• 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]

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

No rants. Sorry. And you haven't been specific enough. How?
 
LOL.

Hates Obamacare.

Doesn't understand the relationship between Obamacare and the ACA.


You don't seem to get it at all. Yes, I do hate Obamacare(ACA) because it violates every principle of personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor but ACA should have nothing to do with Medicare as that program is for retirees. It does seem to me that you have no idea what Medicare is
 
What the hell does ACA have to do with Medicare?

See virtually every bullet of "policies [that] have contributed to the Medicare spending growth slowdown" directly above your question? Those are all from Title III of the ACA ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care"). Except the bullet about better fraud enforcement, that's Title VI of the ACA ("Transparency and Program Integrity").

What does the ACA have to do with Medicare? It's one of the largest Medicare reforms ever passed.
 
You don't seem to get it at all. Yes, I do hate Obamacare(ACA) because it violates every principle of personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor but ACA should have nothing to do with Medicare as that program is for retirees. It does seem to me that you have no idea what Medicare is

Yeah. Medicare is a purer form of socialism than the capitalist ACA!

Other than that, let's all just note that your lack of understanding about the ACA and its deep involvement with Medicare shows that you have virtually no understanding about anything anyone has been discussing in this long,long thread.

It just reminds me that opposition to the ACA correlates strongly with ignorance about the ACA.
 
See virtually every bullet of "policies [that] have contributed to the Medicare spending growth slowdown" directly above your question? Those are all from Title III of the ACA ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care"). Except the bullet about better fraud enforcement, that's Title VI of the ACA ("Transparency and Program Integrity").

What does the ACA have to do with Medicare? It's one of the largest Medicare reforms ever passed.

Medicare has nothing whatsoever to do with ACA, it was established as a retirement insurance program, ACA was created to insure the uninsured. Medicare is funded by payroll taxes, ACA is funded by all kinds of other taxes including Federal Income Taxes. You don't need ACA to reform Medicare, just discipline and taking Medicare off budget. You really have been indoctrinated by big govt. liberals into believing anything they tell you
 
Yeah. Medicare is a purer form of socialism than the capitalist ACA!

Other than that, let's all just note that your lack of understanding about the ACA and its deep involvement with Medicare shows that you have virtually no understanding about anything anyone has been discussing in this long,long thread.

It just reminds me that opposition to the ACA correlates strongly with ignorance about the ACA.

Your post reminds me of the very strong ignorance on the part of people like you regarding Medicare. Tell me Medicare reform was the reason you supported ACA? LOL, Medicare should never be part of ACA as it was a totally separate program funded by individuals and employers through payroll taxes.
 
Your post reminds me of the very strong ignorance on the part of people like you regarding Medicare. Tell me Medicare reform was the reason you supported ACA? LOL, Medicare should never be part of ACA as it was a totally separate program funded by individuals and employers through payroll taxes.

So first you say the ACA has nothing to do with Medicare, and then you say the ACA SHOULD have had nothing to do with Medicare.

Next I expect you to tell us that the government needs to keep its damn dirty hands out of your Medicare. LOL.

8256957981_14daa3f988_o_d.jpg

Once you wander off your boilerplate statements about 'liberals', you really have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.
 
So first you say the ACA has nothing to do with Medicare, and then you say the ACA SHOULD have had nothing to do with Medicare.

Next I expect you to tell us that the government needs to keep its damn dirty hands out of your Medicare. LOL.

View attachment 67187085

Once you wander off your boilerplate statements about 'liberals', you really have no clue what you're talking about. Amazing.

Yep, stand by both statements. Why don't you just admit who you are and admit you have no understanding of ACA or Medicare and want to link the two because that is the only way you can sell it or at least try to sell it because that will never happen with any Conservative or anyone else who understands personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor.
 
Medicare has nothing whatsoever to do with ACA, it was established as a retirement insurance program, ACA was created to insure the uninsured.

Medicare has everything to do with the ACA. The ACA is not just a coverage program. It was a comprehensive health reform law. The coverage expansion and market reforms are Title I (and part of Title II). There are ten titles in total.

The law also reformed Medicare and Medicaid, invested in developing/training more health care professionals, boosted the nation's public health and prevention infrastructure, sped up certain FDA approvals, etc.

Medicare has been (and is being) reformed significantly to improve care quality and drive down cost growth nationwide. Preliminary results on both fronts have been promising. Again, see the bullets on policies that have slowed down Medicare cost growth above. All are policies enacted under the ACA.
 
Medicare has everything to do with the ACA. The ACA is not just a coverage program. It was a comprehensive health reform law. The coverage expansion and market reforms are Title I (and part of Title II). There are ten titles in total.

The law also reformed Medicare and Medicaid, invested in developing/training more health care professionals, boosted the nation's public health and prevention infrastructure, sped up certain FDA approvals, etc.

Medicare has been (and is being) reformed significantly to improve care quality and drive down cost growth nationwide. Preliminary results on both fronts have been promising. Again, see the bullets on policies that have slowed down Medicare cost growth above. All are policies enacted under the ACA.

Just like a typical govt. employee or liberal who believes we need a massive Federal Entitlement program to solve a problem that is a personal responsibility issue as well as a state issue.

That comprehensive Healthcare law as you call it will do exactly what all other entitlement programs have done, cost more than intended and do less than intended plus create more dependence. Medicare doesn't have to be reformed but rather have the money put back into the program when it was put on budget and spent on everything other than Medicare. You buy the liberal rhetoric and ignore the liberal results, why is that?

Attached is the budget of the United States. Do you see any items on this list that are duplicated at the state level and other items that don't belong in the budget for daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt?

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/combStmt/current_rpt.htm
 
Just like a typical govt. employee or liberal who believes we need a massive Federal Entitlement program to solve a problem that is a personal responsibility issue as well as a state issue.

How is improving hospital quality a "personal responsibility issue"? Or restoring market dynamics to the health insurance and care sectors? Or implementing better care delivery models? Or removing perverse incentives from provider reimbursement methodologies?

Your slogans don't make any sense. Think before trying to shoehorn them in.
 
Yep, stand by both statements. Why don't you just admit who you are and admit you have no understanding of ACA or Medicare and want to link the two because that is the only way you can sell it or at least try to sell it because that will never happen with any Conservative or anyone else who understands personal responsibility, states' rights, and neighbor helping neighbor.

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
 
How is improving hospital quality a "personal responsibility issue"? Or restoring market dynamics to the health insurance and care sectors? Or implementing better care delivery models? Or removing perverse incentives from provider reimbursement methodologies?

Your slogans don't make any sense. Think before trying to shoehorn them in.

So please tell me how a Federal Govt. that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt is going to monitor hospital quality? It is amazing how the same people who were against the Bush Medicare Part D program are now so high on ACA. Medicare Part D did actually lower costs by putting people in charge of their healthcare expenses. Save money get a rebate.

What doesn't make sense is your passion for another entitlement program when previous programs are full of waste, fraud, and abuse so now that wasn't enough for you so you support another one.
 
So please tell me how a Federal Govt. that has created an 18.2 trillion dollar debt is going to monitor hospital quality?

Hospital Compare.

This isn't hypothetical, it's real.

It is amazing how the same people who were against the Bush Medicare Part D program are now so high on ACA. Medicare Part D did actually lower costs by putting people in charge of their healthcare expenses. Save money get a rebate.

A government program can lower costs for people as long as market incentives are built into it? Wow, who knew.

It's almost as if you just discredited every point you've ever made.
 
Hospital Compare.

This isn't hypothetical, it's real.



A government program can lower costs for people as long as market incentives are built into it? Wow, who knew.

It's almost as if you just discredited every point you've ever made.

What you don't understand is incentive and there is no incentive to lower costs on the part of the Federal Govt. as they print money. We have an 18.2 trillion dollar debt because of people like you buying the rhetoric and ignoring the results. All good entitlement programs started with good intentions but none of them ever reduced costs and simply create dependence. Get back to me with actual results but the problem is what happens if you are wrong?? Once created no govt. entitlement program ever goes away.

I really don't care what articles you post because they are all projections. Projections are nothing more than the opinion of others. Results matter
 
Hospital Compare.

This isn't hypothetical, it's real.



A government program can lower costs for people as long as market incentives are built into it? Wow, who knew.

It's almost as if you just discredited every point you've ever made.

Here is an opinion you don't want to hear as you still cling to the belief that the Federal Govt. is going to eventually create that utopia you and others believe exists

https://sheridegrom.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/where-have-the-doctors-gone/

Too many doctors are dropping Medicare, why?
 
Too many doctors are dropping Medicare, why?

So you say.


Figure 1: Percentage of Physicians Accepting New Patients with Medicare and Private Insurance, 2005-2012
image001.gif


Approximately 90% of all office-based physicians report accepting new Medicare patients. The percentage of physicians who report accepting new Medicare patients is similar to the percentage of physicians who report accepting new privately insured patients. In addition, the share accepting new Medicare patients has been relatively stable over the 2005-2012 period and shows a slight increase in 2011-2012 based on initial NAMCS data. Beneficiary reports of access to care, including the ability to find a physician and see a doctor in a timely manner, are also favorable. Again, these results are comparable to reports by patients with private insurance and have been stable over time. Overall, Medicare beneficiary access to care has been consistently high over the last decade and continues to be high today.
 

The problem is you don't understand Medicare Part D just like you claim I don't understand ACA. Which one had actual incentive for people to reduce costs?

In addition I can post articles and you can post articles that support our point of view but what you cannot point to are govt. entitlement programs that ever cost what they were supposed to cost without providing incentive to the patient. There is no incentive for the Federal Govt. to provide incentive as they buy votes instead of cutting costs.
 
Last edited:
The problem is you don't understand Medicare Part D just like you claim I don't understand ACA.

The problem is you claimed an entitlement program has never saved money. Then you point to Part D as an example of an entitlement program that has saved money.

So obviously either Part D didn't save money, or entitlement programs can indeed be designed in ways that save money. Figure out what you believe and get back to me. Watching you debate yourself is a bit tedious.
 
Obviously you have no concept of what incentive means show me the incentive in ACA to create savings of healthcare costs

Corrected to say incentive for patients to save money in their healthcare expenses like they have with ACA
 
Last edited:

This whole conversation is starting to look like a confirmation of Poe's Law.

Is it a parody, or is it real?
--------------------------------------------------
Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism.[1][2] Poe's Law implies that parody will often be mistaken for sincere belief, and sincere beliefs for parody.[3]
 
Obviously you have no concept of what incentive means show me the incentive in ACA to create savings of healthcare costs

Corrected to say incentive for patients to save money in their healthcare expenses like they have with ACA

A market. Those in the marketplaces who are subsidized receive a flat dollar amount that's tagged to a particular point in the market, the second cheapest silver plan. That subsidy can be applied to any plan but its value doesn't scale with them--if a person buys a cheaper plan, the premium they personally pay out of their own dollars is lower. If they buy a more expensive plan, what they pay is higher.

Plans thus have every incentive to sell the cheapest plan (not dissimilar from the concept of competitive bidding in more government-heavy programs like Part D--the difference is sellers are bidding directly for consumers' business in the open market) and consumers have a personal financial incentive to buy the cheapest plans. The incentive is stronger under the ACA than it is under Part D.

This dynamic is why premiums have been way below expectations ("Private Premiums Under Affordable Care Act 15% Below Forecast, Says CBO") and it's a big part of why the ACA's expected cost has fallen dramatically: "Obamacare will cost less than thought."

Meanwhile, when it comes to actually shopping for health services, people are increasingly price sensitive because of the cost-sharing in their insurance plans, e.g., deductibles and the like. They're incentivized to use lower-priced health care providers, which puts downward pressure on health care price growth (which is at about the lowest level ever right now).

You've admitted that a government program structured in this way can be expected to save money. The only thing left to do is take that one last step and admit the obvious: the ACA has and will save money.
 
A market. Those in the marketplaces who are subsidized receive a flat dollar amount that's tagged to a particular point in the market, the second cheapest silver plan. That subsidy can be applied to any plan but its value doesn't scale with them--if a person buys a cheaper plan, the premium they personally pay out of their own dollars is lower. If they buy a more expensive plan, what they pay is higher.

Plans thus have every incentive to sell the cheapest plan (not dissimilar from the concept of competitive bidding in more government-heavy programs like Part D--the difference is sellers are bidding directly for consumers' business in the open market) and consumers have a personal financial incentive to buy the cheapest plans. The incentive is stronger under the ACA than it is under Part D.

This dynamic is why premiums have been way below expectations ("Private Premiums Under Affordable Care Act 15% Below Forecast, Says CBO") and it's a big part of why the ACA's expected cost has fallen dramatically: "Obamacare will cost less than thought."

Meanwhile, when it comes to actually shopping for health services, people are increasingly price sensitive because of the cost-sharing in their insurance plans, e.g., deductibles and the like. They're incentivized to use lower-priced health care providers, which puts downward pressure on health care price growth (which is at about the lowest level ever right now).

You've admitted that a government program structured in this way can be expected to save money. The only thing left to do is take that one last step and admit the obvious: the ACA has and will save money.

Let me know when you achieve that utopia that liberals believe exists with govt. programs?

By the way, private insurance offers the same thing and we didn't need ACA to make those programs available to others as well. A tax credit program would do the same thing and allow people to save money by keeping more of that tax credit if they saved money. Those not paying taxes would be eligible for true help from the state and local communities
 
Last edited:
Let me know when you achieve that utopia that liberals believe exists with govt. programs?

I want a well-functioning market, not a utopia.

By the way, private insurance offers the same thing and we didn't need ACA to make those programs available to others as well. A tax credit program would do the same thing and allow people to save money by keeping more of that tax credit if they saved money. Those not paying taxes would be eligible for true help from the state and local communities

So your alternative would be an approach that "offers the same thing." That sounds like a tacit admission that the ACA is achieving exactly what you'd want a health reform plan to be achieving.

At this point you're just quibbling.
 
Back
Top Bottom