9%, and the next most expensive is roughly 12-13. And our governments (state and Fed) spend more than many industrialized countries with universal care. Only difference is individuals in the U.S. spend FAR more, on top of already large government expenditures.

And the results are outstanding. Better on many measures, worse on others. Generally we're terrible at chronic illness that afflict by far the most people, but we do better on acute illnesses like some cancers and the very highest end treatments. It's a trade off like the rest of life.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so the great idea from the right wing is to go back to the incredibly flawed system that cost double the rest of the world and left 10s of million UNinsured, and 10s of millions more with inadequate insurance that would fail as soon as they actually needed actual insurance, and cost double the rest of the world..... That's why I don't vote for the GOP anymore.
Click to expand...
Our insurance rates are still double the rest of the world and there are still millions without insurance. For me, my rates didn't go up that much, my deductible did and that is far, far worse. Now I am paying higher rates and basically paying for everything out of pocket anyway. The old way, while hardly good, is preferable
 
TurtleDude said:
you already have a left leaning court. the four democrats always vote for the Administration and 2 of the "right wingers" actually aren't constrained by the party that appointed them
Click to expand...

All these supposed liberal victories came thanks to republicans on the court. Not sure why democrats feel so threatened by GOP nominees.
 
Fletch said:
All these supposed liberal victories came thanks to republicans on the court. Not sure why democrats feel so threatened by GOP nominees.
Click to expand...

GOP appointees tend to become seduced by the power of government--Liberals were already seduced when they were appointed
 
Conservative said:
You and your belief that healthcare is a Federal Responsibility. You have been indoctrinated well.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the vehicles for the coverage expansion, those were designed to be at the state level (Medicaid is a state program and exchanges were intended to be as well). Now events and experience have proven that the feds are much better equipped to do this than the states, but that's been a somewhat unexpected finding. See this thread: Time to end the state-based exchange experiment?

As for reforming care itself, much of that is happening at the state level as well:State Innovation Models Initiative.

So, duly noted.
 
TurtleDude said:
you already have a left leaning court. the four democrats always vote for the Administration and 2 of the "right wingers" actually aren't constrained by the party that appointed them
Click to expand...

It was a right leaning court who not only agreed to Citizens United, but expanded it into law. It wouldn't be so bad if they said controbutions must be divulged, but today we don't know if those donarions came from Lower Slobbovia.
 
TurtleDude said:
GOP appointees tend to become seduced by the power of government--Liberals were already seduced when they were appointed
Click to expand...

Agreed. And the Obamacare decision doesn't bother me that much. The court already ruled it was constitutional, so I get why they didn't want to get in the middle of this mess. What happens to Obamacare is up to the voters. If it is as horrible as it seems, the voters will elect people to repeal it. I think the courts original opinion on it was horrible, but it is what it is.
 
pbrauer said:
It was a right leaning court who not only agreed to Citizens United, but expanded it into law. It wouldn't be so bad if they said controbutions must be divulged, but today we don't know if those donarions came from Lower Slobbovia.
Click to expand...

given the GOP has a 5 person edge, the court sure has issued lots of clearly leftist decisions. remind me when a Democrat majority ruled against the Democrat administration so many times
 
Fletch said:
Agreed. And the Obamacare decision doesn't bother me that much. The court already ruled it was constitutional, so I get why they didn't want to get in the middle of this mess. What happens to Obamacare is up to the voters. If it is as horrible as it seems, the voters will elect people to repeal it. I think the courts original opinion on it was horrible, but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

that is a good point
 
pbrauer said:
It was a right leaning court who not only agreed to Citizens United, but expanded it into law. It wouldn't be so bad if they said controbutions must be divulged, but today we don't know if those donarions came from Lower Slobbovia.
Click to expand...

I think that is the proper standard going forward. Anyone should be able to contribute whatever they want to whoever they want. But every penny should be disclosed. That way if some billionaire is funding my candidacy, everyone will know. Those who are bothered by it can vote for my opponent.
 
Fletch said:
Our insurance rates are still double the rest of the world and there are still millions without insurance. For me, my rates didn't go up that much, my deductible did and that is far, far worse. Now I am paying higher rates and basically paying for everything out of pocket anyway. The old way, while hardly good, is preferable
Click to expand...

Most definitely, if there were an option on the table to just lock things in exactly how they were before the ACA, with the prices and deductibles never going up, that would be, by far, everybody's first choice. But that option isn't on the table. What was happening before the ACA was the cost of health care doubling every 7 years even after adjusting for inflation. So, you can't compare what you have now to what you had before the ACA with what you would have today without the ACA. So, the ACA passed a little over 5 years ago. So, today, if the ACA had not passed, you'd be paying about 80% more (or getting 55% less benefits) than you were before the ACA passed. Would that be better or worse than what you have today?
 
tuhaybey said:
Most definitely, if there were an option on the table to just lock things in exactly how they were before the ACA, with the prices and deductibles never going up, that would be, by far, everybody's first choice. But that option isn't on the table. What was happening before the ACA was the cost of health care doubling every 7 years even after adjusting for inflation. So, you can't compare what you have now to what you had before the ACA with what you would have today without the ACA. So, the ACA passed a little over 5 years ago. So, today, if the ACA had not passed, you'd be paying about 80% more (or getting 55% less benefits) than you were before the ACA passed. Would that be better or worse than what you have today?
Click to expand...
I don't buy your numbers. Rates have risen more slowly, but deductible have grown. And deductibles are the real killer
 
Fletch said:
I think that is the proper standard going forward. Anyone should be able to contribute whatever they want to whoever they want. But every penny should be disclosed. That way if some billionaire is funding my candidacy, everyone will know. Those who are bothered by it can vote for my opponent.
Click to expand...

The reason why the right leading organizations wanted 501c4 status was because they wanted donations to be anonymous. They could have tax-exempt status without certification, but that would not have attracted as many doners.
 
pbrauer said:
The reason why the right leading organizations wanted 501c4 status was because they wanted donations to be anonymous. They could have tax-exempt status without certification, but that would not have attracted as many doners.
Click to expand...

How many votes do those evil billionaires and corporations have? What you are saying is that Gruber was right, that the American electorate is stupid for how else does the rich buy votes but of course the left is good at this as well. Railing against the rich gives the voter little credit for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Maybe it is just leftwing propaganda that should be displayed??
 
Fletch said:
Our insurance rates are still double the rest of the world and there are still millions without insurance. For me, my rates didn't go up that much, my deductible did and that is far, far worse. Now I am paying higher rates and basically paying for everything out of pocket anyway. The old way, while hardly good, is preferable
Click to expand...

I can't address your situation. Assuming it's true, I have no way to tie the increase in the deducible to the ACA, especially if it's through an employer. What we do know is the increase in rates OVERALL has been slower pre and post ACA than the previous decade. Most of the folks with large increases in rates had low limit or very limited insurance, and that's a clear downside of the ACA that those policies are gone, but what we don't hear about are the folks whose insurance would have tapped out and quit paying but will now take care of them through and post a cancer diagnosis or a heart attack, bypass and the rehab. Not to mention the millions who can actually get treatment for their health problems that could only before wait till the problem was critical and get it addressed in ER. So whether the old way is preferable depends on your health, insured status, etc.
 
tuhaybey said:
Just re-read my post and see if you can tell where you got mixed up:

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.
Click to expand...


I repeat. The left's suggestion that anyone at all was denied healthcare is an "outright bald face lie". There was no question that everyone who needed treatment received treatment and also had options outside of the ER. And the "less cost" chant is also misleading. The one and only reason for less overall spending on healthcare is that millions of the insured now stuck with massively expensive premiums and massively high deductibles can no longer afford to take advantage of their health insurance. One of obamacare's biggest proponents Ezekial Emannuel was a guest on CSPAN this morning. And after getting beseiged with callers (even one democrat) complaining to him about the high premiums and average deductibles of $6000.00, he so much as admitted that obamacare at this time operates like a very expensive catastrophic health insurance policy and that needed to be fixed. He attempted to put lipstick on it, but few were buying it. Obamacare is an unmitigated failure and a serious albatross around the necks of the democrat party. The sooner you work that out, the better for your credibility.
 
JasperL said:
I can't address your situation. Assuming it's true, I have no way to tie the increase in the deducible to the ACA, especially if it's through an employer. What we do know is the increase in rates OVERALL has been slower pre and post ACA than the previous decade. Most of the folks with large increases in rates had low limit or very limited insurance, and that's a clear downside of the ACA that those policies are gone, but what we don't hear about are the folks whose insurance would have tapped out and quit paying but will now take care of them through and post a cancer diagnosis or a heart attack, bypass and the rehab. Not to mention the millions who can actually get treatment for their health problems that could only before wait till the problem was critical and get it addressed in ER. So whether the old way is preferable depends on your health, insured status, etc.
Click to expand...
Rate increases are slower. What about deductible increases? Any figures on those in the last 6 years?
 
JasperL said:
Single payer doesn't take the "profit incentive" out of medical care. You're confusing single payer with socialized medicine. Most single payer systems rely on or are entirely served by private, for profit providers, same as exists in the U.S. and all the profit seeking providers who serve Medicare patients. Single payer just shifts who pays, and frankly I couldn't care less whether my insurers is BCBS or Medicare, and neither does my 85yo mother in law who's getting a total hip in a few weeks....
Click to expand...

When the government is the one writing the checks for all practical purposes, it is socialism and it does take the profit motive away. And under a single payer system, the government sets the prices. All the private providers can do is petition the government for increases in rates.

And we have tons of rationing now and we had more of it pre-ACA. We rationed by what kind of job you had, how much it paid, and whether your employer provided healthcare benefits. Medical care is limited, and VERY expensive, so the only question is HOW we are going to ration it and by how much.
Click to expand...

I really have nothing against you and no desire to insult you. However your attempt to broaden the definition of rationing to all commerce is ludicrous. And in doing so, you shoot down your own argument. We are a capitalist nation. Socialized medicine will not work here. The rationing I speak of is rationing based on availability, not cost. When government bean counters make the decisions they limit the availability of high tech diagnostic equipment and doctors. Under single payer, the government would decide how much a doctor or hospital can be reimbursed for your care. The US government is already reimbursing doctors that treat medicare patients at a rate lower then the actual cost of treating them. That is resulting in more and more doctors refusing medicare patients. Tell me why you think they would not do the same in a single payer system.
 
Conservative said:
How many votes do those evil billionaires and corporations have? What you are saying is that Gruber was right, that the American electorate is stupid for how else does the rich buy votes but of course the left is good at this as well. Railing against the rich gives the voter little credit for knowing the difference between right and wrong. Maybe it is just leftwing propaganda that should be displayed??
Click to expand...

Why is it that you didn't address one word of my post?
 
pbrauer said:
Why is it that you didn't address one word of my post?
Click to expand...

You ought to be clearer then in your posts because that is exactly what I did, respond to your issue regarding Citizens United, buying votes, and the ignorance of the Democrat Electorate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom