• 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!

GOP may delay Obamacare replacement for years

MaggieD said:
As I understand it, Obamacare was written by The Heritage Foundation for the Republican Party. It was kept on the shelf as not being ready for prime time. Democrats didn't have a plan in place. They grabbed what was already out there when they had a majority and thus the opportunity to pass it unfettered.

So just who didn't have their own ideas?
Click to expand...

You understood wrong. Totally debunked. To quote you "So just who didn't have their own ideas?"
 
Absentglare said:
I'm aware that you didn't realize it was true.

You were mocking it as though it was obviously false when it was, in fact, true. That's why it was ironic.

Now, if you are still confused, please re-read our interaction here.
Click to expand...

No, it is that my statement in no way even insinuated what you strangely read into it.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well, of course there is a logical and easy solution to this.

I am sure all those who voted for the Democrats that rammed this down the nation's throat in the first place could form a pool to donate to, come to the rescue of these unfortunates that they have the responsibility of placing in this predicament in the first place. I mean, being the altruistic and responsible types you are, if you truly cared.

Oh yeah, my bad, that altruism is only with other people's money.
Click to expand...

What about you? Would you be willing to donate to a fund so that people less fortunate than you could have health care? Had all of us done that years ago, folks wouldn't have been in this predicament. Why didn't you suggest that? What has your side done to improve the nations' health care system? You're really good at starting illegal wars, how about helping out some folks back home for a change?
 
Absentglare said:
Great, so now you just proved yourself wrong because you are not fined for not having insurance.
Click to expand...

Spin it all you want, but the fact is that having insurance is no longer a free choice. Yes, you can choose to not carry insurance, but now you gt fined for it. So while it is in the strictest, most legalistic sense not being forced, it is, in all honesty (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honesty) the same thing. People who would otherwise choose to not have insurance are now punished for not having it. By your sad attempt at applying the most legalistic definition, no one is ever forced to do anything as long as they are live, they always have a choice, even if that choice is far worse than conforming. So go ahead and split hairs, at the end of the day having insurance has been forced on people by the gov't.
 
lurchadams said:
What about you? Would you be willing to donate to a fund so that people less fortunate than you could have health care? Had all of us done that years ago, folks wouldn't have been in this predicament. Why didn't you suggest that? What has your side done to improve the nations' health care system? You're really good at starting illegal wars, how about helping out some folks back home for a change?
Click to expand...
Yanno, come to think of it I do not believe I personally have ever started a war, so have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you saying wars like the 2011 military intervention in Libya? Or the rekindling of the War in Afghanistan? Like that? Or the O bomb a extrajudicial drone attacks around the world?

They have ladders, probably even some on sale, at Lowes and Home Depot if that high horse is too high to jump from.

No, I am an advocate in people taking advantage of the opportunities that exist in this great country and making their own choices. If they want a cadillac health plan, get hired by the right entity that so provides or dedicate what monies you so desire of what you personally earn towards that goal. If that is not good enough, gain skills, get promoted and someday achieve that, if that is where you want to place your hard earned dollars.

Those that are by nature, not self inflicted, incapacitated from doing this for themselves I think we all can and are openly willing to help sustain. But those able bodied but unwilling, sorry... I do not think it best for me to just give, as then one is also given the impression that one only needs stick out one's hand. Sorry, need to produce something of value for the society you live in.

Just like the rest of us, earn and then spend it they way you want.
 
faithful_servant said:
Spin it all you want, but the fact is that having insurance is no longer a free choice. Yes, you can choose to not carry insurance, but now you gt fined for it. So while it is in the strictest, most legalistic sense not being forced, it is, in all honesty (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honesty) the same thing. People who would otherwise choose to not have insurance are now punished for not having it. By your sad attempt at applying the most legalistic definition, no one is ever forced to do anything as long as they are live, they always have a choice, even if that choice is far worse than conforming. So go ahead and split hairs, at the end of the day having insurance has been forced on people by the gov't.
Click to expand...

By your metric (higher costs), they were effectively "forced" to buy health insurance long before that.

You see, we already had laws where, if someone collapsed, and ambulance would come, pick them up and take them to a hospital to be stabilized. They could be a wholly unwilling participant in our healthcare system, but there they were. And guess what, if they couldn't pay for the service, the rest of us will indirectly foot the bill.

Our healthcare system is what made health insurance mandatory. The individual mandate simply put a financial cost, at tax time, to remain uninsured. This functions as a tax incentive to help contain costs by reducing the pool of uninsured (that we all indirectly pay for).

And the uninsured are often the first ones to be hit by the cost of being uninsured. Ever heard of any of the cases involving 6-figure hospital bills for simple anti-venom shots that can be as little as $100 in Mexico? That's because 70% or more of the uninsured persons' bill is artificial markup for insurance negotiation, and that's not including the 25%+ profit.

None of your dishonest partisanship can change any of those facts. Willful ignorance on how our healthcare system operates is not a valid excuse.
 
Absentglare said:
By your metric (higher costs), they were effectively "forced" to buy health insurance long before that.

You see, we already had laws where, if someone collapsed, and ambulance would come, pick them up and take them to a hospital to be stabilized. They could be a wholly unwilling participant in our healthcare system, but there they were. And guess what, if they couldn't pay for the service, the rest of us will indirectly foot the bill.

Our healthcare system is what made health insurance mandatory. The individual mandate simply put a financial cost, at tax time, to remain uninsured. This functions as a tax incentive to help contain costs by reducing the pool of uninsured (that we all indirectly pay for).

And the uninsured are often the first ones to be hit by the cost of being uninsured. Ever heard of any of the cases involving 6-figure hospital bills for simple anti-venom shots that can be as little as $100 in Mexico? That's because 70% or more of the uninsured persons' bill is artificial markup for insurance negotiation, and that's not including the 25%+ profit.

None of your dishonest partisanship can change any of those facts. Willful ignorance on how our healthcare system operates is not a valid excuse.
Click to expand...

My metric isn't "higher costs", it's being punished for failure to carry insurance.
 
Visbek said:
Oh, well if YOUR premiums didn't go up, then no one else's did? Logic!

My premiums not only went up, coverage also got worse. I wasn't the only one. Care to explain?

Back in the real world, the ACA exchanges launched in late 2013, and there is no question that premiums were going up in the 5 year period before then. Premiums did flatten slightly in 2011 and 2012, and at least some of that was due to insurers prepping for the ACA.
Click to expand...

It's mind blowing how some people cling to the ACA so desperately. The insurance companies are making money hand over fist and the middle class is taking on the chin. Again. I really could care less about the bottom 10% of the population. Those aren't the people that are going to propel this country forward, it's the middle class that's going to that. Everyone is either pandering to the poor or the 1% when it's the middle class that has the power to make any positive change in this country. But you go ahead with your ACA circle jerk.
 
Top Cat said:
You understood wrong. Totally debunked. To quote you "So just who didn't have their own ideas?"
Click to expand...
Sort of.

Heritage did not directly participate in the ACA. However, it really was their idea. Romneycare was devised in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation. It included:

• Exchanges for health insurance
• Specifications for plans participating in the exchanges
• Guaranteed issue
• Mandatory requirement for individuals and businesses to purchase health insurance
• Subsidies for lower-income citizens
• Medicare expansion

There are definitely differences, and Heritage did disavow it once Obama adopted it. But yes, the core of the ACA is a conservative innovation. Silly Obama, thinking conservatives would cooperate with a conservative idea.... :mrgreen:
 
faithful_servant said:
My metric isn't "higher costs", it's being punished for failure to carry insurance.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's a semantic argument whether someone is forced to carry insurance or not, but I don't have a problem with someone being 'punished' for not carrying insurance. You and me are effectively assuming their financial risk against a bad accident or serious illness that will be treated and for which they don't have the money or insurance to pay, and I don't see why it's inappropriate to charge them a tax or penalty for offloading that risk onto the rest of us. No insurer would allow that - assume risk of payment for free - so why should we?

You want to be a freeloader, even with Medicaid and the ACA subsidies, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions? OK, you can do that but you'll pay a tax for the privilege of offloading costs onto others. In about 99% of cases, conservatives would agree with that analysis, but I have to assume that because the mandate is part of the ACA, they have to oppose it.
 
Groogrux said:
It's mind blowing how some people cling to the ACA so desperately. The insurance companies are making money hand over fist and the middle class is taking on the chin. Again. I really could care less about the bottom 10% of the population. Those aren't the people that are going to propel this country forward, it's the middle class that's going to that. Everyone is either pandering to the poor or the 1% when it's the middle class that has the power to make any positive change in this country. But you go ahead with your ACA circle jerk.
Click to expand...

I love how in THIS thread, the insurance companies are making money hand over fist from the ACA.

In OTHER threads, insurance companies are losing billions and withdrawing from state exchanges because the ACA is unworkable.
 
Threegoofs said:
I love how in THIS thread, the insurance companies are making money hand over fist from the ACA.

In OTHER threads, insurance companies are losing billions and withdrawing from state exchanges because the ACA is unworkable.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I never expressed a shred of sympathy for any insurance company that may be making less of a profit. I know others have but that's not the tree I'm barking up.
 
MaggieD said:
I never said my cousin and her husband made $65,000 a year.
Click to expand...

You said they make more than $65k. Since the hardship exemption is available for people where the premiums exceed 9.5% of their income, they would have to make more than $250k/yr in order to NOT qualify for the exemption. If they make more than that, I have no sympathy for their whining.
 
sangha said:
You said they make more than $65k. Since the hardship exemption is available for people where the premiums exceed 9.5% of their income, they would have to make more than $250k/yr in order to NOT qualify for the exemption. If they make more than that, I have no sympathy for their whining.
Click to expand...

What exemption? I'm confused. Are you talking about an exemption in that they wouldn't have to buy insurance? If that's what you're talking about, that's completely unacceptable. Have a major illness? Lose everything you have. You think that's some kind of break??
 
MaggieD said:
What exemption? I'm confused. Are you talking about an exemption in that they wouldn't have to buy insurance? If that's what you're talking about, that's completely unacceptable. Have a major illness? Lose everything you have. You think that's some kind of break??
Click to expand...

Oy vey!!

I am talking about, as I have been talking about for several days now, about your cousin qualifying for a hardship exemption from the individual mandate which would allow them to purchase catastrophic coverage and use an HSA so they would not lose everything if they have a major illness
 
Groogrux said:
and the middle class is taking on the chin.
Click to expand...

I know how conservatives (and conservative like posters) like to post that the Obamacare hurts the middle class but you could explain how? It seems to me that the middle class has benefitted from guaranteed issue, transparency in picking plans, a lower deficit and higher quality care. the subsidies also help. I hope you're not just desperately clinging the lies from the right concerning Obamacare. That would blow my mind.
 
Groogrux said:
Lol, thank you for proving my point. Thousands of Americans saw an increase in their premiums and continue to see increases every year because people with pre-existing now HAVE to be covered. That is EXACTLY providing insurance for some at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
Mithros said:
And your solution? Should they not be covered at all? Guess what, people with preexisting conditions will still get treatment. Or they'll have to wait and get treatment when it's even more expensive.

And if they can't pay who ends up footing the bill? You will! One way or another you're going to foot the bill.

Health care costs are governed by how much health care we give, how efficiently we can give it, and how much profit there is in the system. That's it. Taking away peoples insurance doesn't change any of that math.
Click to expand...
Groogrux seems to have Missed the whole Issue in the Health Care debate: how to pay for those who Cannot get Insurance due to indigence or pre-existing condition. Those able to afford Insurance were never the issue.
Thanks for explaining the basics Mithros.

The 'pool', or those most financially able, will Always have to subsidize the poor's healthcare... and Public school Edu/etc/etc too.
That's why we have/had a middle Class: wealth redistribution enabling generational meritocracy instead of permanent classes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom