• 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]

Well, he feels that the ACA is bad.

He doesn't know facts or details, but he feels it in his gut. And we all know, guts are truthier than brains.

This should help us to all better understand how some people get to that place.......

 
Well, he feels that the ACA is bad.

He doesn't know facts or details, but he feels it in his gut. And we all know, guts are truthier than brains.

Since you cannot point to a successful Federal Entitlement program unless you call success being trillions in unfunded liabilities and costs that continue to explode being a success, then nothing you say matters because it is all your opinion ignoring history and reality
 
Since you cannot point to a successful Federal Entitlement program unless you call success being trillions in unfunded liabilities and costs that continue to explode being a success, then nothing you say matters because it is all your opinion ignoring history and reality

Get back to me when you figure out where Quality is in the ACA.

Because your posts are mostly inane boilerplate Conservative blather unrelated to the topic.
 
I will wait for history to provide proof of what I posted. All social programs were created with good intentions but all go astray over time for they are managed by bureaucrats with no incentive to generate quality
 
I will wait for history to provide proof of what I posted. All social programs were created with good intentions but all go astray over time for they are managed by bureaucrats with no incentive to generate quality

There is no incentive for any government official to make these programs work. The incentive is to make them bigger, to make them spend more, and to make people more reliant on government, the exact opposite of what they should be doing.

There should be controls on every single one of these programs to have them expire or be reformed after every few years. Instead, they are open ended and allowed to go on forever, and the worse they get, the harder they are to get rid of. What do you think Social Security would look like if it needed to be renewed every 8 years? I can guarantee it would not be headed for an implosion like it is now.
 
I will wait for history to provide proof of what I posted. All social programs were created with good intentions but all go astray over time for they are managed by bureaucrats with no incentive to generate quality

So you're saying there WAS extensive quality measures put into the ACA?


Dont know why you wouldnt actually type those words.

Or are you sticking with the wingnut fantasy that quality wasnt addressed in Obamacare?
 
I have to believe some here work for the govt. and are here to sell Obamacare and continue to fool some very good people.

And from the vapid endless string of GOP bumper sticker slogans you reel off (apparently without regard for what you're responding to), one might assume you report directly to Reince Priebus

Obamacare hasn't been fully implemented yet but deductibles are increasing, people have lost their plan and their doctors, and taxes have been increased making the program look better than it truly is or will be. The employer mandate hasn't been implemented yet but big govt.

The employer mandate is pending for about 7-8 million employees. The other 100+ million employees it applies to have been living under it for the better part of a year. Society didn't collapse. And apparently folks you didn't even notice it's been implemented for the overwhelming majority.
 
Well, it wasn't simply Republicans that were trying "to spin that as if the ACA cut the budget for Medicare for awhile", it was the CBO in their early estimates of the costs of the PPACA when they wrote:

www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

Of course, the "savings" and "deficit reduction" of the PPACA disappeared as later CBO estimates show. Currently the law will cost $140 billion a year. The "cuts" that were supposed to take place in Medicare were to be cuts in payments but Congress, as most expected, cancelled those cuts. Smoke and Mirrors. Medicare spending actually grew by 25.3% over the past 5 years, which is a greater increase that the 18.9% increase in private insurance and 20.2% increase in overall health care spending.

No, that's what I was saying- it didn't cut the budget for Medicare, it saved Medicare money. The ACA subsidies reduced some of the need for Medicare and so forth.

No, the deficit reduction absolutely did not disappear. For some reason Republicans have been continually claiming that the deficit reduction disappeared, or even that the CBO no longer will reduce the deficit, but that isn't remotely true. In fact, the CBO has confirmed many times, including recently, that it is reducing the deficit. What the Republicans are playing off is confusion about the difference between spending and deficits. Spending was higher than expected, but so were revenues, so it actually reduced the deficits a bit more than the CBO projected.
 
No, because Medicare was underfunded. It has, however, resulted in improved solvency for Medicare...

Medicare Is Not
Medicare, Social Security march toward insolvency | TheHill
Trustees Project An Additional 4 Years Of Solvency For Medicare | Kaiser Health News

... which means you are less likely to have a tax increase...

Since Medicare is on budget and trillions in unfunded liabilities how do you know money wasn't taken from the account? You believe what you are told but your ignorance of governmental accounting is staggering.
 
And from the vapid endless string of GOP bumper sticker slogans you reel off (apparently without regard for what you're responding to), one might assume you report directly to Reince Priebus



The employer mandate is pending for about 7-8 million employees. The other 100+ million employees it applies to have been living under it for the better part of a year. Society didn't collapse. And apparently folks you didn't even notice it's been implemented for the overwhelming majority.

And taking victory laps over something that has been implemented for a year or less is quite interesting. You people are amazing and obviously work for the govt. or Obama because you think you are dealing with the Gruber Democrat. Creating another entitlement program on top of a country 18.2 trillion dollars in debt is absolute insanity but then that is what liberal economics really is, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result
 
Ok, so facts are optional in your world. I knew that. You can see the list of those who qualify here:

https://www.tn.gov/tenncare/article/tenncare-medicaid



Don't like that? Here's the state summary:



The charity has about 70 guys, all of them poor, most of them working. Almost none of them qualify for Medicaid unless they are classified as disabled. So it doesn't matter much what you "buy" that is what the program covers.

I still don't buy it. Your links are not the complete picture. Even before obamacare, those in Tennesee earning 106% of the federal poverty level or lower qualified for medicaid. Any of those guys in your group of 70 that are truly poor qualified for medicaid even before Obamacare. If they still cannot make ends meet, how much a month do they spend on vices like tobacco, booze, recreational use of drugs, etc? You link points out that 1.3 million in the state are covered by medicaid. There population of the state is only around 6.5 million.
 
No, you categorically dismissed studies about healthcare in general. You're dismissing them because you know that studies in general don't support your stance- based on the conclusions they reach, not the way they get there.

What you refuse to accept that unlike you....studies are not my master. You are accepting the studies merely because they agree with your point of view. There are studies that go both ways on any given issue. Healthcare included. I am betting that you are not on board with those that you disagree with.
 
...actually, the PPACA is delivering results in many of the areas promised. Of course the PPACA needs tweaking. All major legislation does. My point, however, was to state its time for the Republicans to realize its here to stay and work to fix what they don't like, as the idea of it ever being repealed is fantasy.

I guarantee you that PPACA is not here to stay. The only question is when it goes. It will either die by repeal or it will fall under it's own weight. As for tweaking, the only tweaking that will make it work, will also in effect repeal it. The mandate to buy insurance will have to go. The employer mandate will have to go. And while some ACA additions such as pre-existing conditions can somehow be worked out, the minimum level of insurance the ACA enforces is batsh*t insane. They will have to lighten up on those requirements and let the insured shop around and decide how much insurance they want to buy.
 
They did not take money from Medicare.... instead, the PPACA mandated reforms in Medicare, namely moving from a pay per services model to a pay for results model, that are to create savings in Medicare. The $726B that was consistently talked about in the last election were that anticipated savings of these reforms.

In your own way, you just tacitly admitted that obamacare did take money from Medicare. It's quite amusing that you are referring to a cutting of funds as savings.
 
And taking victory laps over something that has been implemented for a year or less is quite interesting.

The new markets have been open for nearly two years, but my primary interest is in the improvements to quality and care delivery that have been going on for 4-5 years now. Health care in America has been reinventing itself--for the better--for half a decade now. You might want to tune in at some point.
 
What you refuse to accept that unlike you....studies are not my master. You are accepting the studies merely because they agree with your point of view. There are studies that go both ways on any given issue. Healthcare included. I am betting that you are not on board with those that you disagree with.

I'm a liberal. We pretty much always side with the consensus of the experts in any given area. Conservatives are driven by ideology. Ideology sometimes matches up with the facts and sometimes not. So, sometimes conservatives are on the same side of an issue as the experts and sometimes not. Liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists decide which side of an issue to be on by looking at the facts, the practical effects on the real world, the evidence, etc. So, we pretty much side with the facts and experts. Issues where conservatives align with the experts are not politically controversial. The politically controversial issues are where conservative ideology and practical reality diverge, so on politically controversial issues, liberals always are aligned with the experts and conservatives never are. You haven't noticed that yet?
 
The new markets have been open for nearly two years, but my primary interest is in the improvements to quality and care delivery that have been going on for 4-5 years now. Health care in America has been reinventing itself--for the better--for half a decade now. You might want to tune in at some point.

Not sure if you know....but he doesn't believe 'quality' was part of the ACA.

He doesn't need fancy studied or 'facts' to know this. He knows it from his gut.
 
I still don't buy it. Your links are not the complete picture. Even before obamacare, those in Tennesee earning 106% of the federal poverty level or lower qualified for medicaid. Any of those guys in your group of 70 that are truly poor qualified for medicaid even before Obamacare. If they still cannot make ends meet, how much a month do they spend on vices like tobacco, booze, recreational use of drugs, etc? You link points out that 1.3 million in the state are covered by medicaid. There population of the state is only around 6.5 million.

You don't buy it because your ignorant gut tells you something else. But your gut is wrong. If you don't like my links, find your own that demonstrate a different reality. I won't wait up for that.

If you go here you can find enrollment data. Men age 21-65 are only 10% of the Tenncare population. Kids are 55%, women (these are the pregnant and mostly single mothers) are 27%. The rest are seniors.

And that 145,000 men are either getting SSI, aka disabled and receiving Federal benefits for their disability, or they are single dads or in a low income family with children. There just isn't a category for "poor" - if you're just "poor" you're SOL.

I get it - when I learned this it surprised me too, but what I KNOW is almost none of the guys in our rehab center (they spend $0.00 on alcohol or rec. drugs btw) qualify for Tenncare. They work, earn low wages, get no health benefits from their jobs for the most part, and when they need medical care they go to the ER or the incredibly overburdened two free clinics in the area. I've seen it for years.

And the state covers almost half of all children which you saw in the link, because we're a poor state. And we cover lots of poor women because we are a poor state. Wages are low, and lots of employers don't offer benefits. An employer's dream.
 
I'm a liberal. We pretty much always side with the consensus of the experts in any given area. Conservatives are driven by ideology. Ideology sometimes matches up with the facts and sometimes not. So, sometimes conservatives are on the same side of an issue as the experts and sometimes not. Liberals are pragmatists. Pragmatists decide which side of an issue to be on by looking at the facts, the practical effects on the real world, the evidence, etc. So, we pretty much side with the facts and experts. Issues where conservatives align with the experts are not politically controversial. The politically controversial issues are where conservative ideology and practical reality diverge, so on politically controversial issues, liberals always are aligned with the experts and conservatives never are. You haven't noticed that yet?

It is rather presumptuous to assume that one's fellow-travelers are as committed to expert consensus as you claim you are - I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country and associate with many folks from Berkeley. Unless they represent an unusually ignorant and rare form of liberal, I have yet to run into a single one with a strong and righteous opinion that was also informed by experts. In fact, I find them to be no more informed or rational than the local bar pounders.

Almost to a person they depend on their self-referential myths of the peer group, and various empty platitudes, as their "expertise". In fact, for those that are friends I just let them rant about the poor, the corporations, and various hobgoblins - heaven forbid that we discuss an issue through deductive reasoning or developed moral philosophy. Cliches are the deepest thought they are willing to entertain (I can't even get them to read a critical article in The Atlantic, let alone from a conservative publication).
 
The new markets have been open for nearly two years, but my primary interest is in the improvements to quality and care delivery that have been going on for 4-5 years now. Health care in America has been reinventing itself--for the better--for half a decade now. You might want to tune in at some point.

So it did so without ACA? How can that be? It is you that don't seem to get it and have no problem adding another entitlement program knowing the history of entitlement programs and costs. Oh, wait, costs don't matter nor does quality. MA has done it, Hawaii has done it, but you expect the Federal Govt. to implement a nationwide program all because a small percentage of Americans, many of whom by choice, have elected not to participate. Medicaid has generated most of the enrollments and Medicaid was always there but millions didn't know they qualified. Will you ever think with your brain instead of your heart?
 
Not sure if you know....but he doesn't believe 'quality' was part of the ACA.

He doesn't need fancy studied or 'facts' to know this. He knows it from his gut.

I don't know if you understand that what is written somehow never comes into being with liberal social programs.
 
I don't know if you understand that what is written somehow never comes into being with liberal social programs.

Do you have some Sean Hannity cliche book that you consult for each post, regardless of the topic?

Guess this one was #45 under 'social programs'.
 
Do you have some Sean Hannity cliche book that you consult for each post, regardless of the topic?

Guess this one was #45 under 'social programs'.

No, what I have is bea.gov, bls.gov, and Treasury data and they don't support your claim about either quality or cost, oh, wait, cost doesn't matter to you
 
Back
Top Bottom