• 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
I know it happened to my daughters friend when she moved to her own place.
She thought she could stay her on her dad's insurance but once the insurance found out she moved out she is being billed retroactively for all the bills from the time she moved out.

So, kids have to stay home until age 26 or lose their health care? Holy (bleep!) I didn't know that. Just one more thing encouraging an extended adolescence.
 
I know it happened to my daughters friend when she moved to her own place.
She thought she could stay her on her dad's insurance but once the insurance found out she moved out she is being billed retroactively for all the bills from the time she moved out.

Interesting...considering it kicked in 12 days ago.
 
There is no alternative to footing the bill, that much we agree on. The question is how far we should be willing to go, and whether we actually demand empirical evidence that a given policy works.

It seems to me it would be cheaper in the long run to foot the bill for a trip to the local clinic than to the ER. It would be cheaper still if the patient had to pay even a token of the cost.
 
Studies are conflicting on that point. The thing about preventive medicine is that you're paying a small amount, but you're paying for everyone, whereas with emergencies you're only paying for the few who have emergencies.
 
Lets take a look at federal/government run programs:

Postal service = failure
Social Security = failure
Federal Reserve = failure
Obamacare = ?

I guess we still have not learned from the past, so we are bound to repeat our failures...

Obamacare = most likely, failure.
 
I'm not so sure any of those are failures, so that's a pretty bad argument. Those programs do highlight a few problems with the government: profligacy, inefficiency, etc., but they also do deliver the services promised and except for the Fed, are broadly popular.

If Obamacare is merely as successful as Social Security, the program will be with us for our lifetimes. Personally I doubt it will even come close, because it creates too many losers and not enough winners, which in political terms means trouble even if it works as a model of efficiency.
 
Have you read the ACA ? Are you a Ted Cruz,supporter ?

Nope. Not a supporter. Nope. The thing is too long to read and reading it would hardly help. You need a rather large socio-economic impact study that would cost a couple of millions to do.

So you have done that?

PS: There are certain drivers of so fundamental impact, however, that some consequences are clear. For instance introduction of a program that companies have problems understanding and potentially affect their bottom line as Obamacare might and furthermore cause immediate costs in time and money slow growth. That is a no-brainer. Also it seems the program will cost the government money at the beginning. As we are going to have to reduce spending or increase taxes in the very near future and the economy is slithering along on the edge of recession, it is a very stupid time to initiate the program.
 
It's an infringement on personal liberty, period. It is unlike auto insurance because driving is optional.
All government regulations are a form of "infringement" whether the activity regulated is optional or not. The issue is
whether or not the "infringement" serves an overriding social need.



No, we need a govt forced to operate within budget and within statutory limits on taxation.
That cannot now be achieved without a tax increase



It is ponzi because it relies on healthy subscribers to fund the unhealthy subscribers.
ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE RELIES ON THE HEALTHY TO FUND THE UNHEALTHY.

Also, you do not understand what a ponzi scheme even is. Look it up.



The difference is that under obamacare, insurers are required to offer insurance to those that are sick right now. There is no period of premium payment with no payout for the company to invest.
I previously drew attention to this.



The number of truly uninsurable persons is statistically insignificant.
According to the Health and Human Services Department up to 50 million people under the age of 65 may have high-risk conditions making insurance prohibitive or impossible. See link:

A pre-existing health-conditions study says half the country is uninsurable.

Note the study gives a range of 19-50% vulnerable under the age of 65, so even if the figures are exaggerated by several factors they still are a significant percentage.



The numbers are very low, and they'd have been better served by an expansion of medicare than they are under obamacare.
The numbers are not low, and Medicare is already under progressive, continuing strain.
 
Studies are conflicting on that point. The thing about preventive medicine is that you're paying a small amount, but you're paying for everyone, whereas with emergencies you're only paying for the few who have emergencies.

and, with preventative medicine, there are a lot fewer emergencies.

Moreover, if the individual has insurance that allows him to visit a doctor's office or clinic, then non emergencies don't have to be treated at the emergency room.
 
and, with preventative medicine, there are a lot fewer emergencies.

Moreover, if the individual has insurance that allows him to visit a doctor's office or clinic, then non emergencies don't have to be treated at the emergency room.

Nor should they be. Not even by those insured who go there for convenience.
 
Its a terrible Idea it does not account for greed every good idea turns out to bite . I can already imagine some people rubbing their hands eagerly ( like mr. Burns saying "excellent" )
 
All government regulations are a form of "infringement" whether the activity regulated is optional or not. The issue is
whether or not the "infringement" serves an overriding social need.

And what is and what is not "overriding social need" is largely opinion. I imagine our opinions differ there.

That cannot now be achieved without a tax increase

Far from true. There's a lot of excess that can be cut and inefficiencies that can be eliminated.

ALL MEDICAL INSURANCE RELIES ON THE HEALTHY TO FUND THE UNHEALTHY.

Which makes Obamacare inefficient (bad law) :shrug:

Also, you do not understand what a ponzi scheme even is. Look it up.

I'm well aware of what it is.

I previously drew attention to this.

and ignored it's impact on this particular law.

According to the Health and Human Services Department up to 50 million people under the age of 65 may have high-risk conditions making insurance prohibitive or impossible. See link:

A pre-existing health-conditions study says half the country is uninsurable.

Note the study gives a range of 19-50% vulnerable under the age of 65, so even if the figures are exaggerated by several factors they still are a significant percentage.

Hmm, a number in excess of the entirety of the uninsured in America...according to the commonly used emotional language meant to drive passage of the law. Curious.

The numbers are not low, and Medicare is already under progressive, continuing strain.

The numbers are statistically low (the number of total uninsured Americans for any reason was merely 12-15%), and not all persons with "pre-existing conditions" were uninsured to begin with.
 
Far from true. There's a lot of excess that can be cut and inefficiencies that can be eliminated.
The deficit would still be in the $100s billion even if several entire cabinet departments were abolished.



Which makes Obamacare inefficient (bad law)
Which makes it conceptually identical to all other insurance.



I'm well aware of what it is.
Now that you’ve looked it up.



and ignored it's impact on this particular law.
What do you mean ignored? I said it might cause a train wreck.



Hmm, a number in excess of the entirety of the uninsured in America...according to the commonly used emotional language meant to drive passage of the law. Curious.
Apprx. 50 million has been the estimate for years now.



The numbers are statistically low (the number of total uninsured Americans for any reason was merely 12-15%), and not all persons with "pre-existing conditions" were uninsured to begin with.
12%, 15%- Either number is scandalous, and if you can’t get on board with that then I don’t think it is any use discussing it further.
 
and, with preventative medicine, there are a lot fewer emergencies.

Moreover, if the individual has insurance that allows him to visit a doctor's office or clinic, then non emergencies don't have to be treated at the emergency room.

Not necessarily. Like I said, the studies are conflicting. Especially since the US health care system is often criticized for overtesting.
 
The deficit would still be in the $100s billion even if several entire cabinet departments were abolished.

Today. Not in the future.

Which makes it conceptually identical to all other insurance.

Except for the personal infringement and tax raising, among other things.

Now that you’ve looked it up.

Whatever gets you through the night, pal.

What do you mean ignored? I said it might cause a train wreck.

Well, then, we agree. Bad law.

Apprx. 50 million has been the estimate for years now.

Actually, 40 million was used, and it included anyone that went a day without medical insurance. That's also far less than half of America.

12%, 15%- Either number is scandalous, and if you can’t get on board with that then I don’t think it is any use discussing it further.

It's unfortunate, sure, but hardly scandalous and could have been solved with a far less contentious law. Don't forget....Obamacare does not eliminate that 12-15%, only reduces it somewhat. And we're back to what? Bad law.
 
Not necessarily. Like I said, the studies are conflicting. Especially since the US health care system is often criticized for overtesting.

Overtesting as as CYA measure to prevent malpractice suits just might be a part of the problem, but putting off things like vaccinations and routine exams is another part.
 
Back
Top Bottom