• 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.

Shocking News! CBO Confirms That the AHCA Is Still a Garbage Dump of Bad Ideas

I Hope and Pray the Trump Supporters get exactly and swiftly the Healthcare they Voted for ... the sooner the better.
 
ibelsd said:
Let me throw it back. Didn't the Democrats lie about the AHA both before and after it was passed? So, when the Democrats tell you the Republican plan is bad, why would you believe them? This is not really a valid argument. You are merely making an ad hom attack. If you disagree with an argument I've made, then address it directly, not under some Conservative media guise as though you know me or what I believe.

Under the current implementation of the AHA, as insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges, where will people get insured? As fewer doctors except insurance from the exchanges, where will these insured people find medical care?

Access Denied
“There are certain aspects of Medicaid, particularly for low-income populations, where it is really almost superior to private [insurance] coverage, with very low copays and no deductibles,” says Stephen Zuckerman, co-director and senior fellow with the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center. “But at the same time, Medicaid beneficiaries are significantly more likely to report having difficulty finding a provider or delaying care because their health care coverage isn’t widely accepted.”

The truth and simple fact is that the AHA does not fix this problem outside of the temporary and now defunded subsidy program for medicaid disbursements. The AHA wanted to give health care to all, but Obama and friends were not honest about the costs.

I think it is useful, and fair, to remember that Republican plans will be much more free-market-centric. The goal simply isn't the same if Republicans are being honest (and they aren't). They want to lower costs and increase quality. As a result, the quantity side must decrease. Fewer people, particularly sick people, must be insured so costs can be decreased without negatively impacting overall care or, hopefully, improving care. If doctors are reimbursed properly for all/most patients, then I think it is fair to believe that patient care will improve. It is far-fetched to believe that doctors will treat patients who are a net loss equally to patients which earn them a profit. By nearly all accounts, medicaid patients are net-losses for primary care providers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...lth-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/#604307326043
"And just what did the Oregon study show in 2011, at the one-year mark? Actually it did find that people on Medicaid felt better about their health and their financial situations, in a subjective survey of enrollees conducted by the authors. But the study showed no difference in health outcomes, such as HbA1c or high cholesterol or mortality. These important details were lost on those who hyped the study as proof that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion was the right thing to do."
Click to expand...

First of all Obamacare is called the A.C.A. not AHA.

Second, had Repubs supported the Public Option, there would be a lower cost insurance option for everyone.

Third, had Repubs not trashed the risk corridor subsidy in the 2014 budget, risk adverse insurance companies would still offer plans in places they have now abandoned. Affordable insurance has always been in short supply in low income rural areas and will continue to be a big problem.

Fourth, physicians are rarely self employed small businessmen. For the most part they receive salaries. They don't know what things cost. There is no reason to believe that people on medicaid receive poor care. A person's health is strongly determined by behavior, diet, exercise. Things that cannot be changed overnight- especially in a country that subsidizes junk food. U.S. physicians are better paid than anywhere in the world although P.C.P.s are the least well compensated and the most vital.

Fifth -If there is anything in the Repub plan that increases the quality of health care while decreasing the price, please explain.
 
ibelsd said:
Funny as you clearly didn't read my post which added support to my claims.
You should notice i clearly acknowledged both parties lied about their legislation. So, you can stop repeating your taking points as though i am some GOP appologist.
Click to expand...

IB, you are absolutely correct. I did not read what you added. I thought you cut and pasted an editorial and stopped reading. I apologize (my internet time is limited on vac). Now that being said I wish I had never read an American saying we have to stop coverage to sick people so coverage can ´maybe´ improve for the rest.

´Fewer people, particularly sick people, must be insured so costs can be decreased without negatively impacting overall care or, hopefully, improving care.´

What you get wrong is the republicans are screwing over 23 million Americans so they can cut taxes for rich people. They´re not doing it to improve coverage. and what disproves your narrative is Obamacare expanded coverage to 20 million people and improved the quality of healthcare. The rest of your post is a mish mosh of spin and delusion.

And ib, the democrats didn’t lie to me about Obamacare. The republicans did and they´re lying about their plan too. In case you missed it, the CBO told us the republican plan sucks not the dems.
 
Cassandra said:
First of all Obamacare is called the A.C.A. not AHA.

Second, had Repubs supported the Public Option, there would be a lower cost insurance option for everyone.

Third, had Repubs not trashed the risk corridor subsidy in the 2014 budget, risk adverse insurance companies would still offer plans in places they have now abandoned. Affordable insurance has always been in short supply in low income rural areas and will continue to be a big problem.

Fourth, physicians are rarely self employed small businessmen. For the most part they receive salaries. They don't know what things cost. There is no reason to believe that people on medicaid receive poor care. A person's health is strongly determined by behavior, diet, exercise. Things that cannot be changed overnight- especially in a country that subsidizes junk food. U.S. physicians are better paid than anywhere in the world although P.C.P.s are the least well compensated and the most vital.

Fifth -If there is anything in the Repub plan that increases the quality of health care while decreasing the price, please explain.
Click to expand...

1. Yup, I got my government alphabet soup mixed up. ACA, not AHA. Thanks for pointing this out.
2. Had Republicans supported the Public Option, we'd call them Democrats. In your opinion this would provide lower cost insurance for everyone. I am guessing you believe we can lower costs for everyone AND provide higher quality care. What is the saying? 10 lbs of b.s. in a 5 lb bag.
3. Democrats rammed through a health care plan that the GOP publicly said they opposed. What did you expect would happen? By the way, in passing the ACA, the Democrats consistently lied to the public.
4. Physicians who work for the HMO's earn salaries. True. I do not know the percentages. However, aren't salaries paid to doctors, like any other corporate salary, based on income/profit? So, if hospitals have to provide services for which they aren't properly compensated, doesn't this negatively impact salaries? Not just for doctors, but for nurses, admin staff, all the way down to the janitors.
5. Are you claiming that U.S. doctors are being overpaid?
6. Per the CBO, the Republican plan will reduce the deficit by over $300 billion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, quality would look to be improved by offering consumers more insurance choices than they currently have.
GOP Health Care Plan Will Deliver More Choice, Lower Costs: Thompson | Fox Business
I think you may argue that the plan wouldn't improve quality, however, the goal is there and I think it is speculation whether the plan would work as advertised. The cost, of course, is that some people would pay more and some people would not be insured (of those there would be a subset who are not insured by choice).

As I acknowledged, the GOP and Democrats both lied/lie about the plans. The reality is that each plan offers positives and negatives and, at some point, it comes down to what each party is attempting to achieve from an ideological/political perspective. The GOP is trying to limit government involvement and the Democrats, ultimately, would like to see healthcare a government entity via some sort of single-payer or universal health care system.
 
Vern said:
IB, you are absolutely correct. I did not read what you added. I thought you cut and pasted an editorial and stopped reading. I apologize (my internet time is limited on vac). Now that being said I wish I had never read an American saying we have to stop coverage to sick people so coverage can ´maybe´ improve for the rest.

´Fewer people, particularly sick people, must be insured so costs can be decreased without negatively impacting overall care or, hopefully, improving care.´

What you get wrong is the republicans are screwing over 23 million Americans so they can cut taxes for rich people. They´re not doing it to improve coverage. and what disproves your narrative is Obamacare expanded coverage to 20 million people and improved the quality of healthcare. The rest of your post is a mish mosh of spin and delusion.

And ib, the democrats didn’t lie to me about Obamacare. The republicans did and they´re lying about their plan too. In case you missed it, the CBO told us the republican plan sucks not the dems.
Click to expand...

First, I appreciate your honesty about missing part of my post. No worries.

With that out of the way, it is hard to take you seriously when you claim that the Democrats didn't lie about the ACA. It was 2013's lie of the year per Politifact (not known as a conservative web site)
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' | PolitiFact

Please support or retract your claim that 23 million people would be "screwed" under the GOP plan. Being screwed implies that not only would 23 million people lose coverage, but that they'd lose access to healthcare. At the very least support that all 23 million who would lose healthcare, have a want for healthcare insurance in the first place.

Please support or retract your claim that the CBO told us that the Republican plan sucks.

Even after reading my post, you chose to dismiss my arguments. However, until refuted, they still stand.
 
countryboy said:
Holy ****ing spinmeisters Batman. From your own article.


6a00e55188b4c088330168e8c6938b970c-pi
Click to expand...

Nice job picking out the one line that supports your cause. It clearly states they were off about HOW people would get insurance, but overall they were very, very close.
 
vash1012 said:
Nice job picking out the one line that supports your cause. It clearly states they were off about HOW people would get insurance, but overall they were very, very close.
Click to expand...

The thing hasn't passed, let alone been implemented. How could you possibly know they were "very, very close"? Lol.
 
countryboy said:
The thing hasn't passed, let alone been implemented. How could you possibly know they were "very, very close"? Lol.
Click to expand...

How are GOPublic hearings going on AHCA, tax policy, budget talks, and debt ceiling, just to name four ?
 
Vern said:
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Wednesday that the Obamacare repeal bill, which Republican House leaders successfully rushed through a vote earlier this month after several major revisions before the CBO could score their impact, would leave 23 million additional Americans without health insurance by 2026. This is a slight improvement over the previous edition of the legislation, which would have left 24 million more individuals uncovered. The updated legislation would also cut $834 billion from Medicaid and hand out tax cuts worth $661 billion, largely to upper-income households and corporations. If made law, the bill would still be absolute hell for aging, lower-middle-class workers. The report says a 64-year-old earning $26,500 would have to pay $13,600 for a health plan under the AHCA, up from $1,700 under Obamacare."

The CBO says 23 million fewer Americans will have insurance under the AHCA

Once I recovered from the shock I realized that republicans are simply not going to admit they've been lying about Obamacare the last 7 years. I think conservatives need to start writing their reps and senators and tell them "I know you lied but its okay, I forgive you but please address healthcare as if you haven't lied the last 7 years." then maybe they would try to address health care in the country in an honest and realistic manner.
Click to expand...

Insurance is not limited networks and 10k deductibles with premiums paid by tax payers.
 
ibelsd said:
Furthermore, quality would look to be improved by offering consumers more insurance choices than they currently have.
Click to expand...

What definition of quality is this? Per the CBO, junk plans that they wouldn't even classify as insurance will proliferate.

CBO and JCT estimate that a few million people would buy policies that would not cover major medical risks. That estimate is highly uncertain. Although less healthy people might be able to purchase plans that would include a limited number of benefits, those policies would not provide sufficient financial protection to meet CBO’s definition of insurance coverage. The existence of tax credits in the nongroup market would encourage a second market to emerge to sell policies priced to closely match the size of the credits. Although such plans would provide some benefits, the policies would not provide enough financial protection in the event of a serious and costly illness to be considered insurance.
Click to expand...
 
ibelsd said:
1. Yup, I got my government alphabet soup mixed up. ACA, not AHA. Thanks for pointing this out.
2. Had Republicans supported the Public Option, we'd call them Democrats. In your opinion this would provide lower cost insurance for everyone. I am guessing you believe we can lower costs for everyone AND provide higher quality care. What is the saying? 10 lbs of b.s. in a 5 lb bag.
Click to expand...

I thought we had the best health care in the world -for those who can afford it? Do you have a problem with the quality of H.C.? Yes a public option would have saved money.
3. Democrats rammed through a health care plan that the GOP publicly said they opposed. What did you expect would happen? By the way, in passing the ACA, the Democrats consistently lied to the public.
Click to expand...

Beside the statement that "if you have a plan that you like ,You can keep it" , I am not aware of lies. There were certainly aspects o the A.C.A. that did not go as planned. For instance, the O administration did not anticipate that Governors would refuse to accept millions of Federal dollars to expand medicaid. That sabotaged the plan for many states.
4. Physicians who work for the HMO's earn salaries. True. I do not know the percentages. However, aren't salaries paid to doctors, like any other corporate salary, based on income/profit? So, if hospitals have to provide services for which they aren't properly compensated, doesn't this negatively impact salaries? Not just for doctors, but for nurses, admin staff, all the way down to the janitors.
Click to expand...

Actually, the A.C.A. where it has been fully implemented, has made hospitals more solvent. Thanks to my Maine Gov. Le page, rural hospitals are struggling. Some have closed. They wouldm uch much rather have patients covered by medicaid than have patients with no insurance at all.
5. Are you claiming that U.S. doctors are being overpaid?
Click to expand...

No, I am claiming that there is no "free market"in health care. Physician training is limited to keep salaries high and employment assured. Have you ever heard of a physician struggling to find a job?
6. Per the CBO, the Republican plan will reduce the deficit by over $300 billion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, quality would look to be improved by offering consumers more insurance choices than they currently have.
GOP Health Care Plan Will Deliver More Choice, Lower Costs: Thompson | Fox Business
I think you may argue that the plan wouldn't improve quality, however, the goal is there and I think it is speculation whether the plan would work as advertised. The cost, of course, is that some people would pay more and some people would not be insured (of those there would be a subset who are not insured by choice).
Click to expand...

The G.O.P plan will just take us back to the mess we had before. Choice when we are talking about insurance has nothing to do with quality health care. What it means for people with P.E.C.s is the fear of losing a job with benefits. Trapped by the system. And then some people will be like my husband and just die prematurely for lack of insurance. Thanks G.O.P.
 
Greenbeard said:
And yet it's a Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It's always interesting to me when someone points to something that already exists under current law to make a point about what ought to be allowed to exist.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with HIP in only two ways and neither is by personal use.

One is the locally ballyhooed rejection of Obamacare by Mike Pence as Indiana Governor when he had the chance to implement Obamacare and went with the implementation of HIP instead. As you say, it was an extension of Medicare.

The other is the personal report by a person I know that was between jobs who took advantage of the HIP benefits. There was some Red Tape as she applied, but the coverage was free to her, very helpful covering a few very needed procedures and was, in this case, short term. As designed, it can be a permanent solution to healthcare coverage.

It seems like allowing the various states to implement things that solve a problem will provide 50 incubators to address the same problem. 50 sets of solutions and 50 sets of problems would flow from the experiences of the various states. If all of these were built on a pre-existing platform, then the implementation of the ACA or the ACHA would be redundant and pointless.

After some experience, 50 programs that were all somewhat unique would be a good universe to review and use to create improvements to all.

Competition in the arena of ideas.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/medicaid-and-mike-pence/511262/
 
code1211 said:
It seems like allowing the various states to implement things that solve a problem will provide 50 incubators to address the same problem. 50 sets of solutions and 50 sets of problems would flow from the experiences of the various states. If all of these were built on a pre-existing platform, then the implementation of the ACA or the ACHA would be redundant and pointless.

After some experience, 50 programs that were all somewhat unique would be a good universe to review and use to create improvements to all.

Competition in the arena of ideas.
Click to expand...

And my point was: that's exactly how things work now. Indiana is an example of that, as is literally every other state.

Medicaid aside, that's how the ACA was supposed to work: every state was supposed to retain control over their own marketplaces, tailoring them to local circumstances. It only became more federalized as many states (predominantly red states) decided they preferred to default to the federal option.

But state-level administration and innovation was the original governing philosophy of the ACA. That's why I hope Oklahoma moves forward with some version of this: https://www.debatepolitics.com/obamacare-aca-/282561-oklahoma-first-true-obamacare-innovator.html
 
ibelsd said:
With that out of the way, it is hard to take you seriously when you claim that the Democrats didn't lie about the ACA. It was 2013's lie of the year per Politifact (not known as a conservative web site)
Lie of the Year: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it' | PolitiFact
Click to expand...

Yes IB, Im well aware of the ´keep your plan´ issue. I dont consider it a lie because I believe he fully intended to allow it. and thats why he apologized when he was told it was not posible. I apologize when Im wrong. And Ib, that is literally the only legitimate complaint about Obamacare and President Obama. For instance, death panels is not a legitimate complaint. Speaking of, lets compare death panels to keep your plan since they were both lies of the years.

everybody but the conservative base knew death panels was a lie the instant it was spewed. death panels was just another conservative lie to scare the conservative base just like ´born in kenya´and ´stimulus will cause hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero´ keep your plan was an over promise and again, President Obama apologized. Thats what leaders do.

Please support or retract your claim that 23 million people would be "screwed" under the GOP plan. Being screwed implies that not only would 23 million people lose coverage, but that they'd lose access to healthcare. At the very least support that all 23 million who would lose healthcare, have a want for healthcare insurance in the first place.
Click to expand...

Ib, my defintion of screwed over is losing coverage. If you to define it as only losing Access to healthcare if they even wanted it feel free but Im satisfied with the way I use it.

Please support or retract your claim that the CBO told us that the Republican plan sucks.
Click to expand...
see post 24. Its why countryboy cut and ran from the thread.
Even after reading my post, you chose to dismiss my arguments. However, until refuted, they still stand.
Click to expand...
IB, Im glad you mentioned your post. there is no basis for you to claim eliminating coverage for sick people will improve the quality of healthcare. Your argument is not only baseless but the fact that Obamacare improved the quality of health care and gave 20 million coverage disproves it.
 
Vern said:
Yes IB, Im well aware of the ´keep your plan´ issue. I dont consider it a lie because I believe he fully intended to allow it. and thats why he apologized when he was told it was not posible. I apologize when Im wrong. And Ib, that is literally the only legitimate complaint about Obamacare and President Obama. For instance, death panels is not a legitimate complaint. Speaking of, lets compare death panels to keep your plan since they were both lies of the years.

everybody but the conservative base knew death panels was a lie the instant it was spewed. death panels was just another conservative lie to scare the conservative base just like ´born in kenya´and ´stimulus will cause hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero´ keep your plan was an over promise and again, President Obama apologized. Thats what leaders do.



Ib, my defintion of screwed over is losing coverage. If you to define it as only losing Access to healthcare if they even wanted it feel free but Im satisfied with the way I use it.


see post 24. Its why countryboy cut and ran from the thread.

IB, Im glad you mentioned your post. there is no basis for you to claim eliminating coverage for sick people will improve the quality of healthcare. Your argument is not only baseless but the fact that Obamacare improved the quality of health care and gave 20 million coverage disproves it.
Click to expand...

1. So, the lie of the year wasn't a lie because Vern says so... Again, if we are going to have a rational discussion, then you simply have to admit reality. Obama, by almost all accounts lied to the American people. You claimed that the Democrats didn't lie. This is a false claim on your part. Own it.

2. First, I've never claimed that the Republicans didn't lie. In fact, I specifically noted that both parties lied about their plans and about their opposition's plans. Death panels was an example of hyperbole (which is a form of lying). I only offered you one example of the Democrats lying about their plan, but there are plenty of others.

3. Your definition is simply tailored to your desired outcome. If I don't have a desire for health insurance and no longer have to pay for health insurance and consequently lose health insurance, it is inaccurate to claim I have been screwed. I have lost something I didn't want. So, you may be satisfied, but words have meaning and it is very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who chooses to use words without their generally accepted meanings. In this post alone you have redefined the meaning of lie and screwed to suit your argument.

4. You are repeating a claim you made earlier when you asked me to support that the GOP plan is intended to improve quality of care. I addressed this point earlier, so I'll repeat it here.

6. Per the CBO, the Republican plan will reduce the deficit by over $300 billion over the next 10 years. Furthermore, quality would look to be improved by offering consumers more insurance choices than they currently have.
GOP Health Care Plan Will Deliver More Choice, Lower Costs: Thompson | Fox Business
I think you may argue that the plan wouldn't improve quality, however, the goal is there and I think it is speculation whether the plan would work as advertised. The cost, of course, is that some people would pay more and some people would not be insured (of those there would be a subset who are not insured by choice).
Click to expand...

5. I asked where in the CBO report it claims that the GOP plan sucks. I am still waiting. Hint: I'm pretty sure the CBO does not make general, subjective assessments such as the plan sucks.
 
ibelsd said:
1. So, the lie of the year wasn't a lie because Vern says so... Again, if we are going to have a rational discussion, then you simply have to admit reality. Obama, by almost all accounts lied to the American people. You claimed that the Democrats didn't lie. This is a false claim on your part. Own it.

2. First, I've never claimed that the Republicans didn't lie. In fact, I specifically noted that both parties lied about their plans and about their opposition's plans. Death panels was an example of hyperbole (which is a form of lying). I only offered you one example of the Democrats lying about their plan, but there are plenty of others.
Click to expand...

Ib, if you are unable to discern the difference between being wrong and outright lying then there is no point for further discussion. "He wants to kill old people" was not hyperbole. Its simply a lie. A lie intended to scare people to push an agenda. I'll even help you learn the difference. The "pushing granny off a cliff" commercial that conservatives often point to as a counter point is hyperbole. It was not meant to be taken literally. Telling people they will have to stand before govt bureaucrats to determine their worth before getting care was not hyperbole. They wanted people to believe it. Again, when President Obama apologized I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake not a lie. But IB, if you want to call it a lie, feel free.

3. Your definition is simply tailored to your desired outcome. If I don't have a desire for health insurance and no longer have to pay for health insurance and consequently lose health insurance, it is inaccurate to claim I have been screwed. I have lost something I didn't want. So, you may be satisfied, but words have meaning and it is very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who chooses to use words without their generally accepted meanings. In this post alone you have redefined the meaning of lie and screwed to suit your argument.
Click to expand...

sorry IB, 23 million people not getting health care insurance is 23 million people being screwed. Your counter point is nothing but "ifs buts and maybes" that 23 million people didn't really want insurance. You're just deluding yourself with that narrative.

4. You are repeating a claim you made earlier when you asked me to support that the GOP plan is intended to improve quality of care. I addressed this point earlier, so I'll repeat it here.
Click to expand...

Ib, you said it would "improve the quality" your first attempt was to claim it would "improve the quality of care by excluding sick people". I would want to pretend I didn't post that either but you posted it. And you've posted nothing to suggest it would improve the quality of care. If you want to pretend more "insurance choices" equals "improve quality of care" you're going to need to explain that.

5. I asked where in the CBO report it claims that the GOP plan sucks. I am still waiting. Hint: I'm pretty sure the CBO does not make general, subjective assessments such as the plan sucks.
Click to expand...

again, if you want to say "23 million losing coverage " is not screwed go right ahead. And it screws over old people too.
 
Vern said:
Ib, if you are unable to discern the difference between being wrong and outright lying then there is no point for further discussion. "He wants to kill old people" was not hyperbole. Its simply a lie. A lie intended to scare people to push an agenda. I'll even help you learn the difference. The "pushing granny off a cliff" commercial that conservatives often point to as a counter point is hyperbole. It was not meant to be taken literally. Telling people they will have to stand before govt bureaucrats to determine their worth before getting care was not hyperbole. They wanted people to believe it. Again, when President Obama apologized I gave him the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake not a lie. But IB, if you want to call it a lie, feel free.



sorry IB, 23 million people not getting health care insurance is 23 million people being screwed. Your counter point is nothing but "ifs buts and maybes" that 23 million people didn't really want insurance. You're just deluding yourself with that narrative.



Ib, you said it would "improve the quality" your first attempt was to claim it would "improve the quality of care by excluding sick people". I would want to pretend I didn't post that either but you posted it. And you've posted nothing to suggest it would improve the quality of care. If you want to pretend more "insurance choices" equals "improve quality of care" you're going to need to explain that.



again, if you want to say "23 million losing coverage " is not screwed go right ahead. And it screws over old people too.
Click to expand...

1. I'm just going with the general view that obama lied. It isn't just me who have failed in discerning the difference. Appatently wapo and politifact have failed as well. Or... and just hear me out, perhaps you have allowed yourself to be hoidwinked.

2. You insist 23 million people will lose insurance and that all 23 million should be considered screwed. First, 23 million is an estimate. Second, of those 23 million, some percent will be happy to not have to pay for insurance. So, your claim that 23 million will be screwed just does not add up.

3. Finally, I've supported my claim regarding quality v. Quantity per the cbo report. You seem to take them literally for some things, like 23 million, but plug your ears like a small child when it notes quality will improve.
 
ibelsd said:
1. I'm just going with the general view that obama lied. It isn't just me who have failed in discerning the difference. Appatently wapo and politifact have failed as well. Or... and just hear me out, perhaps you have allowed yourself to be hoidwinked.
Click to expand...
And you are free to go with the general view that President Obama lied. I've clearly stated that his apology tells me that it was not intentional. Death panels, obamacare will kill jobs and kill the economy, no one will sign up, hundreds of thousands of doctors will retire, 50-100 million people will lose insurance, the CBO is lying when it says Obamacare reduces the deficit were intentional lies.

2. You insist 23 million people will lose insurance and that all 23 million should be considered screwed. First, 23 million is an estimate. Second, of those 23 million, some percent will be happy to not have to pay for insurance. So, your claim that 23 million will be screwed just does not add up.
Click to expand...
well ib, the CBO estimated that 23 million will lose insurance. If you want to pretend some % didn't want it in the first place, please give us a number and feel free to subtract that from your "got screwed" estimate. I'm satisfied with 23 million because I don't think the "mandate" is making too many people buy insurance.

3. Finally, I've supported my claim regarding quality v. Quantity per the cbo report. You seem to take them literally for some things, like 23 million, but plug your ears like a small child when it notes quality will improve.
Click to expand...
Now IB, I've clearly explained what I believe and why. You've in no way explained how you justify saying "Trumpcare will improve the quality of health care". You simply posted some blurb that said "Furthermore, quality would look to be improved by offering consumers more insurance choices than they currently have. " That was not from the CBO. It was stated in such a way to make you think the CBO said it. And don't forget, your first attempt was to claim it would "improve the quality of care by excluding sick people". So IB, please try to focus on this part. Its what started the conversation.
 
Winston said:
This bill reduces coverage, reduces patient protections, and makes it harder for Americans to get insurance. It's a crock of ****. The way it was crafted, the patient and average American wasn't the centerpiece. No one had a vision for making healthcare better and more affordable for Americans. It was crafted by vote-grabbing, and picking and choosing this or that, based on politician's votes, rather than merit for America. It's a horrible bill.
Click to expand...

Ah well, the susbstantial people got more socialism, wasn't a total loss.
 
Gee golly. It had been a couple weeks since this thread got started, so when you explained how this conversation started, I kind of scratched my head. I remember your reference, but couldn't place it at the starting line. So, I actually took the time to look back and it turns out, that's not at all how this started. Rather, how this started is you that took offense to my critique of both parties in how they are selling their plans. I know. I know. You don't believe.

Quote Originally Posted by ibelsd View Post
Let me ask everyone a real question. Do Americans want low priced health care or do we want quality healthcare? I think Democrats promised everyone would have great healthcare. They created a plan such that everyone would have insurance, but good luck finding a doctor. Democrats also over-promised the amount of savings to health care people would receive. A savings which most Americans haven't come close to realizing. The Republicans created a plan to improve quality of care and reduce costs; everyone with insurance will have access to quality doctors, most people will pay less, but fewer people will be covered (as noted above, people in the margins, about 5% of all Americnas who are in the exchange system and getting coverage from medicare will be negatively impacted). In other words, both parties over-promised and refused to properly divulge the trade-offs of their plans. Both parties are trying (or succeeded) to ram through legislation on a straight party line vote. The truth is that no plan will make Americans happy because the expectations are simply unrealistic and no politician from either party is being truthful.
Click to expand...

Vern said:
Your thread is nothing but a ´both sides did it´narrative and of course you have to resort to dishonest conservative narratives to do it. Over 20 million gained health care coverage because of Obamacare. it increased the quality of care and lowered the déficit. lets ignore the false ´find a doctor´and ´where´s my 2500´narratives, please explain how the republican plan ´improves the quality of care´. i see how the medicaid cuts reduce costs but im not seeing the ´improved quality of care´you completely imagined. And before you reply, remember you were told and obediently believed there were ´death panels´. So your sources of information are not the most reliable.
Click to expand...

So, let's be clear. YOU may have focused on a single statement made in a later post, but that is not how this began. My central point in all of this is that both parties have used lies to sell a plan which only partially fulfills their stated goals. Again, while you have gotten bogged down into whether you believe in method A versus method B (and I followed you down this rabbit hole for a moment), the fact is my original claim holds true. The Democrats LIED about their plan. Apologies after the fact and after one gets caught do not erase the act of one's lie. A lie is a statement that someone says when they know it is untrue. In this case, Obama knew his plan wouldn't do what he claimed, but he sold it to the American people anyhow. And, let's be clear. The Republicans LIED about the plan as well. As you noted, Palin and other GOP were running around yelling about death panels. In this new round of policy proposals and lies, nothing has changed. The Democrats are making false claims, such as millions will die.
House GOP Passes Health Care Bill, Democrats Warn of Death – Election Central

The Wisconsin Democratic Party is calling the GOP plan genocide for seniors.
https://www.facebook.com/WisDems?hc_location=timeline

And, of course, the GOP is overselling their own plan. Cheaper, better, etc. They are clearly trying to improve quality and efficiency, but they are lying if they claim they can do it without cutting quantity (i.e. number of people covered). Whether you believe their plan would work to achieve their stated goals is a policy issue and not really relevant to my initial claims. I cannot prove the GOP plan will improve quantity. It is a goal which they believe will occur by giving people more health care choices and by creating a more competitive health care market place. You are free to disagree, but it is just your opinion. Based on your willingness to be blinded by party affiliation, it isn't an opinion I hold in particularly high regard.
 
ibelsd said:
And, of course, the GOP is overselling their own plan. Cheaper, better, etc. They are clearly trying to improve quality and efficiency, but they are lying if they claim they can do it without cutting quantity (i.e. number of people covered). Whether you believe their plan would work to achieve their stated goals is a policy issue and not really relevant to my initial claims. I cannot prove the GOP plan will improve quantity. It is a goal which they believe will occur by giving people more health care choices and by creating a more competitive health care market place. You are free to disagree, but it is just your opinion. Based on your willingness to be blinded by party affiliation, it isn't an opinion I hold in particularly high regard.
Click to expand...


They are NOT trying to do either thing. They want to let the "market" have its way with all of it, which is just a reflection of the Ayn Rand nonsense Ryan still laps up. The bills they have advanced improve things for 3 groups:
1) Some of the sellers of products and services in that sector.
2) People who don't want to carry insurance or only carry minimal catastrophic coverage.
3) The multi-millionaire/billionaire donor class that funds the GOP and right wing think tanks - they will get a huge tax cut. They don't have to worry about insurance, do they?

FWIW, I know a couple of people in group 2.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
They are NOT trying to do either thing. They want to let the "market" have its way with all of it, which is just a reflection of the Ayn Rand nonsense Ryan still laps up. The bills they have advanced improve things for 3 groups:
1) Some of the sellers of products and services in that sector.
2) People who don't want to carry insurance or only carry minimal catastrophic coverage.
3) The multi-millionaire/billionaire donor class that funds the GOP and right wing think tanks - they will get a huge tax cut. They don't have to worry about insurance, do they?

FWIW, I know a couple of people in group 2.
Click to expand...

Sweet. And you know this because???? Let me get this straight, if I may. Per you, in your infinite wisdom, the Republicans are simply Randians who, per your interpretation of her work, desire only to help businesses make money. However, the Democrats are really wonderful and their motives are pure as the driven snow.

1. I am pretty sure you don't have any special insight into the motives of individual politicians.
2. I am pretty sure you have never read a book by Ayn Rand, and if you did, it went completely over your head.
3. If you believe on political party stands on higher moral/ethical ground than the other, then you're a sucker, a fool, or both.
 
ibelsd said:
Sweet. And you know this because???? Let me get this straight, if I may. Per you, in your infinite wisdom, the Republicans are simply Randians who, per your interpretation of her work, desire only to help businesses make money. However, the Democrats are really wonderful and their motives are pure as the driven snow.

1. I am pretty sure you don't have any special insight into the motives of individual politicians.
2. I am pretty sure you have never read a book by Ayn Rand, and if you did, it went completely over your head.
3. If you believe on political party stands on higher moral/ethical ground than the other, then you're a sucker, a fool, or both.
Click to expand...

So you can't counter anything I wrote and thus resort to personal attacks.

As to your numbered accusations:
1) I never claimed that. The post was a an accurate representation of Republican policies.
2) Rand/Ryan? Here's the first link of many where you can learn something about her influence on him:
7 Ways Paul Ryan Revealed His Love for Ayn Rand
I read her stuff as a teenager. If you find her fictional world of makers/takers actually fits in a world of over 7 billion human beings, you must be under 17 years of age. Hell, if you actually read through Galt's 50+ page rant at the end of Atlas without your eyes glazing over, lol. Then there are the laughable 'love scenes'.
3) I don't, and never did. I never belonged to a political party. They all have their problems, even the small parties, and the dems and reps even have some of the same issues. Addiction to the donor class is one example.
 
ibelsd said:
Sweet. And you know this because???? Let me get this straight, if I may. Per you, in your infinite wisdom, the Republicans are simply Randians who, per your interpretation of her work, desire only to help businesses make money. However, the Democrats are really wonderful and their motives are pure as the driven snow.

1. I am pretty sure you don't have any special insight into the motives of individual politicians.
2. I am pretty sure you have never read a book by Ayn Rand, and if you did, it went completely over your head.
3. If you believe on political party stands on higher moral/ethical ground than the other, then you're a sucker, a fool, or both.
Click to expand...

Rand is pretty clear, but perhaps you missed it. As to your political system, yeah, the substantial people have two parties to choose from which are merely bickering factions of a ruling aristocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom