• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why voters won't sit still for a repeal[W:8]

Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

faithful_servant said:
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Click to expand...

I read the comment and there was nothing of the sort in it.

chuckiechan said:
We get to add a New Bigot to the "bigot list"! Fat people!

I always wanted to be part of an "outrage class" instead of "white male taxpayer". Now I'm a fat white male taxpayer.
Click to expand...

White males are part of the outrage class. Hence why Trump won.
 
Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

Gaius46 said:
I read an interesting article about a small county in Kentucky where 8 in 10 voters went for Trump. It seems a large proportion of the residents are covered under Obamacare and they're now all worried that they'll lose their insurance. Best I can figure is that they figured he's a politician, all politicians lie, and he wasn't really going to take their insurance away.

The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-didnt-take-him-literally-on-obamacare-oops/2016/12/20/46ef3cae-c6f3-11e6-bf4b-2c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.b7530b693122
Click to expand...

Your link was interesting

For instance I didn't know trump was interested in the Penny Plan

Thats one of my favorite ideas to balance the budget and reduce our national debt.

But budget cuts will cause some pain just as the article claims.
 
Mac77 said:
Just remove the subsidy

Make everyone pay the true cost of their policy without shifting the burden to someone else
Click to expand...

Does that go for the $250 billion in tax expenditures flowing to employer-based coverage as well?
 
Perotista said:
I think you're wrong when you talk about Americans as a whole. When the ACA was first passed back in 2009/2010 it was opposed by 53% of Americans on average, 38% for. The result was the 2010 midterm elections when those 53% bit back at its passage.

Today, Gallup shows 51% of all Americans still oppose it, although those in favor have gained support to 44%. Gallup also says the law has hurt more Americans than it has helped, 29% hurt, 18% helped. 51% say it has had no effect.

More Americans Negative Than Positive About ACA | Gallup

So in a way you are defending a law that hurts more people than it helps. Not an ideal defense. Did Obamacare play a part in this election, hard to tell who put Obamacare as one of their more important issues. But those who oppose Obamacare went for Trump 82-13% and those who favor Obamacare went for Clinton 78-18, but there are more who oppose than support. Now Obamacare wasn't a main issue as it was in the 2010 midterm election. But it played a part.

Also Gallup states that only 24% of all Americans say the law will make healthcare better in the long term, 37% have no effect long term, but 36% say Obamacare will make healthcare worse in the long term. Third table or graph.

But how eager are the Republicans in congress or even Donald Trump to tackle the Repeal and replace of Obamacare? I think they aren't at all eager to tackle that issue. Perhaps they plan on doing nothing, letting premiums and deductibles rise, letting insurance companies opt out, letting subsidies expire, letting it die a natural death. I don't know, but if I were a betting man, I would wager on the later than trying to repeal and replace.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

You are probably correct, but people had health insurance long before Obamacare, so what are they supposed to do now? Obama is on record saying "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," at a time when lots of people were complaining, but that turned out not to be true, because of wording in their original policies that was in conflict with Obamacare rules. I had insurance through my employer that covered my children, and I never had a problem getting the hospital paid by the insurer when my daughter had a bad skull fracture as a four-year old (as an example). However, routine doctor visits were my responsibility, although shots for preventing childhood illnesses - whooping cough etc, were paid for by the company.

With Obamacare premiums and initial out of pocket expenses rising every year, something will have to be done to correct the mistakes that were made in implementing it because it's becoming more costly the longer it lasts, more and more people are finding it unaffordable, and I believe we've just about run out of "tweaks!" I have BC/BS Anthem and I'm happy with them, but I haven't had to use them for a long time, either!

I've never understood why single payer is a bad idea if the rules are the same for everyone, so I'm missing something important, I guess.
 
Greenbeard said:
Does that go for the $250 billion in tax expenditures flowing to employer-based coverage as well?
Click to expand...

I don't know

Do you have a link to that claim
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

You are probably correct, but people had health insurance long before Obamacare, so what are they supposed to do now? Obama is on record saying "if you like your insurance, you can keep it," at a time when lots of people were complaining, but that turned out not to be true, because of wording in their original policies that was in conflict with Obamacare rules. I had insurance through my employer that covered my children, and I never had a problem getting the hospital paid by the insurer when my daughter had a bad skull fracture as a four-year old (as an example). However, routine doctor visits were my responsibility, although shots for preventing childhood illnesses - whooping cough etc, were paid for by the company.

With Obamacare premiums and initial out of pocket expenses rising every year, something will have to be done to correct the mistakes that were made in implementing it because it's becoming more costly the longer it lasts, more and more people are finding it unaffordable, and I believe we've just about run out of "tweaks!" I have BC/BS Anthem and I'm happy with them, but I haven't had to use them for a long time, either!

I've never understood why single payer is a bad idea if the rules are the same for everyone, so I'm missing something important, I guess.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that single payer is the government or one of its agencies collecting all the premiums and then paying the providers which is private. Sort of Medicare for all. Medicare pays approximately 80% of all doctor bills. The rest is your responsibility or you can get Medicare supplemental insurance. Single payer if my understanding is right, probably would put a lot of health insurance companies out of business as it will be the government collecting the insurance fees and then the government paying the doctors and hospitals etc. Some may still be around to provide the supplemental insurance.

I'm on medicare now, I have had no problems with it. The government takes the medicare premium out of my social security so I don't get the money to pay for the medicare insurance. I don't miss the money since I never had it or get it. I see nothing wrong with this. I do know Obamacare has driven some doctors out of their practice. Two of my doctors quit or retired early. But it was fairly easy to find other doctors to replace them. I have yet to run into a doctor who didn't accept medicare, Obamacare is another story.

Medicaid is where the problem is. A very low reimbursement rate and a long time doctors have to wait to be reimbursed. One of my grand daughters is on medicaid, the doctor she was going to decided not to take medicaid anymore. She spent close to two months finding another doctor. A lot of doctors put up signs stating they aren't taking any new medicaid patients. It's my understanding where medicare pays 80%, Medicaid pays only 60% and hence there is the problem. Doctors have to rely on the poor to pay a bigger share then us old foggies have to do or accept less money for their service.

I'm not an expert on this, but this is my understanding.
 
I never understood why people continually want government involvement in every aspect of life when the 1 thing government has proven is that it screws up everything it touches. The federal government should stick to its original purpose and let states run themselves. Socialism is evil and a failed experiment, but oddly enough people continue to push this agenda to try drive America into a more and more socialist nation. If California and New York want to do it fine the citizens in those states have every right to, but please stop trying to force that garbage on the rest of us.
 
Greenbeard said:
Sure. How does the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance work?
Click to expand...

Its a tricky question.

But the government subsidies I was objecting to was unearned benefits that citizens qualify for by being poor and paying little or no taxes

Tax credits to workers for healthcare they earned on the job is not quite the same thing

The government takes in less money but at least its not giving some people money they didn't earn

We have to balance the budget and that will involve pain which should be spread around equally without regard to income
 
Mac77 said:
Its a tricky question.

But the government subsidies I was objecting to was unearned benefits that citizens qualify for by being poor and paying little or no taxes

Tax credits to workers for healthcare they earned on the job is not quite the same thing

The government takes in less money but at least its not giving some people money they didn't earn

We have to balance the budget and that will involve pain which should be spread around equally without regard to income
Click to expand...

It sounded like your objection was to shielding people from the "true cost of their policy," which is true of almost everyone--including those in employer-based coverage who pay artificially low premiums due to our tax policy. That employer tax exclusion is a significantly bigger distortion than a subsidy that's actually tagged to market factors.
 
"Medicare pays approximately 80% of all doctor bills."

"I'm on medicare now, I have had no problems with it."

Really not a surprise!!!
In my opinion, we should get rid of Medicare and Social Security. People should be responsible for their own health care and future. These hands out have to stop.
 
Greenbeard said:
It sounded like your objection was to shielding people from the "true cost of their policy," which is true of almost everyone--including those in employer-based coverage who pay artificially low premiums due to our tax policy. That employer tax exclusion is a significantly bigger distortion than a subsidy that's actually tagged to market factors.
Click to expand...

If we end all government subsidies to everyone for all the many reasons that special interests corrupt the tax code then write-offs for health insurance and free obamacare to low income people would be included in the change

But weighing the two side-by-side a tax credit for earned benefits is more worthy than a direct unearned gov subsidy to some people just for being poor
 
Funny... Money comes out of my paycheck to provide a convenient lifestyle for many others, including myself. We all suck at a different teat of the sow called government.
 
On the question of repeal, I agree with the sentiment that the GOP will be like the dog that finally catches the car it has been chasing. What now? Postcards to people, "You no longer have Obamacare. I'm sure you're relieved. Here is the address of the nearest emergency room."? There will be changes, the principal one will be that it is no longer called Obamacare. How about, the "Much the Same but Different Name" plan?

The guy who composes this will also be in charge of the other no-to-be-achieved Trump promise, abrogating the Iran treaty. "Dear France, Germany, Russia, China, UK: I not only know more than the generals, I know more than you do. Sincerely, Donald."
 
Nickyjo said:
Funny... Money comes out of my paycheck to provide a convenient lifestyle for many others, including myself. We all suck at a different teat of the sow called government.
Click to expand...

And the government teat is running dry

Government is padding your lifestyle with borrowed money that it cannot sustain forever
 
Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

Gaius46 said:
I read an interesting article about a small county in Kentucky where 8 in 10 voters went for Trump. It seems a large proportion of the residents are covered under Obamacare and they're now all worried that they'll lose their insurance. Best I can figure is that they figured he's a politician, all politicians lie, and he wasn't really going to take their insurance away.

The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Click to expand...

I read that article too. I am not sure that I believe it. First it is a biased source, for sure. Second, I have my doubts on how many they interviewed before finding some that had an opinion they could write an article about. Third the whole thing could just be another instance of fake news.
 
Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

buck said:
I read that article too. I am not sure that I believe it. First it is a biased source, for sure. Second, I have my doubts on how many they interviewed before finding some that had an opinion they could write an article about. Third the whole thing could just be another instance of fake news.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree that it's fake news. While you may not agree with WaPo it is a creditable news organization. As well the statistics they published are easily verifiable. Both of those argue for this not being fake news.

And I go one step further and say the article isn't slanted either. The salient point is the statistics. The large number of people on Obamacare who voted for Trump. The interviews just put a human face on what should be clear from the numbers: that a large number of people who voted for Trump in that county are on Obamacare and apparently voted against their own self interest. You can easily conclude that they aren't going to be happy about losing the insurance they just got even temporarily while Trump puts something else in place. It's a bit more of stretch to conclude that they assumed that Trump wasn't going to take their insurance away but it's also not all that tough an idea to swallow either.
 
Re: Why voters won't sit still for a repeal

Gaius46 said:
I'd disagree that it's fake news. While you may not agree with WaPo it is a creditable news organization. As well the statistics they published are easily verifiable. Both of those argue for this not being fake news.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. The WaPo article, is discussing a Vox article about people that voted for Tump but rely on Obamacare and are worried about losing it. I do not believe Vox is particularly credible. and they certainly are, openly, biased. When I responded, I was discussing your point (from the Vox article) that many of the Trump voters are worried about losing Obamacare. That is what I was calling (potentially) fake news.

Sorry. Thought that was apparent from both your original post on the subject, and my reply (taken in context) about askig how many people that they had to talk to to get the response they wanted.

The large number of people on Obamacare who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Yes, my parents are now on Obamacare. They want to see it repealed. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Many people on Obamcare are on it because it is required or you face a fine.
 
Last edited:
Mac77 said:
Most of those people are obama/hillary voters anyway.

of course they are addicted to free stuff from the government including obamacare

But they lost the election
Click to expand...
Nope. Otherwise you could never explain how the red states get more federal aid per capita than the blue ones.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Walmart nation?

What a narrow, dim witted, ignorant, and hypocritical view to take of people.

Democrats are not fat?

You better take a look around at the Democrat base more closely. I see plenty of fat people on your side of the aisle.

69% of black men are obese or overweight and 82 % of black women........ and that is almost 25% of your base.

Special Report: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Obesity - Black Communities

Hispanics are also a large part of you base and 42% are obese or overweight.

Special Report: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Obesity - Latino Communities

If you look closely at this map.......it looks like obesity is pretty well spread out to me.

View attachment 67211459
Click to expand...

:doh

You know that your chart shows significantly higher obesity rates in the most solidly red states, right?
 
Perotista said:
I think you're wrong when you talk about Americans as a whole. When the ACA was first passed back in 2009/2010 it was opposed by 53% of Americans on average, 38% for. The result was the 2010 midterm elections when those 53% bit back at its passage.

Today, Gallup shows 51% of all Americans still oppose it, although those in favor have gained support to 44%. Gallup also says the law has hurt more Americans than it has helped, 29% hurt, 18% helped. 51% say it has had no effect.
Click to expand...
You're losing the focus of the argument.

The issue is not whether people like the ACA (in fact, there are many valid reasons not to). The issue is whether Americans will lose their coverage if and when it's repealed.

So in a way you are defending a law that hurts more people than it helps. Not an ideal defense.
Click to expand...
Again, no. For the same reason as above.

Now Obamacare wasn't a main issue as it was in the 2010 midterm election. But it played a part.
Click to expand...
Some politicos disagree on that one, but of course it doesn't have much to do with the thread topic.

But how eager are the Republicans in congress or even Donald Trump to tackle the Repeal and replace of Obamacare? I think they aren't at all eager to tackle that issue. Perhaps they plan on doing nothing, letting premiums and deductibles rise, letting insurance companies opt out, letting subsidies expire, letting it die a natural death. I don't know, but if I were a betting man, I would wager on the later than trying to repeal and replace.
Click to expand...
If that happens, it's going to be a drag on the economy until someone figures out how to make it work more smoothly.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
You're losing the focus of the argument.

The issue is not whether people like the ACA (in fact, there are many valid reasons not to). The issue is whether Americans will lose their coverage if and when it's repealed.


Again, no. For the same reason as above.


Some politicos disagree on that one, but of course it doesn't have much to do with the thread topic.


If that happens, it's going to be a drag on the economy until someone figures out how to make it work more smoothly.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I not understanding you. Are you saying that it is okay to hurt about twice as many people as you help as long as you are helping some?

There are probably two ways to attack this. One would be to set up a VA style healthcare system for the poor, those who can't afford insurance. Those who can afford it, leave it up to them.

Second would be sort of a medicare for all. The government takes the premiums out of social security before they send you a dime in benefits. That wouldn't work in the civilian sector, you would have to have the employer without the medicare portion along with the social security portion. Then there are those who aren't working or can't. No easy answers, just questions.

Medicaid kind of sucks, low reimbursement rates and a long time for the provider to receive the reimbursement. My grand daughter is on medicaid and it is hard to find a doctor who takes it.

Then again, maybe a combo of medicare for all and the VA style health care for the poor who can't afford it. I don't know. But I am pretty sure, not certain that the GOP congress doesn't really want to do anything for the ACA. When the majority of Americans are still opposed to it and one has to rely on their vote to remain in congress, what is the incentive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom