- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 83,778
- Reaction score
- 40,248
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Were you born yesterday? Why don't you know how the ACA got passed?
The Democrats penned and passed Obamacare in 60 days? I bet those dates don't match up.
I jave partisan positions just like everyone but i believe in rigorous debate to find yhe best solutions.I appreciate the fact that you expect Democrats to act like the loyal opposition, versus the Republicans acting like unanimous obstructors for eight years .
Your exactly right and its why i say we would be better to go back to the system we had. It worked betterYou know what's a lie? The idea that people who don't qualify for a subsidy can universally buy medical insurance at an affordable price on an exchange. I priced a policy late last year (because there was only one provider in our county offering insurance), and the premium came back at over $1,300 per month for me and my wife (because we didn't qualify for a subsidy). It was actually slightly cheaper to buy an individual policy through either Blue Cross & Blue Shield or United Health, and those policies were considerably more expensive than what was available just a few years ago because the deductibles were capped at $5,000 and all sorts of other crap we didn't need or want was added into the plans. I wanted a major medical policy with a high deductible, like $15,000, that would cover us in case of a disaster, but I couldn't find one. So when I changed jobs I just used the 60-day election period under COBRA to cover us until my new group plan kicked in.
What Obamacare is is a plan to shift costs from unhealthy to healthy people and older people to younger people, while providing poor people along the way with subsidies paid for out of the general U.S. Treasury as well as reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Poor, unhealthy, older people love it. The reason premiums are going up and companies are pulling out of the exchanges is younger, healthier people aren't buying it in the numbers expected because it's cheaper for them to just pay the tax penalty. If they get sick, then they buy it, because they're guaranteed coverage. Over time these problems with the program due to the millions of (subsidized) poor, sick people who are signing up for it will only snowball, because subsidizing health care does nothing to address the cost of the services to the larger society.
I find single payer flawed because there is no price control on place. A person can go to the doctirs everyday and run all kinds of unneeded test without finacial consequence to them. It will drive costs even higher than they already areAll your arguments would be satisfied by single payer. You hit on the problem though, the mandate is not enforced. Since HC is a problem for the WHOLE society not just the old or sick (the young will be old and sick someday too) the proper way is to take equal amounts from every taxpayer. That would bring the lowest costs for all and be the most fair. The Govt. would then subsidize those that could not afford the premiums.
I find single payer flawed because there is no price control on place. A person can go to the doctirs everyday and run all kinds of unneeded test without finacial consequence to them. It will drive costs even higher than they already are
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
What metrics are you using to define good and better? There are tradeoffs that come with that approach. I think there are things they do that we could transition sucessfully into our own system but we also have to recognize that some things that work in other nations will not work as well here.Except that in every single country that it is law, single payer has given as good or better outcomes for a fraction of what we are paying. We are not ostriches are we? We can see the world around us I think. When the profit is taken away from the insurers the entire system becomes better. We are not sliced bread and "the marketplace" is no place for health care. Medicare does not have 77% popularity for nothing.
You know what's a lie? The idea that people who don't qualify for a subsidy can universally buy medical insurance at an affordable price on an exchange. I priced a policy late last year (because there was only one provider in our county offering insurance), and the premium came back at over $1,300 per month for me and my wife (because we didn't qualify for a subsidy). It was actually slightly cheaper to buy an individual policy through either Blue Cross & Blue Shield or United Health, and those policies were considerably more expensive than what was available just a few years ago because the deductibles were capped at $5,000 and all sorts of other crap we didn't need or want was added into the plans. I wanted a major medical policy with a high deductible, like $15,000, that would cover us in case of a disaster, but I couldn't find one. So when I changed jobs I just used the 60-day election period under COBRA to cover us until my new group plan kicked in.
What Obamacare is is a plan to shift costs from unhealthy to healthy people and older people to younger people, while providing poor people along the way with subsidies paid for out of the general U.S. Treasury as well as reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Poor, unhealthy, older people love it. The reason premiums are going up and companies are pulling out of the exchanges is younger, healthier people aren't buying it in the numbers expected because it's cheaper for them to just pay the tax penalty. If they get sick, then they buy it, because they're guaranteed coverage. Over time these problems with the program due to the millions of (subsidized) poor, sick people who are signing up for it will only snowball, because subsidizing health care does nothing to address the cost of the services to the larger society.
Were you born yesterday? Why don't you know how the ACA got passed?
He got his cabinet and SCOTUS picks with little opposition...
What metrics are you using to define good and better? There are tradeoffs that come with that approach. I think there are things they do that we could transition sucessfully into our own system but we also have to recognize that some things that work in other nations will not work as well here.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Throwing up graph in this case is not very helpful when it isnt accompanied with the metrics it used.The metrics are quite simple and adequate. We spend about 2.5 times more than the average single payer nation and in return we get a life expectancy that is ranked 34th.
Throwing up graph in this case is not very helpful when it isnt accompanied with the metrics it used.
Is it a failing of our healthcare system if people live excessively unhealthy lifestyles?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
er uh A, we were not talking about your unbelievable personal story. we were discussing your long since disproven "wah wah Obama wouldn't compromise" narrative. I have to assume that your obvious attempt to change the subject means you figured out you were lied to by the right. Now that you understand that, why do you still believe everything they tell you?
So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? :lol: Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
No the metrics dont speak for themselves. Your graphs are not taking peoples lifestyles into account.The "metrics" were cost vs. benefits and they speak for themselves. And yes our healthcare system has failed to educate us about what we need to do to live longer.
Republicans stood against it because they were afraid of losing their seats. Even democrats were seperating themselves from obama during election season. It was a tremendously unpopular move and it cost n the democratic party dearly.So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? [emoji38] Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
Republicans have openly admitted what yer still denying.
So you're alleging that Republicans supported a massive conspiracy to obstruct Obama to the point that not ONE voted in favor of his wet dream that supported requiring every American to either buy medical insurance or pay a tax? And you're calling my personal story "unbelievable"? :lol: Okay, why would they do that and where's your evidence of it, because, yeah, you've done a lot of talking but have offered up nothing to support your blathering.
Are you saying that obama did not want a mandate included but only signed off on it so that he could get republican support?er uh A, asking a "question" doesn't change the facts. The republicans told you it was their plan to obstruct President Obama. The republicans supported mandates for 20 years. President Obama campaigned against mandates. His plan was DOA so he compromised on mandates. He wanted health care reform, He didn't take the "my way or the highway" approach.
A, you're simply at that stage all conservatives (and conservative like posters) get to in every discussion. You really want to believe what you've been told but when your opinions require you to ignore the actual facts, its not a good opinion.
Are you saying that obama did not want a mandate included but only signed off on it so that he could get republican support?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Ok but he did not need republican support and he did not offer them the mandate as some form of an olive branch to bring them in. He litterally locked them out of the room. The only reason a mandate was included was because the democrats would not sign off without it. Now i do agree that democrats should not support any republican efforts that they dont include them on. Thats fair but saying the democrats should obstruct just for the sake of obstructing because thats what the republicans did is taking it out of context.Trouble, President Obama campaigned on his single payer plan. He campaigned against mandates. But his plan was DOA even in a democratic congress. So in attempt to get much needed health care reform in this country, President Obama compromised on mandates. He and the democratic congress thought that would get republicans on board. Mandates were their plan for 20 years. But they decided to obstruct President Obama for their political gain. Conservatives simply cannot explain the republican flip flop without acknowledging their obstructionism. But remember, they told you it was their plan.
Ok but he did not need republican support and he did not offer them the mandate as some form of an olive branch to bring them in. He litterally locked them out of the room. The only reason a mandate was included was because the democrats would not sign off without it. Now i do agree that democrats should not support any republican efforts that they dont include them on. Thats fair but saying the democrats should obstruct just for the sake of obstructing because thats what the republicans did is taking it out of context.
er uh A, asking a "question" doesn't change the facts.
A, you're simply at that stage all conservatives (and conservative like posters) get to in every discussion. You really want to believe what you've been told but when your opinions require you to ignore the actual facts, its not a good opinion.
(A) bipartisan health-care agenda at the federal level will necessarily look quite different than one at the state level. If liberals had bothered to ask, they could easily have elicited bipartisan support for a proposal that did the following: (1) set up the Obamacare exchanges for those under 400% of FPL; (2) applied the Ryan reforms to Medicare and Medicaid (or, alternatively, folded in Medicare and Medicaid acute-care into the PPACA exchanges); (3) equalized the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually-purchased insurance; and (4) not increase taxes or the deficit.
But they didn’t. The Democratically-controlled House passed its plan in 2009 with nearly zero Republican input. In the Senate, the Gang of Six—Democratic Sens. Baucus (Mont.), Conrad (N.D.), and Bingaman (N.M.), and Republican Sens. Grassley (Iowa), Snowe (Maine), and Enzi (Wyo.)—failed to come to an agreement because the Republicans were concerned about the bill’s dramatic increase in taxes and spending.
What a Bipartisan Version of Obamacare Would Have Looked Like
Let me be as clear as I can be on this point: the idea that Obamacare was designed by magnanimous Democrats, as a way to be nice to Republicans, is bunk. Instead, Obamacare was designed to please both left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.
What a Bipartisan Version of Obamacare Would Have Looked Like
Vern, I can't ignore a fact I haven't seen yet. Can you offer one? Here are some facts by way of example:
These facts support this opinion:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?