• 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!

The Dem plans for health care and the ACA

Exactly. Health insurance is a gambling operation which leftists want all Americans to be forced to participate in to keep their own personal gambling costs down.

If you have a better plan, you're free to suggest it. You gambled and won, and I'm glad of that, but the hospitals are full of people who would have been financially ruined without insurance, lost decades of savings to retire in absolute poverty.
 
If you have a better plan, you're free to suggest it. You gambled and won, and I'm glad of that, but the hospitals are full of people who would have been financially ruined without insurance, lost decades of savings to retire in absolute poverty.

My solution is for people to pay their own bills or make arrangements if they cannot. I am not in favor of young workers being forced to contribute their own money to help care for others with serious problems.
 
Social Security began with similar high aspirations. The young and healthy American worker would pay into the system all his life for the benefit of the old and retired so that, in the end, the system could go broke and leave him with nothing. Typical 'genius' government plan.

and it's worked rather well for a long time now. There's no reason to think it won't continue to work despite the right wing attacks on it.
 
Yep, that explains the doubling of the national debt during Obama's 8 year term - all of that bipartisan additional spending must have had its built in payment (secretly?) removed by the republicants.

No silly, the national debt problem was caused by the money spent to stabilize the economy after the meltdown at the end of the Bush years. You're right it wasn't paid for, but it was in response to a national emergency. We dodged another great depression. Say Thank You, Mr Obama.
 
My solution is for people to pay their own bills or make arrangements if they cannot. I am not in favor of young workers being forced to contribute their own money to help care for others with serious problems.

OK, that doesn't work. No point discussing the dozen ways that system would fail in practice.
 
My solution is for people to pay their own bills or make arrangements if they cannot. I am not in favor of young workers being forced to contribute their own money to help care for others with serious problems.

Hmmmm … so a young worker whose child ends up with appendicitis. You are fine with that child dying because that young worker cannot afford the surgery at that time?
 
Hmmmm … so a young worker whose child ends up with appendicitis. You are fine with that child dying because that young worker cannot afford the surgery at that time?

False dichotomy. No hospital may refuse service to anyone for any reason. Including inability to pay.
 
and it's worked rather well for a long time now. There's no reason to think it won't continue to work despite the right wing attacks on it.

Which is worse, "right wing attacks" on social security, or left wing admissions that the government program is going broke?
 
Hmmmm … so a young worker whose child ends up with appendicitis. You are fine with that child dying because that young worker cannot afford the surgery at that time?

The problem with used insurance policy salesmen is that their straw men are dumb as rocks. Hospitals do not turn away emergency patients. That lie is being propagated by leftist liberals who want to fleece the young American workers for big mandated tax donations with which to help them care for the really sick without having to dip too deeply into their own big buck bank accounts to get the job done.
 
The problem with used insurance policy salesmen is that their straw men are dumb as rocks. Hospitals do not turn away emergency patients. That lie is being propagated by leftist liberals who want to fleece the young American workers for big mandated tax donations with which to help them care for the really sick without having to dip too deeply into their own big buck bank accounts to get the job done.

Correct, government forces providers to give treatment in the ER without regard to ability to pay - i.e. to provide those services for free, that providers will then pass on to the rest of us through higher bills, higher insurance premiums. How is that consistent with a free market again?
 
Which healthcare are you referring to? ACA or the previous?

If Medicaid takes on those with pre-existing conditions, you build in enormous incentives for private insurers to cherry pick healthy patients, then find all kinds of creative ways to offload onto Medicaid all those with chronic, pre-existing conditions. Just write policies that have low limits for cancer, say, or exclude the most effective treatments, make patients jump through a bunch of recurring hoops, whatever, and those who get cancer will voluntarily give up private insurance and enroll in the government plan.

And why would employees/those who get their own policies care? If their insurer offloads sick patients by writing crap policies that don't cover chronic conditions, premiums stay low for the healthy, and those who get sick simply transfer to the government plan. Win/win for the healthy and the sick. The young and healthy save lots of money while they're healthy, and if they get sick, taxpayers pick up the costs!
 
Correct, government forces providers to give treatment in the ER without regard to ability to pay - i.e. to provide those services for free, that providers will then pass on to the rest of us through higher bills, higher insurance premiums. How is that consistent with a free market again?

In a free market people are not forced to buy insurance and the government does not set the rates and hobble competition among providers.
 
Hmmmm … so a young worker whose child ends up with appendicitis. You are fine with that child dying because that young worker cannot afford the surgery at that time?

Hmm. Are you any more fine with a woman (this happened in Canada) who had both feet amputated because she couldn't see a doctor in their single-payor system soon enough to prevent the amputations? In single-payor, you get doctor's appointments for the direly ill and the rest are given doctor's appointments about a year down the road. If the child in your scenario had appendicitis, who's to say the doctor could've been contracted in time to perform the surgery? In single-payor, who's to say the doctor would've been qualified enough to realize the appendicitis and the need for surgery?
 
Last edited:
If Medicaid takes on those with pre-existing conditions, you build in enormous incentives for private insurers to cherry pick healthy patients, then find all kinds of creative ways to offload onto Medicaid all those with chronic, pre-existing conditions. Just write policies that have low limits for cancer, say, or exclude the most effective treatments, make patients jump through a bunch of recurring hoops, whatever, and those who get cancer will voluntarily give up private insurance and enroll in the government plan.

And why would employees/those who get their own policies care? If their insurer offloads sick patients by writing crap policies that don't cover chronic conditions, premiums stay low for the healthy, and those who get sick simply transfer to the government plan. Win/win for the healthy and the sick. The young and healthy save lots of money while they're healthy, and if they get sick, taxpayers pick up the costs!

Yes. Healthcare insurance companies ARE cherry-picking healthier patients because they can't make money and are most likely to lose money with sicker patients. In Iowa there's only one HMO because of ACA.
 
In a free market people are not forced to buy insurance and the government does not set the rates and hobble competition among providers.

And in a free market the government does not force private companies to provide their goods and services to deadbeats who cannot pay their bills.
 
Yes. Healthcare insurance companies ARE cherry-picking healthier patients because they can't make money and are most likely to lose money with sicker patients. In Iowa there's only one HMO because of ACA.

You ignored my post, so I'll not try again.
 
Which is worse, "right wing attacks" on social security, or left wing admissions that the government program is going broke?

I'm not sure. If we had at least one political party that was more interested in fixing things, in doing what is best for the country rather than the party, then SS could be "fixed" before a crisis were reached.

And, if the government were to pay back those IOUs, then SS would be a long way from going broke.

But, partisanship rules.
 
Correct, government forces providers to give treatment in the ER without regard to ability to pay - i.e. to provide those services for free, that providers will then pass on to the rest of us through higher bills, higher insurance premiums. How is that consistent with a free market again?

That's exactly how it works, and of course there is no free market when it comes to health care. Obama tried to at least defray the costs of providing "free" services via a tax on people who don't have health care, but the right wingers screamed bloody murder about that attempt, then, when there were enough of them in Washington, they repealed the tax. They just love freeloaders, obviously.
 
That's exactly how it works, and of course there is no free market when it comes to health care. Obama tried to at least defray the costs of providing "free" services via a tax on people who don't have health care, but the right wingers screamed bloody murder about that attempt, then, when there were enough of them in Washington, they repealed the tax. They just love freeloaders, obviously.

That's what has killed me in this years' long debate. Conservatives effectively decided freeloading was a constitutional right in this country when it comes to healthcare. It would be one thing to kill the mandate and the tax on the uninsured AND kill the requirement that the ER take everyone regardless of ability to pay, but they didn't do that. What they did is say to the uninsured - you have a right to make a bet - heads and you are healthy, you win! Tails and you get really sick or in an accident, everyone else will cover your losses!
 
That's what has killed me in this years' long debate. Conservatives effectively decided freeloading was a constitutional right in this country when it comes to healthcare. It would be one thing to kill the mandate and the tax on the uninsured AND kill the requirement that the ER take everyone regardless of ability to pay, but they didn't do that. What they did is say to the uninsured - you have a right to make a bet - heads and you are healthy, you win! Tails and you get really sick or in an accident, everyone else will cover your losses!

That's exactly what they did, and why? Simply because the ACA was passed by Democrats, so they had to challenge it in any way they could. The individual mandate was the least popular/least understood part of the bill, so they went there.
 
That's exactly how it works, and of course there is no free market when it comes to health care. Obama tried to at least defray the costs of providing "free" services via a tax on people who don't have health care, but the right wingers screamed bloody murder about that attempt, then, when there were enough of them in Washington, they repealed the tax. They just love freeloaders, obviously.

How is Obama's attempt to "defray the costs of providing "free" services via a tax on people who don't have healthcare" anything close to free markets for healthcare?
 
That's exactly what they did, and why? Simply because the ACA was passed by Democrats, so they had to challenge it in any way they could. The individual mandate was the least popular/least understood part of the bill, so they went there.

Jeeze, what was the dem's contribution in congress concerning the healthcare debate after Trump was elected? Who or what tied their hands from contributing?
 
That's what has killed me in this years' long debate. Conservatives effectively decided freeloading was a constitutional right in this country when it comes to healthcare. It would be one thing to kill the mandate and the tax on the uninsured AND kill the requirement that the ER take everyone regardless of ability to pay, but they didn't do that. What they did is say to the uninsured - you have a right to make a bet - heads and you are healthy, you win! Tails and you get really sick or in an accident, everyone else will cover your losses!

Let me clue you. Everyone eventually gets sick and everyone pays for sicknesses with ACA. Those who pay premiums and deductibles and those who receive shoddy medical treatment because of ACA.
 
Back
Top Bottom