• 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?

  • They wil blame Republicans, claiming Obamacare was their idea

    Votes: 24 34.3%

  • They will blame themselves for not pushing single payer

    Votes: 8 11.4%

  • They will blame providers and insurers for attempting to survive

    Votes: 30 42.9%

  • IT WAS THAT VILLIAN, GEORGE BUSH!

    Votes: 33 47.1%
  • Total voters
    70
cpwill said:
I am aware that by the metric you identified - health care - the United States is in fact doing quite well.



Yeah, and I've seen this before. Here's the problem with WHO, is that it isn't measuring health care. It measures a whole slew of things - for example, "equitability". So, if Country A and Country B both had a populace that suffered from some form of cancer, and then Country A found a way to cure half of those who came down with it, then according to the WHO Country A would have worse healthcare than Country B, simply because all of Country B's citizens are suffering equally, whereas half of Country A's get cured.

When you start looking at actual health care, you will notice, the story changes dramatically.

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans or Canadians for common cancers, they have better access to treatment for chronic disease, they have better access to preventative screening, they spend less time waiting for access to healthcare, they have access to higher quality healthcare, and they are therefore reasonably more satisfied with their healthcare.

So yeah. If you want to measure by "who does a better job of rationing", then that would be one of the single-payer nations. If you want to measure by "who has better health care", however, that would be the U.S. :)
Click to expand...


Well SURE, if you count very a narrow metrics that don't affect MOST people, then yeah, anything is fab-yoo! for instance, let's just ignore the number of people in foreclosure or behind in their mortgage payments and sinking under water (that's a metaphor, btw), AND let's ignore the renters. Guess what? Homeownership in the US is Numero Uno!!!!

Okay, let's ignore, say, the side effects of chemotherapy on cancer patients. Wow! Look! Chemotherapy is like taking a Tums!

Now, let's ignore the COST of a college education and whether it is within reach for most Americans. By golly, look! Getting a college education in the US is SOOOOO easy!

Hey, this is awesome. Just IGNORE the downsides of things and the world is one's oyster! Why didn't I think of that?!
 
Danbury said:
Well SURE, if you count very a narrow metrics that don't affect MOST people, then yeah, anything is fab-yoo! for instance, let's just ignore the number of people in foreclosure or behind in their mortgage payments and sinking under water (that's a metaphor, btw), AND let's ignore the renters. Guess what? Homeownership in the US is Numero Uno!!!!

Okay, let's ignore, say, the side effects of chemotherapy on cancer patients. Wow! Look! Chemotherapy is like taking a Tums!

Now, let's ignore the COST of a college education and whether it is within reach for most Americans. By golly, look! Getting a college education in the US is SOOOOO easy!

Hey, this is awesome. Just IGNORE the downsides of things and the world is one's oyster! Why didn't I think of that?!
Click to expand...

The problem of misleading medical/health data is quite real.:cool:

http://www.juniordoctorjournal.com/...global-health/trouble-health-indicat.

www.juniordoctorjournal.com/...global-health/trouble-health-indicat...

Apologies. The link won't post.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Paying for your own health care? That's just crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you misunderstood - in Canada, we pay for healthcare "insurance" through our taxes, and in Provinces like Ontario where I live, we also pay a premium on top of that based on our level of income. Not included in that "payment" for healthcare are all the services not listed or that have been delisted over the past decade or so because the system is becoming too expensive. In my particular case, even though I'm retired, I pay in three different ways for healthcare.

So to those in America who like to claim that Canada has "free" healthcare, I simply say nothing is free - it's a matter of choices made.
 
cpwill said:
That is precisely what I said. See where I say:



?

:)



Regardless, nowhere that I can see does it say that of the previously much-ballyhoo'd "40 million uninsured", that 27 million of those previously uninsured will be added to the insurance rolls, as you claimed.
Click to expand...

No, you are still reading it wrong, that is change in the number of uninsured. There will be 27 million fewer uninsured. Since that is precisely the goal of ACA, I wonder how you call it a failure.
 
Redress said:
No, you are still reading it wrong, that is change in the number of uninsured. There will be 27 million fewer uninsured. Since that is precisely the goal of ACA, I wonder how you call it a failure.
Click to expand...

The goal was to insure 27 million but leave 10-20 million uninsured? I don't recall reading that when the law was being 'debated'.
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
The goal was to insure 27 million but leave 10-20 million uninsured? I don't recall reading that when the law was being 'debated'.
Click to expand...

The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured. You might have read that somewhere...
 
Redress said:
The goal was to reduce the number of uninsured. You might have read that somewhere...
Click to expand...

Well hell he could have just bought one person health insurance from his own pocket and claimed that!
 
Heebie Jeebie said:
Well hell he could have just bought one person health insurance from his own pocket and claimed that!
Click to expand...

Or more reasonable we cxould try and insure as many as possible. A significant percentage of the US would be a worthwhile goal, don't you think? 27 million, why that is a significant percentage of the US population...
 
They will blame the man who came up with the idea in the first place. Mitt Romney.
 
Redress said:
Or more reasonable we cxould try and insure as many as possible. A significant percentage of the US would be a worthwhile goal, don't you think? 27 million, why that is a significant percentage of the US population...
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the 27 million who will be insured, that's hunky dory. However, as someone who has done tax preparation for several years, I really don't want people coming at me pissed off to no end because they are fined by the IRS over this. I mean, in 2014 it won't be too bad, but in 2016 an uninsured family of 3 will get a couple THOUSAND in IRS fees (minimum), and I simply don't want to hear from them - and you know they're going to come to me, not the IRS.

I disagree with the mandate for many reasons, but I have extra vested interest in it for obvious ones.
 
Gipper said:
I have no problem with the 27 million who will be insured, that's hunky dory. However, as someone who has done tax preparation for several years, I really don't want people coming at me pissed off to no end because they are fined by the IRS over this. I mean, in 2014 it won't be too bad, but in 2016 an uninsured family of 3 will get a couple THOUSAND in IRS fees (minimum), and I simply don't want to hear from them - and you know they're going to come to me, not the IRS.

I disagree with the mandate for many reasons, but I have extra vested interest in it for obvious ones.
Click to expand...

Why isn't this family insured in the first place?
 
Danbury said:
Happy to do so. But are you acknowledging that you do NOT do your homework and are unaware of something everyone is aware of? I was simply saying, know what you're talking about before you comment. So, here we go, me doing YOUR homework. And we'll just run with the "your leftist sources" thing afterward, okay?

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

PolitiFact | John Boehner says U.S. health care system is best in world

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

TONS of info. out there.
Click to expand...

Sure there is a ton. But what none of it tells us is there different factors that affect their ratings. What measures do the weigh and how much does each count towards the ranking? Are all the societies listed and ranked equal in all other factors except healthcare?

All these prove is how we rank based upon what they think is important, not actual performance. What other factors play a role? Are there any, or are you saying that no other factors influence statistics used to measure healthcare?

Does whether we have uninsured people vs a socialist system actually affect the quality of care given? If we eliminated all the cost associated with the uninsured, what would our actual costs be? What role does the development and deployment of new technologies play? How do we rank compared to others for innovation? How do we rank in post operative infections vs others? What about quality of facilities?

What other factors play a role? Where do we rank for teen pregnancy? Does that play a role? How about obesity? Exercise? Alcoholism? Drug Use? Accident rates? Pollution in the air and water?

Why only those selected countries? Why not all? The WHO has been trying to sell and support socialism in medicine since it's start. Why should I believe they don't tailor their findings to be pro-socialism like so many other things from the UN?
 
Gipper said:
I assume income. Health insurance isn't cheap - nor should it be.

The dad may also have a job that isn't worthy of it.
Click to expand...

If they are that low I doubt they will get hit with the fine
 
winston53660 said:
If they are that low I doubt they will get hit with the fine
Click to expand...

Oh they'll get hit with the fine, but under a certain income level allows for subsidies (well I take that back - if they qualify for MedicAid, that solves the problem, but that's going to be more difficult to do in the future). The question will be how much those subsidies will be, and if it's enough to actually be better off paying for the coverage or just eat the tax fine.
 
Danbury said:
Well SURE, if you count very a narrow metrics that don't affect MOST people, then yeah, anything is fab-yoo!
Click to expand...

So, it is your argument that the metric that counts least when measuring a Health Care System is whether or not the system provides quality health care.


:shrug: well, if you're going to start from that assumption, then yeah, there's not much that I can do for ya. I agree, once you decide not to measure American healthcare on our quality (or our quantity), then we don't do as well as we otherwise would :roll:



and yeah, getting a college degree is pretty easy. It is just increasingly expensive, although conservatives in states such as texas are working on that
 
Re: A Sucker Born Every Minute…

Congratulations to Bassman, Blue_State, Bob Blaylock, buck, clownboy, d0gbreath, Gathomas88, ocean515, penn1954, Perotista, ReformCollege, rocket88, and ttwtt78640!


....Reid warned the federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to ObamaCare....
Click to expand...

It looks like there is a possibility that the argument for Obamacare will become similar to their argument for communism: it would work if it was ever tried, but conveniently all the attempts to try it don't count because of [insert villain of choice here].
 
cpwill said:
Right, so. Obamacare is now bending the cost-curve up, millions are going to lose their health insurance, the IRS is saying that the cheapest plan under Obamacares' exchanges will cost $20,000 for a family of five by 2016 and increase out of pocket costs even AFTER the subsidies, the hundreds of billions in cuts to Medicare to fund the program will cause many doctors to stop taking Medicare patients, and if we don't make those cuts to providers, then the costs of Obamacare, which are already rising, to explode. 26 States are refusing to work with HHS, and Obamacare's implementation, already well behind track threatens to fall further and further behind even as it is announced that they will not, actually, technically, so-to-speak, be able to help the people the bill was purported to aid.




So. As this disaster of a behemoth of a bill continues to flail and fail, who are the Democrats going to blame? How far down the rabbit hole are they willing to go, ears plugged, eyes closed?
Click to expand...

I am surprised how quickly Obamacare seems to be falling apart.

I thought it would take many years for the folly of this idea to become apparent.

But it seems to be happening rather quickly.
 
When car insurance became mandatory the prices doubled This seems to follow that principle
 
DA60 said:
I am surprised how quickly Obamacare seems to be falling apart.

I thought it would take many years for the folly of this idea to become apparent.

But it seems to be happening rather quickly.
Click to expand...

Which is good. I had suspected that failure had been baked in the cake hoping to create an opening for single-payer. It seems it may happen so quickly now, however, that the original legislation still gets the blame.
 
DA60 said:
I am surprised how quickly Obamacare seems to be falling apart.

I thought it would take many years for the folly of this idea to become apparent.

But it seems to be happening rather quickly.
Click to expand...
My original prediction was that it would take roughly 10 years before any attempts to fix it.

Now, that's only on action. There's always a lag time between realization and action. Though, like you, I'm a little surprised at how quick, too.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of Obamacare was to get people...force people...into buying health insurance either through their employers or through health insurance companies themselves so as to mitigate and eventually lower health care costs because people are essentially paying into a pool from which they will eventually draw out of. They are trying to force employers to cover their employees. Problem being is that they put in a minimum hourly limit. Fall below that limit and the employer does not have to provide the insurance.

In order to combat the increased payout the the company has to sustain they are lowering peoples hourly work hours to below that minimum. This does two things. First the employee now has to provide for their own insurance, the employer does not. It also lowers how much the employee is taking home, making it harder for them to buy health insurance from a health insurance company. So what is the employee going to do? Try and get government assisted health insurance. Which defeats the purported reason for Obamacare. It also increases the cost of Obamacare as more and more people get on federally assisted health insurance.

Obamacare was doomed from the very begining due to this very natural reaction. Now if Obamacare had not set a minimum hourly limit or limit on how many employees an employer must have to do this it might not have failed. As is...it is going to fail. It's just a matter of when will it fail?
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is already failing, working class people that have NEVER been without insurance are losing it now and the exchanges are a joke as coverages that are offered are much higher and out of reach for those people. When 26 year olds were allowed to stay on their parents insurance I personally saw the highest increase in premiums I have ever received in 30 years.

Anyone that denies its failure is simply ignoring the current market environment or is letting someone else do their thinking for them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The whole idea of Obamacare was to get people...force people...into buying health insurance either through their employers or through health insurance companies themselves so as to mitigate and eventually lower health care costs because people are essentially paying into a pool from which they will eventually draw out of. They are trying to force employers to cover their employees. Problem being is that they put in a minimum hourly limit. Fall below that limit and the employer does not have to provide the insurance.

In order to combat the increased payout the the company has to sustain they are lowering peoples hourly work hours to below that minimum. This does two things. First the employee now has to provide for their own insurance, the employer does not. It also lowers how much the employee is taking home, making it harder for them to buy health insurance from a health insurance company. So what is the employee going to do? Try and get government assisted health insurance. Which defeats the purported reason for Obamacare. It also increases the cost of Obamacare as more and more people get on federally assisted health insurance.

Obamacare was doomed from the very begining due to this very natural reaction. Now if Obamacare had not set a minimum hourly limit or limit on how many employees an employer must have to do this it might not have failed. As is...it is going to fail. It's just a matter of when will it fail?
Click to expand...

I had always focused in on the inevitable collapse produced by forced issuance and community rating with an insufficient disciplinary mechanism... but yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Good point. This behemoth spaghetti nightmare is doomed for several reasons, not just one or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom