• 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!

Who will Democrats blame for the failure of Obamacare?

Who to Blame for Obamacares' Failures?


  • Total voters
    70
It's a public concern. Illness often bleeds from one to another. The entire community runs a risk with too many unhealthy folks running around.

There won't be "too many" because most people take care of themselves. As for the rest, that's the role of charity. Just like food, clothing and shelter.:violin
 
First, it's the wrong question. It isn't about expectation, but about the problem of a needed service, like when your house is on fire, that most can't really handle on their own. Because it will eventually involve others, a wise community plans for that eventuality.

And we do the not individually, but as a community.

If my house burns, I have insurance to cover any loss. Try answering the question, not avoiding it...
 
Which keeps everything but the way to pay for it as I said. You have to read the details. That's how one doesn't become a sheep.

Are you saying that it is commonplace to decide to do something, and then try to find a way to pay for it? Businesses don't operate that way....and it's becoming apparent the government can't either. :(
 
No, not false at all. From the link:

he said. ''One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."

“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.”
― Alfred Tennyson:liar
 
There won't be "too many" because most people take care of themselves. As for the rest, that's the role of charity. Just like food, clothing and shelter.:violin

Most have insurance, or Medicare or Medicaid, but there are those without any of it. Largely the working poor.
 
If my house burns, I have insurance to cover any loss. Try answering the question, not avoiding it...

I'm talking about fighting the fire. I have insurance if my wife dies. I am answering the question. Trying working with the answer.
 
Are you saying that it is commonplace to decide to do something, and then try to find a way to pay for it? Businesses don't operate that way....and it's becoming apparent the government can't either. :(

I'm saying that's what we knew of Romney's plan. He was going to keep paying for reciting conditions, and o away with the method to ay for that. That is what he had on the table.
 
“A lie that is half-truth is the darkest of all lies.”
― Alfred Tennyson:liar

Would you like the fact checkers as well? They speak to how little sense what he was saying made.
 
Yes. There are those without. Your point?:?:

There's a few points there:

1. They will get I'll and injured.

2. They will be treated, most likely in an ER.

3. And one way or another we will pay for it. Likely in the most expensive way possible.
 
I'm talking about fighting the fire. I have insurance if my wife dies. I am answering the question. Trying working with the answer.

Fighting a fire has nothing to do with your health. There is no reason I should expect anyone to take care of my health care needs...
 
Would you like the fact checkers as well? They speak to how little sense what he was saying made.

Too often, "fact-checking" is merely advocacy under a false flag. Regardless of what Romney may eventually have proposed, his clear intent was to start by repealing Obamacare.:cool:
 
There's a few points there:

1. They will get I'll and injured.

2. They will be treated, most likely in an ER.

3. And one way or another we will pay for it. Likely in the most expensive way possible.

I would rather pay more to deal with them in the ER than to see the grotesque bureaucracy of Obamacare.:cool:
 
I'm saying that's what we knew of Romney's plan. He was going to keep paying for reciting conditions, and o away with the method to ay for that. That is what he had on the table.

Okay, but Romney didn't win the election--Obama did. So how is he going to handle it? I read the other day there is talk of a $60 per head fee, for every person in this country, being considered because the insurance companies now say they can't handle the cost of pre-existing conditions. The further this thing goes, the worse it gets! :eek:
 
Fighting a fire has nothing to do with your health. There is no reason I should expect anyone to take care of my health care needs...

It does. Both are a public concern that is too large for many individuals. And both can bleed into the backyards of others.
 
Close, prefaced upon how people who say what you want to hear are telling you it is failing, by giving you inaccurate and incomplete pictures, and you buying into those lies. For example you mentions millions losing insurance, but fail to note that those people will still have access to insurance, and the number of insured will go up. it's deceptive practices like that which are the norm for your sources. Reminds me of when you where portraying Ryan's economic plan as from Simpson Bowles, without mentioning that all of the balancing items from Simpson Bowles got omitted, kinda like a kid who decides to eat only their desert but claims he ate what we given to him. The fact you are using editorial sources even in this OP is a sign of how desperate you are to try and make a case that isn't made.

I am not a fan of Obamacare/ACA or whatever it is being called by whatever group, but I will actually let it happen before declaring it failed. That would actually be, you know, honest. Building straw men to try and score political points just makes this whole thread painfully silly, not that it has ever slowed you down as this thread shows.


actually a few of these issues, like a shortage of primary care physicians accepting medicare patients, and issues with the exchanges, have been ongoing issues in the Mass plan and have been talked about in depth by people like Trudy Lieberman, who is a staunch liberal

Where Have All the Doctors Gone? : Columbia Journalism Review

Reform may worsen ER crowding : Covering Health

Is Buying Health Insurance Like Shopping on Amazon? : Columbia Journalism Review

The brave new world of health insurance exchanges : Columbia Journalism Review
 
I didn't pull those examples out of my ass:



Obama embraces some GOP health care proposals - CNN



Health Care Concessions Irking Liberals - CBS News

So what does it ultimately matter whether Republicans ended up voting for the bill or not? Who knows why democrats made the concessions if they had the votes anyway? The concessions happened. Not voting for the bill doesn't magically rewrite the past.

But it does make it intellectually dishonest to blame them for the language in the bill.
 
Okay, but Romney didn't win the election--Obama did. So how is he going to handle it? I read the other day there is talk of a $60 per head fee, for every person in this country, being considered because the insurance companies now say they can't handle the cost of pre-existing conditions. The further this thing goes, the worse it gets! :eek:

The point was, both were going to keep it. However, talk is cheap. Not sure I have any reason to trust insurance companies who have been raising premiums and cutting service for sometime now. UHC would be more efficient. Make more sense. This bill isn't perfect. I say stop the fear mongering and have representatives go to work improving it.
 
I would rather pay more to deal with them in the ER than to see the grotesque bureaucracy of Obamacare.:cool:

You may, there not so much. Which is one reason we debate and have elections.
 
Too often, "fact-checking" is merely advocacy under a false flag. Regardless of what Romney may eventually have proposed, his clear intent was to start by repealing Obamacare.:cool:

Kind of a way to ignore facts, isn't it?
 
It does. Both are a public concern that is too large for many individuals. And both can bleed into the backyards of others.

The federal government has no business in providing health care, period...
 
The federal government has no business in providing health care, period...

Nice declarative statement but neither supported nor on point. Doctors and medical people provide healthcare, not government. All we're speaking about is how to pay for it.
 
Au contraire. It requires that I think for myself. :cool:

Not accepting facts and sound reasoning isn't really what thinking for yourself means. More like refusing to think.
 
Nice declarative statement but neither supported nor on point. Doctors and medical people provide healthcare, not government. All we're speaking about is how to pay for it.

Wordsmithing won't help you make a point as to why the federal government should provide for an individuals care...
 
Back
Top Bottom