• 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!

Will ObamneyCare work?

Will Obamney care succeed

  • Yes, because of Obama

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • No, because of Obama

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because it's a great idea

    Votes: 11 21.6%
  • No, it's a terrible idea

    Votes: 23 45.1%
  • 10 piece McNuggets with fries

    Votes: 16 31.4%

  • Total voters
    51
obamacare was designed to fail, it just wasn't designed to fail this fast. The plan was to get everyone or at least lots of people used to very cheap or even free healthcare and then when the system collapsed of its own weight the pump would be primed to switch to single payer.

A foot in the door.
 
Your plan got dropped by whom? By your employer? Why? Remember the employer mandate is not yet in force. It doesn't make sense that it was dropped as a result of Obamacare.

Medical care plans have been increasing in cost faster than inflation for quite some time now. What makes sense is that the plan was dropped due to costs to your employer. Now, is the entire premium more, or just the part that you pay? If the entire premium is more, why would your employer have chosen it?

Costs as a result of ObamaCare.
 
. .... When are you going to read the bill?

I read many parts of the PPACA bill when it was first passed.
I skimmed over a lot of the parts that were not of personal interest to me.
I was mostly interested in how it affects families and small business's.

Have you read it?
 
It is a great idea and hopefully the first step on the road to Universial health care.

That's ideal. We have two simple ways to tackle this problem:

1) simply deny care to those who can't pay.

or

2) UHC.

We get complicated and convoluted laws because as a nation we too often reject the easier path, and then complain because it's complicated. But UHC would solve a lot of problems.
 
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?

I don't select any of the answers because I don't think ACA is perfect. It's a step. I accept it as just that, a step in the right direction. So, if you change the nuggets and fires to To Steak and Lobster, I'd vote for that. ;)
 
I don't select any of the answers because I don't think ACA is perfect. It's a step. I accept it as just that, a step in the right direction. So, if you change the nuggets and fires to To Steak and Lobster, I'd vote for that. ;)

I agree. It is like Social Security and will require fine tuning. Parts will be great, other parts will be awful. A net gain on the people's side of the Corporatocracy.
 
Will RomneyCare on a national scale succeed?

If there is close to 100% compliance, yes. If a ton of people avoid getting health insurance coupled with the federal mandate to hospitals to treat anyone and everyone at the ER regardless of their ability to pay, no. The macro picture is everyone already has some level of access to healthcare. People with no insurance show up at the ER and their costs are passed onto those with insurance. As I see it the ACA in large part simply gets everyone paying and not passing their uninsured treatment onto the insured. The cost of insurance should go down and should the cost of treatment.

I still don't like the "insurance" aspect of this. We don't need insurance, we need healthcare but its hard to get people to think of solutions outside of the familiar. I prefer direct individual and family, one size fits all, unlimited access, competition driven health contracts with hospitals and doctor groups. The only insurance I prefer is carried by the hospitals or doctor groups to cover them in cases where their costs go through the roof due to very expensive treatment on patients with severe health issues.
 
Will ObamneyCare work?

as a first step to real national health care, maybe. however, as a long term stand alone program, i doubt it is sustainable. it's going to be picked apart piece by piece by Republicans throwing tantrums. first, they are going to get the medical device tax rescinded as a bone in the coming months, and that's part of what funds it. there will probably be a delay of implementation, and it's possible that the penalty for not getting insurance will eventually be reduced or eliminated. more employers will get exemptions, as well. granted, i don't think an employer should be a health care provider.

it was well intentioned, but we should have just done medicare for all. the public option should have been the final compromise; had that made it through, the law might have been more workable. hopefully we can transition single payer once the makeup of congress is different, but i think it will take at least a decade to get there, and probably longer.
 
as a first step to real national health care, maybe. however, as a long term stand alone program, i doubt it is sustainable. it's going to be picked apart piece by piece by Republicans throwing tantrums. first, they are going to get the medical device tax rescinded as a bone in the coming months, and that's part of what funds it. there will probably be a delay of implementation, and it's possible that the penalty for not getting insurance will eventually be reduced or eliminated. more employers will get exemptions, as well. granted, i don't think an employer should be a health care provider.

it was well intentioned, but we should have just done medicare for all. the public option should have been the final compromise; had that made it through, the law might have been more workable. hopefully we can transition single payer once the makeup of congress is different, but i think it will take at least a decade to get there, and probably longer.

At least that long. They're already ranting about "socialism" with a market based system like Obamacare. What would they say should we try to join the rest of the world with a real universal health care plan? Communism!
 
Exactly how are they recovered?

Liens, recovery agents that work for the hospital, recovery agents that don't work for the hospital, the list goes on. What, you think the hospital just bills the government directly when someone says they are unable to pay? I thought you claimed to work in the healthcare admin field, you seem to be missing some very basic knowledge that all admitting personnel know.
 
That makes no sense. The employer is not mandated to have health care at all just yet. What makes sense is that the employer found a way to get out from under the costs of health insurance, at least for a while. Employees can now get their own plans at a subsidized rate, after all.

Yeah, that's precisely what is happenning. The employers no longer have to provide those benefits because the government now does. Hope folks are happy with the change, but I know they aren't.
 
Our current health care system DOES WORK for the 1% and those who never get sick and those who hate our government....
That is about 20-30% or so....
The other 70 - 80 % do not matter..... far too many don't vote......

1% = 20-30%? Once again, I thought you liberals claim to be the intelligent ones, where are your math skills? 40 million [uninsured] is what percentage of 310 million [US population]? Go ahead, ask a conservative to do the math for you. :mrgreen:
 
Yeah, that's precisely what is happenning. The employers no longer have to provide those benefits because the government now does. Hope folks are happy with the change, but I know they aren't.

I'm sure they aren't. But, then, what happens when the employer mandate kicks in in a year? Are they going to fire everybody, hire them part time, or pay the cost of health insurance?

Clearly, the way to go about this is to take the burden of health insurance off of the backs of the employers.
 
That makes no sense. The employer is not mandated to have health care at all just yet. What makes sense is that the employer found a way to get out from under the costs of health insurance, at least for a while. Employees can now get their own plans at a subsidized rate, after all.

You forget the employer is not the only factor in the insurance. So are the insurance companies. Did you know that each person pays $29 dollars a month to cover those who do not have insurance? For the company I work for that means premiums are an extra 139200 per year on top of the already increasing premium. Now do you get it? ObamaCare sucks!
 
I don't select any of the answers because I don't think ACA is perfect. It's a step. I accept it as just that, a step in the right direction. So, if you change the nuggets and fires to To Steak and Lobster, I'd vote for that. ;)

Your initial premise is flawed. It's a step in the wrong direction and only suits the interests of those who made deals with Obama so that he could pass this vanity piece.
 
It is a great idea and hopefully the first step on the road to Universial health care.

Why would you want to give up your right to life?
 
I'm sure they aren't. But, then, what happens when the employer mandate kicks in in a year? Are they going to fire everybody, hire them part time, or pay the cost of health insurance?

Clearly, the way to go about this is to take the burden of health insurance off of the backs of the employers.

That transformation is already begun, 29 hours a week is the new full time.
 
Premiums have been going up far faster than inflation since way before anyone heard of Obama or Obamacare.

And they are increasing even MORE due to ObamaCare and the mandate. We were told by our insurance provider, not our company, our provider, that we each have an extra 29 dollars on our premium this year that doesn't go toward OUR healthcare, it goes toward people getting subsidies. For our company alone that is over $140,000 per year. That is ridiculous!
 
If it is, in fact, a first step to uhc, then yes, it's a great idea. If it just stops there however it'll be a little disappointing.

Why are you people so dead set on giving up your right to life? I just can't figure this out.
 
And they are increasing even MORE due to ObamaCare and the mandate. We were told by our insurance provider, not our company, our provider, that we each have an extra 29 dollars on our premium this year that doesn't go toward OUR healthcare, it goes toward people getting subsidies. For our company alone that is over $140,000 per year. That is ridiculous!

$29 a year is a drop in the bucket. Some years, premiums have increased 30% and more. I recall one year in which Blue Cross raised rates by 50%.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is not bringing down prices, nor is it a solution to the health care crisis that has existed for years in this country. It is also not the train wreck that we're being told it is. We are, in fact, being fed a huge load of bull(bleep!) about the Affordable Care Act.
 
$29 a year is a drop in the bucket. Some years, premiums have increased 30% and more. I recall one year in which Blue Cross raised rates by 50%.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is not bringing down prices, nor is it a solution to the health care crisis that has existed for years in this country. It is also not the train wreck that we're being told it is. We are, in fact, being fed a huge load of bull(bleep!) about the Affordable Care Act.

Those increases caused my employer to drop my PPO plan and only offer HSA plans.
 
Back
Top Bottom