• 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]

I'm right already. What's confusing you here?

You say, based on nothing, it'll cost more than promised. I can point to it coming in hundreds of billions dollars below what was promised, not to mention generating hundreds of billions more in savings than anticipated.

You say, based on nothing, it does nothing to improve quality. I can point to numerous leaps in quality it's achieved already.

You're waving your hands and reiterating your bump sticker slogans. I'm pointing to actual results already being achieved. All you talk about is intent, I'm talking about results.

Yes, you believe you are right but what you cannot explain is why we need ACA to correct the healthcare problem in this country. Do you support what MA did? If so why not let the other states do the same thing? You want a federal bureaucracy that has created the current 18.2 trillion dollar debt most of which is due to social engineering. Why doesn't that resonate with you?

Keep spouting the talking points of a program that hasn't been fully implemented and when it is and it fails what say you then? Have you ever admitted being wrong?
 
Yes, you believe you are right but what you cannot explain is why we need ACA to correct the healthcare problem in this country. Do you support what MA did? If so why not let the other states do the same thing?

States are pursuing their own reforms.

State Innovation Models

The ACA is just helping them to finance their reforms. Your perception that this is all-federal, all-the-time is misguided.
 
States are pursuing their own reforms.

State Innovation Models

The ACA is just helping them to finance their reforms. Your perception that this is all-federal, all-the-time is misguided.

You continue to look to the creation of a nanny state. did the federal taxpayers help MA? There is no way you or any other liberal can justify the federal govt. creating another entitlement program for the 50 sovereign states based upon the Constitution and the vision of our Founders. Let's admit it, you want a massive central govt. to do what you cannot get your state to do? Do you get personal gain by having a faceless taxpayer fund your health insurance?
 
First of all, we have millions of jobs that pay poverty wages. If you want to claim that making better decisions can eliminate poverty level jobs and poverty, there is no evidence for that at all. Jane makes better decisions and gets a better job than Walmart cashier. Fantastic! Someone will take her place. And, what? Anyone sitting in that chair taking your money doesn't get healthcare?

Second, yes, it's sort of a given that many of the poor made bad decisions that got them there. And so they don't get healthcare? And should die for lack of care? I don't think you're suggesting that, so other than blaming them for their condition, I'm not sure what the point is.

You are assuming that everyone who works as a cashier at Walmart is living on whatever they make at Walmart. The truth is that most of them are supplementing their spouse's income or putting themselves through school Not everyone who works for minimum wage is stuck there for life. And not every poor person remains poor for life.

Others are poor because they live in poor areas, with crap schools, are functionally illiterate, maybe made a decent living as manufacturing workers or miners etc. until the plant moved to China and have few options, are disabled, mentally or physically, etc.

Well, you can thank the high corporate taxes and the labor unions for the plants that are moved out of the United States. As for the poor areas and crap schools nobody is forced to stay in a poor area or remain functionally illiterate. And while mentally disabled are one thing, many physically disable people live very productive lives. One such disabled person who taught me alot suffered from multiple sclerosis and was wheelchair bound. Yet he was a successful electrical engineer at Teledyne.

And what you said about the picture is they all had access to Medicaid or Medicare and so didn't need to get in line at 1am, camp out, to get seen by a doctor or dentist. You were wrong about that. If not, why did they do it? Because camping out all night is fun? And that we have RAM in Kentucky is evidence of a healthcare system that works as intended? Perhaps to you, not to me.

What I said was that if they are truly poor, they are eligible for medicaid.
 
You are assuming that everyone who works as a cashier at Walmart is living on whatever they make at Walmart. The truth is that most of them are supplementing their spouse's income or putting themselves through school Not everyone who works for minimum wage is stuck there for life. And not every poor person remains poor for life.

So there are no working poor and anybody working full time supporting themselves can afford healthcare? You know that's wrong, I guess.

And it doesn't matter if they're stuck there for life. They are working there NOW, and if they get sick NOW, it's not much good to tell them in 5 years they'll have a good job managing some store if they do everything right.

Well, you can thank the high corporate taxes and the labor unions for the plants that are moved out of the United States. As for the poor areas and crap schools nobody is forced to stay in a poor area or remain functionally illiterate. And while mentally disabled are one thing, many physically disable people live very productive lives. One such disabled person who taught me alot suffered from multiple sclerosis and was wheelchair bound. Yet he was a successful electrical engineer at Teledyne.

That's a nice story. If he's an electrical engineer, his intellect is far above average. Unfortunately this isn't Lake Wobegon, where we can all be above average. I'm not sure what your point is anyway, except it's all their fault. I disagree, but if true, what is your point?

What I said was that if they are truly poor, they are eligible for medicaid.

And I showed that you're wrong about that. Bolding a false, baseless assertion doesn't make it true.

Furthermore the problems of getting healthcare exist far above whatever level you consider "truly poor."
 
So there are no working poor and anybody working full time supporting themselves can afford healthcare? You know that's wrong, I guess.

And it doesn't matter if they're stuck there for life. They are working there NOW, and if they get sick NOW, it's not much good to tell them in 5 years they'll have a good job managing some store if they do everything right.



That's a nice story. If he's an electrical engineer, his intellect is far above average. Unfortunately this isn't Lake Wobegon, where we can all be above average. I'm not sure what your point is anyway, except it's all their fault. I disagree, but if true, what is your point?



And I showed that you're wrong about that. Bolding a false, baseless assertion doesn't make it true.

Furthermore the problems of getting healthcare exist far above whatever level you consider "truly poor."

Do you have any idea how many Texans are eligible for Medicaid and other TX healthcare programs and don't sign up? Do you think we ought to have a bunch of people going door to door and taking people by the hand to get them to sign up for programs already in existence? You think we need ACA to solve the healthcare problem in this country?
 
Do you have any idea how many Texans are eligible for Medicaid and other TX healthcare programs and don't sign up?

No.

Do you think we ought to have a bunch of people going door to door and taking people by the hand to get them to sign up for programs already in existence?

Sounds like a good idea. Probably help out some providers and hospitals to get paid. Health would probably improve.

You think we need ACA to solve the healthcare problem in this country?

Yes. Not the ACA in particular, actually, but some sort of single payer system.

That was a fun Q&A! Thanks.
 
No.



Sounds like a good idea. Probably help out some providers and hospitals to get paid. Health would probably improve.



Yes. Not the ACA in particular, actually, but some sort of single payer system.

That was a fun Q&A! Thanks.

Single Payer system? You believe Medicare is a success? You think SS is a success? Any idea what the costs are to administer those programs? Like most liberal social programs they always sound good, the problem is the devil is in the details and the results.
 
Single Payer system? You believe Medicare is a success? You think SS is a success? Any idea what the costs are to administer those programs? Like most liberal social programs they always sound good, the problem is the devil is in the details and the results.

I know the admin costs in single payer systems are a small fraction of our system with a hospital billing maybe dozens or hundreds of different insurers, different rates negotiated with each one, different billing systems, etc. Bottom line is the rest of the world spends FAR less than we do, and there are no uninsured....
 
So there are no working poor and anybody working full time supporting themselves can afford healthcare? You know that's wrong, I guess.

First, I never claimed that there are not working poor. Second, I did not claim that anybody and everybody who works full time can afford healthcare. And while healthcare reform was needed, the actual number of Americans who cannot afford healthcare has gone up dramatically since obamacare has become the law. Technically, more may be insured, however what's the use of having insurance that you cannot take advantage of?

And it doesn't matter if they're stuck there for life. They are working there NOW, and if they get sick NOW, it's not much good to tell them in 5 years they'll have a good job managing some store if they do everything right.

There is such a thing as applying for medicaid if they are truly poor.



That's a nice story. If he's an electrical engineer, his intellect is far above average. Unfortunately this isn't Lake Wobegon, where we can all be above average. I'm not sure what your point is anyway, except it's all their fault. I disagree, but if true, what is your point?

I have other examples that do not include disabled workers of great intellect, however I suspect that you get the point. That point is that not every disabled person is helpless and many are quite successful if they do not let their handicaps define their lives.


And I showed that you're wrong about that. Bolding a false, baseless assertion doesn't make it true.

Furthermore the problems of getting healthcare exist far above whatever level you consider "truly poor."

And obamacare is making it incredibly worse. However my point still stands. Those who are truly poor do qualify for medicaid.....before and since obamacare.
There are no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" to that point.
 
Last edited:
I know the admin costs in single payer systems are a small fraction of our system with a hospital billing maybe dozens or hundreds of different insurers, different rates negotiated with each one, different billing systems, etc. Bottom line is the rest of the world spends FAR less than we do, and there are no uninsured....

That nails it.

It is not called 'single payer', that's a stupid American invention but you are right, the only uninsured are illegal aliens who get treated and arrested.
 
Bottom line is the rest of the world spends FAR less than we do, and there are no uninsured....

Except they do not include relevant taxes as a cost.
 
No.



Sounds like a good idea. Probably help out some providers and hospitals to get paid. Health would probably improve.



Yes. Not the ACA in particular, actually, but some sort of single payer system.

That was a fun Q&A! Thanks.

Single payer would be even worse then obamacare. Single payer would not be reform. It would be throwing in the towel. And then everyone would learn the word: "Rationing".
 
Single Payer system? You believe Medicare is a success? You think SS is a success? Any idea what the costs are to administer those programs? Like most liberal social programs they always sound good, the problem is the devil is in the details and the results.

The left does not want to hear about such things as costs to the taxpayers. They just one to go on thinking they are getting something for free.
 
I know the admin costs in single payer systems are a small fraction of our system with a hospital billing maybe dozens or hundreds of different insurers, different rates negotiated with each one, different billing systems, etc.

Simply not true. You obviously do not have a clue how bloated and inefficient government beauracracies are. That's why the Veterans Healthcare system is in so much trouble. They are top heavy on administration and lacking in doctors, nurses, clinics, and hospitals. And the medicare system spends more on administration then it does on medical care.



Bottom line is the rest of the world spends FAR less than we do, and there are no uninsured....


The rest of the world also provides less healthcare and in many cases inferior healthcare.
 
First, I never claimed that there are not working poor. Second, I did not claim that anybody and everybody who works full time can afford healthcare. And while healthcare reform was needed, the actual number of Americans who cannot afford healthcare has gone up dramatically since obamacare has become the law. Technically, more may be insured, however what's the use of having insurance that you cannot take advantage of?

Evidence for that?

There is such a thing as applying for medicaid if they are truly poor.

Many who are "truly poor" don't qualify for Medicaid.

I don't really care what you think about the ACA - I know you're opposed. But what you should do is base your opinions on the facts and if you want to keep insisting on that despite me showing you that you're wrong, can you come up with something to support your view?

If not it looks to me like facts just aren't necessary for you - you'll believe what you want, and facts just get in the way of a good ideology.


I have other examples that do not include disabled workers of great intellect, however I suspect that you get the point. That point is that not every disabled person is helpless and many are quite successful if they do not let their handicaps define their lives.

I agree with your point there, but the actual observation is many disabled can be successful, many more cannot. Many of the poor are poor because they made bad decisions, others didn't. And they ALL need healthcare, so what's the point of blaming them in this thread?

And obamacare is making it incredibly worse. However my point still stands. Those who are truly poor do qualify for medicaid.....before and since obamacare.
There are no "ifs", "ands", or "buts" to that point.

There are actually quite a few "ifs" ands and buts to that last point. I've shown you who qualifies in Tennessee and "poor" isn't actually a category on its own. Poor AND pregnant? Yes. Poor AND disabled, yes. Poor AND taking care of minor childrent, yes. Poor? No.

If you think I'm wrong, Google is your friend. But it's tiring arguing against "my gut tells me your FACTS are wrong."
 
Except they do not include relevant taxes as a cost.

Yes, "they" do.

US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg
 
The left does not want to hear about such things as costs to the taxpayers. They just one to go on thinking they are getting something for free.

Which costs? I've looked at costs which is how I know admin costs are very high here. And I know healthcare isn't free.
 
I know the admin costs in single payer systems are a small fraction of our system with a hospital billing maybe dozens or hundreds of different insurers, different rates negotiated with each one, different billing systems, etc. Bottom line is the rest of the world spends FAR less than we do, and there are no uninsured....

What you know are opinions and biased ones at that. Billing is not the major part of the problem waste, fraud, and abuse are much more significant. What is it going to take for you to realize that the Federal Govt. is not the answer to the healthcare issue and never will be with any social issue?

You base your opinions mostly on what the rest of the world does. This isn't like the rest of the world. How do you know what they put into healthcare costs?
 
That literally does not show the taxes.

I'm not playing with trolls. If you want to present data showing the "relevant taxes" then do so. Otherwise I have better things to do than play word games with you.

The "relevant taxes" for healthcare spending are equal to (or less than in the case of deficits) public spending on healthcare.
 
If you want to present data showing the "relevant taxes" then do so.

You disagree that there are taxes specifically for the healthcare?
 
What you know are opinions and biased ones at that. Billing is not the major part of the problem waste, fraud, and abuse are much more significant. What is it going to take for you to realize that the Federal Govt. is not the answer to the healthcare issue and never will be with any social issue?

You base your opinions mostly on what the rest of the world does. This isn't like the rest of the world. How do you know what they put into healthcare costs?

I've looked at a number of estimates from a variety of sources, expressed as PPP or % of GDP or nominal spending adjusted for different currencies. The pictures look the same no matter how it's done.

If you have other data, please show it.
 
It was smart of you quit, especially since you lack the ability to understand how taxes are used for funding.
 
Back
Top Bottom