• 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!

GOP poised to win the PR war

Without the individual mandate, the ACA will fail, no doubt.

But what do the Republicans plan to replace it with?

The system that was in place prior to the ACA was far from ideal. Cost were increasing annually by double digits. Do you really think the majority of people want to go back to that?

Without a viable replacement, the Republicans will be shooting themselves in the foot with a bazooka politically.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to work together to make a working bipartisan plan. So far Democrats have done nothing but form the Restistance. They refuse to even discuss repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a better bipartisan plan. To them it is either Obamacare or nothing.
 
You break it, you buy it.

Why should the Dems be responsible for fixing something that the Reps intentionally threw a wrench into?

If your car got a flat tire, would you intentionally puncture it with a second hole?

Regardless, the Reps don't need the Dems. They can pass anything they want along party lines, so it's up to them to fix.

The buck stops with those in charge, and right now, that's the Reps.

The arrogance of the Dems is what led to all of this. They crammed through a partisan plan with zero Republican votes, admitting that the plan would need tweaking in the future, and then just assumed that they would be a party in power forever.
 
This tax bill was anything but conservative. Sure it gives most Americans some tax relief but the middle class will mostly see minor cuts. It doesn't cut government spending, in fact it balloons the deficit even further.

Another thing I dislike about this bill is the child tax credits. Parents are already getting a $1,000 per child credit, and now it will be increased to $2,000 per child. This is nothing more than free government money handed to someone just for popping out children. Not conservative or fiscally responsible at all. In fact this idea is more along the lines of socialism.

The child tax credits were expanded because personal exemptions were dropped.
 
Source? (FOX news, Infowars, and other blatantly conservative rags, are not valid sources...)

The ACA was a compromise bill (between different players in the industry), so it came out of the gate limping.

The biggest issues that made things worse:

1. They overestimated the number of young healthy people who would sign up.
2. The website went live without sufficient testing.
3. The Republicans successfully framed the narrative in terms of the individual mandate as a infringement on person freedoms.
4. They had to work within the framework of each state, making it difficult to apply consistently.
5. States with Republican control did everything in their power to cause issues/exacerbate existing issues at the state level.

If the ACA was a compromise bill then why did zero Republicans vote for it? Obviously it was NOT a compromise bill.
 
Without an individual mandate (or whatever they decide to call it), anything they come up with will run into the same issues as the ACA.

Their only alternative is to revert back to the system in place prior to the ACA, but people won't like that either (poor coverage and high premiums that increase by double digits annually).

If we come up with a market based plan that addresses the root costs of healthcare, the market will keep costs down. The mandate would not be needed. Of course, only those who want coverage will have it. The left wants to force everyone to buy insurance.
 
Not paying the individual mandate creates a huge loophole, that allows people to get emergency medical care for free. If someone get into a major accident, is treated at a hospital, but can't afford to pay, then who pays the bill? The taxpayer does. At least the IM covers this risk to some degree. Everyone is going to need medical care eventually. Paying into the system now to keep it viable in the future (when you will likely need it), is not unreasonable.

Health plans like you described ("market based systems") with high premiums and high deductibles were around long before the ACA existed. Without an employer paying part of the costs, people will face those same high cost/high deductible issues that you claim are unique to the ACA.

But that's exactly what the left wants - the taxpayers to pay for healthcare. So what are you complaining about?
 
If the ACA was a compromise bill then why did zero Republicans vote for it? Obviously it was NOT a compromise bill.

It was a compromise between the left and the far left.
 
I'll bet you can't wait for your liberal party to be back in power so they can mandate you buy an electric car.

At first I thought that was funny until I realized that it was more than likely a factual statement.
 
It's popular because it's basically free. Quality wise, it sucks. If we instituted single payer healthcare in the US, probably about 2/3's of Americans would see their quality of care plummet.

Where did you get the 2/3's from? There are some things that healthcare in the United States is better at and some things it is worse at in terms of quality, and that's right now with a highly privatized system. The idea that the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is superior to every other country with nationalized healthcare isn't true. I don't see why quality would have to drop in a nationalized system.
 
Where did you get the 2/3's from? There are some things that healthcare in the United States is better at and some things it is worse at in terms of quality, and that's right now with a highly privatized system. The idea that the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is superior to every other country with nationalized healthcare isn't true. I don't see why quality would have to drop in a nationalized system.


I believe the 2/3 is the proportion of Americans with private health insurance.
 
Not Trump GOP, nosiree. They won't win 'big-league' for a while. Many many years.
 
Where did you get the 2/3's from? There are some things that healthcare in the United States is better at and some things it is worse at in terms of quality, and that's right now with a highly privatized system. The idea that the overall quality of healthcare in the United States is superior to every other country with nationalized healthcare isn't true. I don't see why quality would have to drop in a nationalized system.

A huge majority of the people get their healthcare through their employer. Out of those, a huge majority would have better coverage the way it is now than with single payer. And, on top of that, with employer subsidies most of those are also getting cheaper coverage now than they would be by paying the taxes necessary for single payer. Out of those who don't get their coverage through their employer and get subsidies through the exchanges, pretty much all of those would have better coverage with what they have now than if they switched to single payer and it would also be cheaper than paying the taxes necessary for single payer. The truth is, there is much larger than 50% of those currently insured who would be worse off if we were to have single payer, not only quality of coverage wise, but also financially.
 
A huge majority of the people get their healthcare through their employer. Out of those, a huge majority would have better coverage the way it is now than with single payer. And, on top of that, with employer subsidies most of those are also getting cheaper coverage now than they would be by paying the taxes necessary for single payer. Out of those who don't get their coverage through their employer and get subsidies through the exchanges, pretty much all of those would have better coverage with what they have now than if they switched to single payer and it would also be cheaper than paying the taxes necessary for single payer. The truth is, there is much larger than 50% of those currently insured who would be worse off if we were to have single payer, not only quality of coverage wise, but also financially.
If businesses saved money, due to not having to subsidize healthcare, wouldn't they have to offer different incentives to potential employees like an increase in other benefits or pay? The main problem with the ACA is that individual insurance is rising rapidly so I'm not sure why you think nationalized healthcare would cost more. You are also assuming quality is lower, and the fact is that is lower in some ways and higher in others. You are pulling numbers out based on a false idea of quality of care in a nationalized system, and a surprisingly rosy view of the cost of insurance on the individual market.
 
If businesses saved money, due to not having to subsidize healthcare, wouldn't they have to offer different incentives to potential employees like an increase in other benefits or pay? The main problem with the ACA is that individual insurance is rising rapidly so I'm not sure why you think nationalized healthcare would cost more. You are also assuming quality is lower, and the fact is that is lower in some ways and higher in others. You are pulling numbers out based on a false idea of quality of care in a nationalized system, and a surprisingly rosy view of the cost of insurance on the individual market.

If there was nationalized health care, businesses would not have to offer different incentives to potential employees like an increase in other benefits or pay. Every business who was in competition with each other would all be in the same boat so they would not have to offer more to compete with a similar business. Things would still be on a level playing field. Many working Americans with good policies are afraid of single payer. Let's assume that single payer means Medicare for all. Many working Americans have better insurance than Medicare so all of these people would be taking a step backward.
 
If there was nationalized health care, businesses would not have to offer different incentives to potential employees like an increase in other benefits or pay. Every business who was in competition with each other would all be in the same boat so they would not have to offer more to compete with a similar business. Things would still be on a level playing field. Many working Americans with good policies are afraid of single payer. Let's assume that single payer means Medicare for all. Many working Americans have better insurance than Medicare so all of these people would be taking a step backward.

If nationalized healthcare was implemented it would be a process that starts from our current system. People would understand how much this could benefit a business, and businesses would react to that for PR purposes. For arguments sake, think of the tax cut that just went through. Businesses understood it was unpopular, and so they decided to either raise pay or give out a bonus. They would react similarly to single payer because it would essentially amount to another cut for them. Medicare is more popular than employee provided insurance. I'm not sure where you are getting that many people have better insurance than Medicare. Many is not a number.
 
If nationalized healthcare was implemented it would be a process that starts from our current system. People would understand how much this could benefit a business, and businesses would react to that for PR purposes. For arguments sake, think of the tax cut that just went through. Businesses understood it was unpopular, and so they decided to either raise pay or give out a bonus. They would react similarly to single payer because it would essentially amount to another cut for them. Medicare is more popular than employee provided insurance. I'm not sure where you are getting that many people have better insurance than Medicare. Many is not a number.

I'm not sure where you're getting that Medicare is more popular than employee provided insurance.
 
I think the Dems blew it. They did their Chicken Little routine on the tax bill but they lost the message. The GOP has branded this bill as a "tax cut for the middle class" and on the end of the day, more than 80 percent of Americans will see a tax cut their first year. Yeah, some future Congress may allow the individual rates to go up, but it is unlikely. So the Dems who successfully allied with the national media to create the impression that this was only a tax cut for the wealthy may have done a disservice to themselves in the long run. Granted that the wealthy will enjoy six times the benefits as the rest of us combined, but that doesn't make as compelling a soundbyte as "Armageddon!"

The message could have been on debt, high interest rates, rising inflation, and low wages. Once consumer confidence peaks, reality will likely set in, and the true cost of this bill will not be measured by how much of your paycheck you get to keep, but if your paycheck remains the same wage, buys less than it did before, and is split in more ways to pay down debts. The GOP knows nothing is free, and they are betting that average Americans will forget it and reward them for generously undermining their future to finance a measly middle class tax cut and a massive wealthy tax cut. Let's see how it plays out. My money is on the GOP.

Here is the reality that the left wants to ignore? Why is that? Why do you leftists want people dependent on federal bureaucrats? By the way are you leftists going to run on the following slogan this fall, "I tried to prevent those evil Republicans from allowing you to keep more of what you earn, VOTE FOR ME?"

Working-class families are winning big under Trump
 
Back
Top Bottom