• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

sangha said:
Unless you're talking about people who have had their exchange plans cancelled (if any) or people who can't afford OOP expenses. Then you won't wait
Click to expand...

You're copying in a post in here that I made on another thread that was nothing but a hypothetical look into the future for me, and has nothing to do with the chart from The Daily Kos guy nor the post I made about the chart.

I know I have humiliated you regularly on this board pointing out your serious posting errors, but are you obsessed with me because you have a crush on me, or are you going to drag my non-related posts around to other sections in an effort to save your face?
 
tres borrachos said:
You're copying in a post in here that I made on another thread that was nothing but a hypothetical look into the future for me, and has nothing to do with the chart from The Daily Kos guy nor the post I made about the chart.
Click to expand...

Yes, when it comes to making a point you like, you will not wait for any numbers from any source. You'll just "hypothesize"

But if someone else actually has some actual data to present, you'll reject it because, unlike your "hypothesizing", the data is "partisan"

That's very consistent! :roll:
 
sangha said:
Yes, when it comes to making a point you like, you will not wait for any numbers from any source. You'll just "hypothesize"

But if someone else actually has some actual data to present, you'll reject it because, unlike your "hypothesizing", the data is "partisan"

That's very consistent! :roll:
Click to expand...

I know you have a crush on me, but I'm married. Sorry.
 
tres borrachos said:
So then if the uninsured don't become insured, reducing the costs for everyone, what is "affordable"? Or is it only "affordable" to the poor?
Click to expand...

that's not the main way the ACA makes health insurance affordable.. certainly it helps to reduce the number of folks that go without insurance and then rack up huge bills that get passed on to taxpayers and people that have insurance...

But the main way that the ACA can reduce the cost of health insurance is through competition. That's the idea ( a republican idea by the way) of the exchanges. To increase the competition between insurance carriers. and to get more competition.. you have to get rid of preexisting conditions since they decrease portability. You can't move from one insurance to another if you have to worry about pre existing condition exclusions.

The problem with the ACA is that it doesn't take competition far enough (largely because the insurance companies lobbied hard to prevent that type of competition)
 
KLATTU said:
Nice list of DNC talking points. Too dumb to even take seriously.

But one goes beyond dumb.

ITs saying that we want to decrease "welfare".. but then give money hand over fist to corporations who are better connected than others, and supporting defense spending ..


Thats so straw I'm afraid to light a match. Who gives money 'hand over fist' to corporations??
Click to expand...

Well.. when we republicans were in charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.. we came up with a little thing called "medicare part D".. (maybe you heard of it).. it had a little mandate that everyone had to have drug insurance and that the government would subsidize those plans and drugs and it forbid the government from negotiating for better prices on medications. It was a giant boon to the drug companies. Everyone has to have it, the government will pay for it or pay for a lot of it, and drug companies can largely charge what they want to with no negotiation.

And that wasn't a list of "DNC talking points"..It was simply the facts.
 
I'd say that the GOP and Faux News and their followers have their collective panties in a twist, but in actuality, their intestines are in a twist...hope they have health insurance. I cannot believe that ANYONE takes Karl Rove seriously as he continues to shill for the right and bash the fact that 6 million more American now have affordable health insurance. Eat your heart out Rove (aka 'Turd Blossom") and BTW...Romney is not winning the election.
 
jaeger19 said:
that's not the main way the ACA makes health insurance affordable.. certainly it helps to reduce the number of folks that go without insurance and then rack up huge bills that get passed on to taxpayers and people that have insurance...

But the main way that the ACA can reduce the cost of health insurance is through competition. That's the idea ( a republican idea by the way) of the exchanges. To increase the competition between insurance carriers. and to get more competition.. you have to get rid of preexisting conditions since they decrease portability. You can't move from one insurance to another if you have to worry about pre existing condition exclusions.

The problem with the ACA is that it doesn't take competition far enough (largely because the insurance companies lobbied hard to prevent that type of competition)
Click to expand...

It also ignores competition between health care providers. It does nothing to encourage that, it actually discourages it. As more and more people get insurance, and thus a third party payer pays the doctor bill, individuals become less likely to shop based upon price and quality. When customers don't shop, then there is no reason for providers to compete.

So while it is very possible that the ACA may end up creating more competition between insurance companies, it may decrease competition between health care providers. That decreased competition may tend to increase medical costs, basically creating a higher price floor that insurance companies can not go below (and stay in business).

A while back there was a thread that questioned whether or not high deductible policies were allowed by the ACA. Some people said that they were going to be banned as they didn't meet minimum standards, but that's not true, many of the Obamacare exchange policies are indeed high deductible policies, and many of them are complient with the HSA rules. So the one possible saving grace of Obamacare, may be that more people chose the "bronze" plans, which have higher deductibles, and thus incentivise consumers shopping for health care.

If ALL Obamacare exchange policies were lower costs high deductible policies, then it would be possible that medical care costs would actually decline. If I was empowered to make just one change to Obamacare, I would require that only low cost high deductible policies could be offered on the exchanges. At that point, the ACA would virtually guaranteed that not only would insurance costs be reduced, but also the cost of medical care. It's a market based suggestion, so I'm sure no conservatives would ever agree with me - conservatives apparently HATE free market competition, because that does nothing to further enrich the already wealthy.
 
Last edited:
The title of this thread is simply not true to begin with. Popularity isn't soaring regardless if you are Dem, Rep, Independent, Libertarian or just simply a tax payer in this Country.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Because back in those days, there were conservatives and liberals in both parties. Not now. And the nation as a whole is significantly more socially liberal than before, and it's only a matter of time before this will be reflected in Congress.
Click to expand...

ACA is not an especially liberal idea. It's just a bad idea.:peace
 
NIMBY said:
That was a conscious choice by your team for the sake of it.
Have you lost count yet of all the times the GOP was for something before they were against it, after Obama chose to get on board ?
Click to expand...

The GOP is not my team, and I don't think your claim has any basis in fact.:peace
 
jaeger19 said:
First. I don't think I have ever worry about cherry picking sources.. sources either have it right or don't. I don't play a lot of ideological games.

Second.. you need to read and comprehend whats being said here. "is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate"..

Right there is what I have been saying.. since post one on this issue. Its NOT what you have been saying jack. You have to have everyone participate otherwise people will be diving in and out of insurance depending on their health status at the time.

This supports what I said. I think its ironic that you have over and over posted statements that support EXACTLY.. in fact almost word for word what I have been saying regarding the mandate since post one and then claim its proof I am wrong.

Now.. lets take your second statement here..



Yep.. and again that supports my point.. you have simply misinterpreted the statement. the reason that you need to force healthy people into the market is again.. because of the pre existing conditions clause. With pre existing conditions out of the way.., healthy people can opt out.. BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO BUY IN WHEN THEY ARE SICK.. which would dramatically raise rates on folks that for some reason needed to stay on insurance.

Again Jack it goes back to the pre existing conditions issue.

Without the pre existing conditions... the mandate is not necessary.. the insurance pool is already healthy enough. 85% of americans already have health insurance..and the insurance companies are making money without the 15% of "healthy" americans that are uninsured in the pool.

Those are the facts Jack.. and your posts support exactly what I have been saying. Apparently your ideology simply blinds you to common sense.

Another fact Jack.. is that to get lower premiums.. you actually have to get rid of the pre existing conditions. Because the prohibition on pre existing conditions squashes competition.. Sure.. your insurance company is screwing you over.. and you would like to jump to a cheaper insurance... but if you have a pre existing condition or your children do.. no matter how minor.. it may mean that you or they are NOT covered if that minor condition turns into something major.

that's why the mandate is so important (and it does help with outlier uninsured that rack up very expensive medical bills and push it on the taxpayers and those with insurance)..
Click to expand...

There are two possibilities: Either 1) you have a reading comprehension problem, or 2) we have been in agreement throughout this discussion. Take your pick.:peace
 
jaeger19 said:
Too funny.. Lets get this straight.. the ACA is a failure because young healthy people that HAVE BEEN GOING WITHOUT HEATH INSURANCE because its too expensive BEFORE the aca... now.. some of them still don't want to pay for the expense for health insurance?

Of course its an increase in cost.. if you weren't paying anything.. and now you are paying something... its a higher cost..:doh
Click to expand...

They don't want to pay, regardless of what they may get.:peace
 
jaeger19 said:
First. I don't think I have ever worry about cherry picking sources.. sources either have it right or don't. I don't play a lot of ideological games.

Second.. you need to read and comprehend whats being said here. "is that the way to create an insurance market that lets people with pre existing conditions get covered at reasonable prices is to make everyone participate"..

Right there is what I have been saying.. since post one on this issue. Its NOT what you have been saying jack. You have to have everyone participate otherwise people will be diving in and out of insurance depending on their health status at the time.

This supports what I said. I think its ironic that you have over and over posted statements that support EXACTLY.. in fact almost word for word what I have been saying regarding the mandate since post one and then claim its proof I am wrong.

Now.. lets take your second statement here..



Yep.. and again that supports my point.. you have simply misinterpreted the statement. the reason that you need to force healthy people into the market is again.. because of the pre existing conditions clause. With pre existing conditions out of the way.., healthy people can opt out.. BECAUSE THEY WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO BUY IN WHEN THEY ARE SICK.. which would dramatically raise rates on folks that for some reason needed to stay on insurance.

Again Jack it goes back to the pre existing conditions issue.

Without the pre existing conditions... the mandate is not necessary.. the insurance pool is already healthy enough. 85% of americans already have health insurance..and the insurance companies are making money without the 15% of "healthy" americans that are uninsured in the pool.

Those are the facts Jack.. and your posts support exactly what I have been saying. Apparently your ideology simply blinds you to common sense.

Another fact Jack.. is that to get lower premiums.. you actually have to get rid of the pre existing conditions. Because the prohibition on pre existing conditions squashes competition.. Sure.. your insurance company is screwing you over.. and you would like to jump to a cheaper insurance... but if you have a pre existing condition or your children do.. no matter how minor.. it may mean that you or they are NOT covered if that minor condition turns into something major.

that's why the mandate is so important (and it does help with outlier uninsured that rack up very expensive medical bills and push it on the taxpayers and those with insurance)..
Click to expand...

Apparently you have been agreeing with me from the beginning.:peace

You claim I have been saying this: "You have to have everyone participate otherwise people will be diving in and out of insurance depending on their health status at the time."

Sorry, but I have never said that. The link above, with which you say you agree, is what I have been saying from the beginning.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
ACA is not an especially liberal idea. It's just a bad idea.:peace
Click to expand...

Not really. It's just not being touted properly--after all, most Americans like the fact that there is no longer a ban on pre-existing conditions and that kids who are in college or just getting out can be kept on the family insurance plan. They also liked the idea of exchanges and expansion of medicare, by large margins.

Here

He says it so much better than I .
 
calamity said:
Not really. It's just not being touted properly--after all, most Americans like the fact that there is no longer a ban on pre-existing conditions and that kids who are in college or just getting out can be kept on the family insurance plan. They also liked the idea of exchanges and expansion of medicare, by large margins.
Click to expand...

It's a fundamentally flawed act.

The More We Learn, the Worse It Gets - Ed Rogers, Washington Post:peace
 
calamity said:
Not really. It's just not being touted properly--after all, most Americans like the fact that there is no longer a ban on pre-existing conditions and that kids who are in college or just getting out can be kept on the family insurance plan. They also liked the idea of exchanges and expansion of medicare, by large margins.
Click to expand...
Once again ... you didn't need something as sweeping a Government takeover of everyone's healthcare as is Obamacare to bring those things to people who actually wanted it or needed it.
And btw, Obamacare took $3/4Trillion from Medicare.
 
bubbabgone said:
Once again ... you didn't need something as sweeping a Government takeover of everyone's healthcare as is Obamacare to bring those things to people who actually wanted it or needed it.
And btw, Obamacare took $3/4Trillion from Medicare.
Click to expand...

I wish the gvt took over healthcare--you know, medicare for all. Hell, throw a tax on it. What do most people pay now, $500-600 per month? Fine. Add a few hundred to the tax bill, eliminate the for-profit middleman and give us universal healthcare.

Oh...can you prove that $3/4 Trillion claim?
 
00005.jpg
 
calamity said:
:lol:



With the midterms roughly 6 months away, worse news for the GOP could not have come at a better time. But, it does prove that the rest of us were on target while they were out of touch.
Click to expand...

The GOP overwhelmingly supports the Obamacare mandate. GOP pols just wanted Americans to believe they didn't so they could get elected. Once they seized the Senate, they wanted to keep the mandate in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom