• 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 Bill Would Repeal Obamacare Taxes And Penalties, Keep Some Subsidies

fmw said:
Send them a bill and engage a debt collector.
Click to expand...

If that were done and the people paid, it would be fine. But they often got themselves into a position, where others have to foot the bill. The medical care should not be granted. Granting it makes it more rational to not take out insurance.
 
fmw said:
What is an uninsurance rate? For that matter what is uninsurance?
Click to expand...

They're well known stats with defined meanings so I don't understand your question.

They may not know but I know. You simply repeal the thing and extend the current subsidies for a few years. Then you go after the cost of health care itself which is the actual problem.
Click to expand...

That's not a repeal. And 'go after the cost of healthcare itself' is easy to say, but so far after YEARS of bitching and whining from the GOP, YEARS that right wing think tanks have had to work on the issue, damn hard to do in practice and get through Congress.

That's just partisan babble. I'll pass on it.
Click to expand...

But it's really not. Why else would Ryan produce a plan before getting key players involved on the front end in the drafting stage, then lined up in support of the bill? That just is not how you get major legislation through Congress. I get that the first proposal will always be subject to amendments as it goes through, but I haven't seen anyone meaningful coming out in support of the plan, and some key players on the right have immediately condemned it as DOA. Makes no sense politically or strategically.

If you want to point out what part you think is just "partisan babble" that would be good. Can you explain Ryan's decision here, his strategy for getting something actually through Congress and to Trump? I'm at a loss....
 
joG said:
The "uninsurance rate" is a measure of asocial behavior by people speculating on being saved by free medical treatment at the cost of society, should they fall ill.
Click to expand...

That's not all it is, and you know better. How does a guy making minimum wage, perhaps with a child or two, afford actual insurance? If he's had a problem, say cancer, how does someone making $15-20k afford insurance that will cost every dime he takes home, if he can get insurance at all? A charity I worked for had a guy with bad heart issues and his insurance cost us over $40k. The median wage is roughly $30k Connect those dots for me.

No doubt some without insurance are gambling they won't get sick, but that's just not all of the problem, and suggesting that it or other "asocial behavior" explains something like the uninsurance rate is nonsense. There are a number of issues, most importantly that health care is extremely expensive and poor people can't afford insurance, then the copays required even for people with insurance.
 
JasperL said:
That's not all it is, and you know better. How does a guy making minimum wage, perhaps with a child or two, afford actual insurance? If he's had a problem, say cancer, how does someone making $15-20k afford insurance that will cost every dime he takes home, if he can get insurance at all? A charity I worked for had a guy with bad heart issues and his insurance cost us over $40k. The median wage is roughly $30k Connect those dots for me.

No doubt some without insurance are gambling they won't get sick, but that's just not all of the problem, and suggesting that it or other "asocial behavior" explains something like the uninsurance rate is nonsense. There are a number of issues, most importantly that health care is extremely expensive and poor people can't afford insurance, then the copays required even for people with insurance.
Click to expand...

How many cannot pay? And what should the pay? How much do you personally give these people? And why should they get the help in preference to children dying of hunger just now?
 
fmw said:
Send them a bill and engage a debt collector.
Click to expand...

That is what they do... resulting in bankruptcies (the reverse lottery). Moreover, much like deferred maintenance on your car, "repairs" are far more costly than the preventative maintenance.

The PPACA is designed to ease costs on the healthcare system by promoting preventative healthcare. Under the old system, the taxpayers paid $120B annually to cover the uninsured. About $85B was paid for by the government and $45B was paid by insurance carriers and passed along in premiums (averaging $1,000 per family of four).
 
fmw said:
What on earth is free market about government involvement in health insurance? You can't be serious.
Click to expand...

Nothing about government involvement in health insurance is free market. The problem at the moment is you have to unwind the mess from the government without needing 60 votes in the Senate. They want to do this in 3 steps. There are those who say Ryan's plan doesn't go far enough. Governors who took the expansion on Medicaid say they are going to need help

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio introduced a bill today for a clean repeal. In doing so it would force those representatives, Democrats possibly in red states to get on board to pass things like health savings accounts, managing Medicaid over to the states and passing a law to allow insurances to be sold across state lines to lower the cost of coverage. Besides that is what they have been telling the people for the last 6 years that is what the GOP was going to do. And he is right.

Unless some major changes happen to what has been proposed, I can think of 10 Republican senators that will not vote for it as is. What I don't understand is they passed a bill to repeal and replace in the House and Senate last year and sent it to Obama's desk and vetoed it. If it had that much support to get it passed both chambers, why aren't they using the same bill now that they have a Republican president who would sign it?

Edit- currently over 25% of the states only have one provider in Obamacare and 5 states currently have none. It's a train wreck.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
That's not all it is, and you know better. How does a guy making minimum wage, perhaps with a child or two, afford actual insurance? If he's had a problem, say cancer, how does someone making $15-20k afford insurance that will cost every dime he takes home, if he can get insurance at all? A charity I worked for had a guy with bad heart issues and his insurance cost us over $40k. The median wage is roughly $30k Connect those dots for me.

No doubt some without insurance are gambling they won't get sick, but that's just not all of the problem, and suggesting that it or other "asocial behavior" explains something like the uninsurance rate is nonsense. There are a number of issues, most importantly that health care is extremely expensive and poor people can't afford insurance, then the copays required even for people with insurance.
Click to expand...

Why didn't he just choose to not get cancer like me?
 
joG said:
How many cannot pay? And what should the pay? How much do you personally give these people? And why should they get the help in preference to children dying of hunger just now?
Click to expand...

Hahahaha yeah cos the money that the GOP save by repealing Obamacare will go to feeding starving children good one :lamo
 
joG said:
If that were done and the people paid, it would be fine. But they often got themselves into a position, where others have to foot the bill. The medical care should not be granted. Granting it makes it more rational to not take out insurance.
Click to expand...

Right, let them die in the streets. Totally understandable position.

"Help, I'm having a heart attack"
"Insurance please"
"I'm poor, don't have it, no money in the bank."
"So sorry, but you'll just have to die, you parasite. Shouldn't have bought that used iPhone for $100 then you'd be able to afford $6k/year insurance."
 
JasperL said:
That's not all it is, and you know better. How does a guy making minimum wage, perhaps with a child or two, afford actual insurance?
Click to expand...
That is easy. According to one ****ing moron in congress namely Chaffetz, just don't buy an Iphone.
 
joG said:
How many cannot pay? And what should the pay? How much do you personally give these people? And why should they get the help in preference to children dying of hunger just now?
Click to expand...

Of course you ignored the point to throw up a bunch of crap.

I don't know exactly how many cannot pay, but we can't get blood from turnips, and so low wage workers simply CANNOT afford actual insurance. We know this is true and a huge problem. If you want to argue it's not, please make the argument using the cost of insurance versus wage rates, i.e. actual numbers, not philosophical arguments.

What should they pay? That's a political decision, but I'd prefer a cap based on total income. 10% or so is a good starting point.

How much do I give? Three points: 1) None of your damned business. 2) Asking anonymous internet posters for personal information is at best silly. I can make up anything and you'd never know the difference. The obvious next response from me is, "What do YOU give!??" Etc. Waste of time. 3) Irrelevant, unless you want to try to make a case backed by actual analysis that if only us libruls gave enough money, we'd solve the problem. Go for it if you want! Show me charity can replace Medicaid, SCHIP, SS disability, and much more AND insure those not covered by those programs.

Why should "they" get help versus your red herring? Give me a break. It's not even a good attempt to divert the discussion. We have a topic, which is healthcare policy in the U.S. If you want to have a theoretical discussion about how the country prioritizes various worldwide issues, start a thread.
 
Lutherf said:
Obamacare Changes Emerge In House Repeal And Replace Bill : Shots - Health News : NPR



Text of Bill here (123 pages) - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/06/text-american-health-care-act/

I don't have time to go through the whole thing now and it will likely look different when done but it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Not subsidies. After-the-fact smaller subsidies, and allowance of INCREASING premiums disproportionately for certain groups, like seniors, NOT based on claims history. Just based on discrimination.

Unless premiums are cut substantially, the working class won't get the tax credits, because they can't afford to pay the premiums up front.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) never went away under PPACA.

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare

Chicago Tribune

ER visits keep climbing under PPACA | BenefitsPRO
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the accuracy of the articles, but they do not say that these were unpaid emergency room visits. Subsidized Emergency Room Care is the issue. My point is, that no matter what system is used, if you're going to treat those who don't pay, those who can afford treatment will pay for those who can't. It's a result of the Hippocratic Oath. It was political rhetoric with Obamacare, and now the tables have turned, and Trump-care or Ryan-care or whatever you want to call it, will be nothing but balance-sheet foolishness.
 
JumpinJack said:
Not subsidies. After-the-fact smaller subsidies, and allowance of INCREASING premiums disproportionately for certain groups, like seniors, NOT based on claims history. Just based on discrimination.

Unless premiums are cut substantially, the working class won't get the tax credits, because they can't afford to pay the premiums up front.
Click to expand...


Depending on how you define seniors, they have Medicare. Younger folks should get a reduction as they have an artificially higher rate under ACA. Insurance that has a $6K deductible is not really insurance for the working poor.
 
Nilly said:
Hahahaha yeah cos the money that the GOP save by repealing Obamacare will go to feeding starving children good one :lamo
Click to expand...

It was not a proposal of what the US should do with the money. I was only pointing to the amoral hypocrisy of demanding my secretary pay for your insurance.
 
JasperL said:
Of course you ignored the point to throw up a bunch of crap.

I don't know exactly how many cannot pay, but we can't get blood from turnips, and so low wage workers simply CANNOT afford actual insurance. We know this is true and a huge problem. If you want to argue it's not, please make the argument using the cost of insurance versus wage rates, i.e. actual numbers, not philosophical arguments.

What should they pay? That's a political decision, but I'd prefer a cap based on total income. 10% or so is a good starting point.

How much do I give? Three points: 1) None of your damned business. 2) Asking anonymous internet posters for personal information is at best silly. I can make up anything and you'd never know the difference. The obvious next response from me is, "What do YOU give!??" Etc. Waste of time. 3) Irrelevant, unless you want to try to make a case backed by actual analysis that if only us libruls gave enough money, we'd solve the problem. Go for it if you want! Show me charity can replace Medicaid, SCHIP, SS disability, and much more AND insure those not covered by those programs.

Why should "they" get help versus your red herring? Give me a break. It's not even a good attempt to divert the discussion. We have a topic, which is healthcare policy in the U.S. If you want to have a theoretical discussion about how the country prioritizes various worldwide issues, start a thread.
Click to expand...

I see that you do not deny the hypocrisy of your priority set. So in other words, why pay for these people's insurance policies?
 
joG said:
It was not a proposal of what the US should do with the money. I was only pointing to the amoral hypocrisy of demanding my secretary pay for your insurance.
Click to expand...

Whys it hypocritical when I also pay hers?
 
JasperL said:
Right, let them die in the streets. Totally understandable position.

"Help, I'm having a heart attack"
"Insurance please"
"I'm poor, don't have it, no money in the bank."
"So sorry, but you'll just have to die, you parasite. Shouldn't have bought that used iPhone for $100 then you'd be able to afford $6k/year insurance."
Click to expand...

Even if O'Bamacare is repealed in full, and nothing else is put in it's place, there are laws in place that prevent the silly hyperbolic scenario you describe. Please spare us the fear mongering. :roll:
 
joG said:
I see that you do not deny the hypocrisy of your priority set. So in other words, why pay for these people's insurance policies?
Click to expand...

Why are you making this debate personal? You're calling me a hypocrite but you don't know me or anything about me, and I don't feel the need to defend my charitable activities with strangers on the web - for that I answer to my family, my community, and my own conscience/ethics/religious beliefs. Nothing personal, but I could not care less about your opinion on that subject, and it's not relevant to our discussion.

If you can't defend your position on the merits of your position, just run away and hide. It's at least intellectually honest.
 
countryboy said:
Even if O'Bamacare is repealed in full, and nothing else is put in it's place, there are laws in place that prevent the silly hyperbolic scenario you describe. Please spare us the fear mongering. :roll:
Click to expand...

You needed to read the comment I responded to to understand the context.

If that were done and the people paid, it would be fine. But they often got themselves into a position, where others have to foot the bill. The medical care should not be granted. Granting it makes it more rational to not take out insurance.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a silly position and that person didn't even bother defending it.
 
joG said:
It was not a proposal of what the US should do with the money. I was only pointing to the amoral hypocrisy of demanding my secretary pay for your insurance.
Click to expand...

Where is the 'hypocrisy'? The single payer system we have in the US is Medicare. Please explain why supporting that necessarily makes someone a hypocrite.

Virtually the entire industrialized world except the U.S. has some version of a UHC/single payer system, and they all include substantial taxpayer funded subsidies for low wage workers, the sick/disabled, and old. Is the entire world, then, just a bunch of hypocrites on the subject of healthcare or some other unknown issue? Explain!
 
countryboy said:
Even if O'Bamacare is repealed in full, and nothing else is put in it's place, there are laws in place that prevent the silly hyperbolic scenario you describe. Please spare us the fear mongering. :roll:
Click to expand...

Er uh CB, as Jasper points out, you needed to read the context of his comments. As a conservative I know you need it spelled out for you. Jasper was paraphrasing jog’s ideological point that people should die if they don’t have insurance. He summed up Jog’s position quite well. He was not, as you believed, saying people wont get emergency care without Obamacare. So not only did you not understand his point, you completely embarrassed yourself by whining about "fear mongering". There is simply no way a sentient being can try to make a point about “dems fear mongering” related to health care. None. Zero. Nada. But yet you did. Are you truly not aware of the following official lying conservative narratives the right obediently believed and parroted the last 8 years?

Death panels
100s of 1000s of doctors will retire
Out of control socialism
50-100 million people will lose insurance

and don't forget this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KHjg6mtewI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom