• 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]

Actually we helped Greece along with the housing bubble crash. But, I have no trouble with the federal government handling things too big for states.

Yep the Federal Govt has no problem helping the people of Po-dunk TX or any other community by spending in the name of compassion more than the cost of actual compassion. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance.
 
Yep the Federal Govt has no problem helping the people of Po-dunk TX or any other community by spending in the name of compassion more than the cost of actual compassion. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the substance.

Define compassion? Is it more compassionate to provide access to care or to let then suffer absent care?
 
Define compassion? Is it more compassionate to provide access to care or to let then suffer absent care?

Of course you do because you buy the rhetoric that the Federal Govt. can do it cheaper and better when history shows that never to be the case. I understand liberal compassion as it is thinking with the heart instead of the brain. Social problems under which healthcare falls are state and local responsibilities yet you believe a govt. that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt can do it better this time when they have failed in the past.
 
Of course you do because you buy the rhetoric that the Federal Govt. can do it cheaper and better when history shows that never to be the case. I understand liberal compassion as it is thinking with the heart instead of the brain. Social problems under which healthcare falls are state and local responsibilities yet you believe a govt. that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt can do it better this time when they have failed in the past.

I asked you a question. Can you answer it?
 
Yes, compassion is generating positive results from compassionate spending and actually solving a social problem making the problem go away

Do y0ou think that is cheap? What is the social problem here?
 
Do y0ou think that is cheap? What is the social problem here?

Nothing is cheap, but that is the problem with liberals, always throwing money at the problem never with strings attached, strings that don't cost a dime but rather are nothing more than personal responsibility. The social problem here are people like you who want a massive federal entitlement program to solve a healthcare problem that could be corrected by focusing on the real problem which is waste, fraud, abuse, lawsuits, portability, and the uninsurable, not simply insuring people to give them access.
 
Nothing is cheap, but that is the problem with liberals, always throwing money at the problem never with strings attached, strings that don't cost a dime but rather are nothing more than personal responsibility. The social problem here are people like you who want a massive federal entitlement program to solve a healthcare problem that could be corrected by focusing on the real problem which is waste, fraud, abuse, lawsuits, portability, and the uninsurable, not simply insuring people to give them access.

It's hard responding to mere stereotypes without substance. We work on waste and fraud all the time. There is no such thing as a program that will have no waste or fraud. It's a continual problem, but one everyone is in fact working on. While there is some issue with lawsuits, laws to hinder them have not had any real effect on cost, see Texas. And ACA address the portibility and the uninsurability issues. So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue.
 
It's hard responding to mere stereotypes without substance. We work on waste and fraud all the time. There is no such thing as a program that will have no waste or fraud. It's a continual problem, but one everyone is in fact working on. While there is some issue with lawsuits, laws to hinder them have not had any real effect on cost, see Texas. And ACA address the portibility and the uninsurability issues. So, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue.

Waste and fraud are reduced when people have their own "skin in the game" so simply throwing money at the problem because it gains people access is nothing more than a feel good action that never solves a social problem. Until people are held accountable for their actions and take ownership of their own personal responsibility issues all govt. programs are going to do is create more dependence.

Liberals have been working on social problems for decades, spending trillions to try and create eternal life when the answer lies in simple logic and common sense, allow people to take care of their own personal responsibility issues through tax cuts or welfare payments and not simply creating another entitlement program. The only thing that has come out of all that spending is more liberal arrogance and debt.
 
Waste and fraud are reduced when people have their own "skin in the game" so simply throwing money at the problem because it gains people access is nothing more than a feel good action that never solves a social problem. Until people are held accountable for their actions and take ownership of their own personal responsibility issues all govt. programs are going to do is create more dependence.

Liberals have been working on social problems for decades, spending trillions to try and create eternal life when the answer lies in simple logic and common sense, allow people to take care of their own personal responsibility issues through tax cuts or welfare payments and not simply creating another entitlement program. The only thing that has come out of all that spending is more liberal arrogance and debt.

No, not really. Skin in the game doesn't reduce fraud and abuse. We have this in every walk of life, every business, every commercial engagement, every market place. So you begin with a falsehood.

And people have skin in the game. They need care, they're sick, hurt, injured, suffering, and they pay something. Skin in the game. What the effort here is trying to do is handle a large problem, too large for all individuals, in a collective manner, as this country has always done.
 
No, not really. Skin in the game doesn't reduce fraud and abuse. We have this in every walk of life, every business, every commercial engagement, every market place. So you begin with a falsehood.

And people have skin in the game. They need care, they're sick, hurt, injured, suffering, and they pay something. Skin in the game. What the effort here is trying to do is handle a large problem, too large for all individuals, in a collective manner, as this country has always done.

Yes, it does, since people are going to control their money more than simply having money given to them or benefits given to them. You always point to the truly needy and somehow believe we need a massive entitlement program to take care of them ignoring the millions and millions who are able to take care of their own medical expenses and those eligible for healthcare but choosing not to participate. I employed 1200 people, provided healthcare for all with them paying 80% of the premiums and the employee paid 20%. I didn't pay minimum wage, had an incredible bonus program, and yet 50% chose not to participate. They wanted it totally free. It was their choice, liberals seem to only understand personal choice when it comes to abortion and not other personal responsibility issues.
 
Yes, it does, since people are going to control their money more than simply having money given to them or benefits given to them. You always point to the truly needy and somehow believe we need a massive entitlement program to take care of them ignoring the millions and millions who are able to take care of their own medical expenses and those eligible for healthcare but choosing not to participate. I employed 1200 people, provided healthcare for all with THE COMPANY paying 80% of the premiums and the employee paid 20%. I didn't pay minimum wage, had an incredible bonus program, and yet 50% chose not to participate. They wanted it totally free. It was their choice, liberals seem to only understand personal choice when it comes to abortion and not other personal responsibility issues.

Corrected for accuracy The company paid 80% of the Premiums and the employee was responsible for 20%. Even had part time employees joining the company simply for insurance but the young invincible doesn't think about tomorrow and only cares about today. Why should they be forced to purchase insurance, if they make the wrong choice let them pay the price
 
Yes, it does, since people are going to control their money more than simply having money given to them or benefits given to them. You always point to the truly needy and somehow believe we need a massive entitlement program to take care of them ignoring the millions and millions who are able to take care of their own medical expenses and those eligible for healthcare but choosing not to participate. I employed 1200 people, provided healthcare for all with them paying 80% of the premiums and the employee paid 20%. I didn't pay minimum wage, had an incredible bonus program, and yet 50% chose not to participate. They wanted it totally free. It was their choice, liberals seem to only understand personal choice when it comes to abortion and not other personal responsibility issues.

It's not that simple and being sick or injured is skin. And as noted, most have to pay something for insurance, which is also skin in the game. And that's true no matter what you did or didn't do.
 
It's not that simple and being sick or injured is skin. And as noted, most have to pay something for insurance, which is also skin in the game. And that's true no matter what you did or didn't do.

It is very simple, liberals want to make the simple complicated and do that with just about every issue. Everything is an emergency and that appeals to the heart thus people like you buy the rhetoric which has led us to the 18.2 trillion dollar debt we have today.

You are right, most have to pay something for the insurance but most are subsidized, where do the subsidizes come from. By the way have you read your signature line? Think about it?
 
It is very simple, liberals want to make the simple complicated and do that with just about every issue. Everything is an emergency and that appeals to the heart thus people like you buy the rhetoric which has led us to the 18.2 trillion dollar debt we have today.

You are right, most have to pay something for the insurance but most are subsidized, where do the subsidizes come from. By the way have you read your signature line? Think about it?

I'm not concerned about any rant on liberals or conservatives for that matter. Try to focus on the substance of the issue. No one has argued anything was an emergency. Hell the issue has been worked on and debated for decades. There has been no emergency pushing it through.

And yes, tax dollars are collected from the populace pays for subsides. But everyone has skin in the game, which was what we were talking about. Now, if you wan to move to tax dollars, sure, I can do that. Tax dollars help us work together to solve huge problems. Medical care is expensive and too often requires more than the individual, or at least most individuals, will ever be able to handle. Finding a collective way to tackle that is not evil. It's smart, proactive, and better than just dealing with the aftermath of a poorly provided for nation ad hoc, paying far more than any other nation.
 
I'm not concerned about any rant on liberals or conservatives for that matter. Try to focus on the substance of the issue. No one has argued anything was an emergency. Hell the issue has been worked on and debated for decades. There has been no emergency pushing it through.

And yes, tax dollars are collected from the populace pays for subsides. But everyone has skin in the game, which was what we were talking about. Now, if you wan to move to tax dollars, sure, I can do that. Tax dollars help us work together to solve huge problems. Medical care is expensive and too often requires more than the individual, or at least most individuals, will ever be able to handle. Finding a collective way to tackle that is not evil. It's smart, proactive, and better than just dealing with the aftermath of a poorly provided for nation ad hoc, paying far more than any other nation.

You telling me that people receiving a subsidy are more concerned about how the money is spent and the benefits of that spending vs. spending their own money? Wow, you really are naïve and gullible which is why most liberals support ACA. They believe as you do and judge everyone else by their own standards which couldn't be further from the truth. The problem with liberals and people like you is you throw money at the problem in hopes that something sticks. Without identify the costs and solving them you only create greater dependence and do nothing of real benefit for the populace

Please stop comparing this country to other nations. We have been through this. You have no idea what other nations put into their healthcare costs as well as revenue generated to pay for those costs but buy simple headlines. We have been through this before. Why do you believe that the Federal Govt. with its history is going to do a better job with this entitlement program
 
You telling me that people receiving a subsidy are more concerned about how the money is spent and the benefits of that spending vs. spending their own money? Wow, you really are naïve and gullible which is why most liberals support ACA. They believe as you do and judge everyone else by their own standards which couldn't be further from the truth. The problem with liberals and people like you is you throw money at the problem in hopes that something sticks. Without identify the costs and solving them you only create greater dependence and do nothing of real benefit for the populace

Please stop comparing this country to other nations. We have been through this. You have no idea what other nations put into their healthcare costs as well as revenue generated to pay for those costs but buy simple headlines. We have been through this before. Why do you believe that the Federal Govt. with its history is going to do a better job with this entitlement program

I'm saying clearly they have skin in the game. Who cares more has not been measured. Making crude generalizations are not all that helpful.

And again, I'm not arguing for or against liberals or conservatives. Random rants about them are not helpful. And no, I will use whatever comparisons I think make a point
 
Funny. The deductible I got is 1000, and I have a max out of payment for the year to be 6K.

That means, any medical expenses over 6K for the entire year, gets paid for 100%


Friend of mine had a heart attack last year. His hospital bills were way more than that. Because of that, he did not become bankrupt.

That's a good example. The deductibles and copays are serious money to some but the total bill would crush them.
 
Corrected for accuracy The company paid 80% of the Premiums and the employee was responsible for 20%. Even had part time employees joining the company simply for insurance but the young invincible doesn't think about tomorrow and only cares about today. Why should they be forced to purchase insurance, if they make the wrong choice let them pay the price

Of the ~80% or so of people buying insurance in the new marketplaces who qualify for a federal tax credit, the average tax credit covers 72% of the premium in 2015 and the consumer is responsible for 28%. Those plans also have cost-sharing at the point of service, of course, like deductibles, etc.

The average subsidized "Obamacare" shopper has more skin in the game than your employees ever did.
 
I'm saying clearly they have skin in the game. Who cares more has not been measured. Making crude generalizations are not all that helpful.

And again, I'm not arguing for or against liberals or conservatives. Random rants about them are not helpful. And no, I will use whatever comparisons I think make a point

They aren't rants, they are reality of people who think with their heart and not their brain. We don't need ACA to solve the healthcare problem but rather a bipartisan approach that actually solves the problem vs. simply getting people covered. I prefer tax cuts and welfare payments to allow people to buy their own insurance and catastrophic coverage provided to those who truly cannot afford insurance not exchanges, not forced insurance, and certainly not Federal Govt. involvement. This remains a state and local issue tat can be solved without ACA
 
Of the ~80% or so of people buying insurance in the new marketplaces who qualify for a federal tax credit, the average tax credit covers 72% of the premium in 2015 and the consumer is responsible for 28%. Those plans also have cost-sharing at the point of service, of course, like deductibles, etc.

The average subsidized "Obamacare" shopper has more skin in the game than your employees ever did.

Your opinion noted
 
They aren't rants, they are reality of people who think with their heart and not their brain. We don't need ACA to solve the healthcare problem but rather a bipartisan approach that actually solves the problem vs. simply getting people covered. I prefer tax cuts and welfare payments to allow people to buy their own insurance and catastrophic coverage provided to those who truly cannot afford insurance not exchanges, not forced insurance, and certainly not Federal Govt. involvement. This remains a state and local issue tat can be solved without ACA


Run the numbers, and show that works. demonstrate that's enough.
 
Run the numbers, and show that works. demonstrate that's enough.

How do you run numbers on a program that hasn't been fully implemented? All you have seen are the tax increases not many of the costs as the enrollment hasn't been what was expected and much of the numbers are due to the expansion of Medicaid and insuring people already eligible for Medicaid but didn't sign up. What you and others show is that you buy the rhetoric, ignore history, and the costs of Govt. entitlement programs
 
How do you run numbers on a program that hasn't been fully implemented?

Oh.

So the impressive amount of improvement shown already (bent cost curves, plummeting uninsured rate, higher quality of care, stabilized premium costs etc etc) is only going to get BETTER?!?

Thanks, Obama!

(FYI- here, in the real world, we know the law is virtually fully implemented, with the employer mandate which affects only a small number of businesses still not implemented.)
 
What exact improvement since health care costs were lower in 2009 and 2010 I have posted data that refutes your opinions.

Why are people like you so enamored with another federal entitlement program paid for by taxpayers
 
Back
Top Bottom