• 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!

Obamacare Questions

JCHSALEM

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
49
Reaction score
7
Location
Branchburg, NJ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN

where should I start
first it is a tax on the young and healthy middle class and their families they are forced to pay a higher premium to support yet again another hand out
its a tax but using the insurance companies as the middle man to levy that tax. its a redistribution of wealth but not from the rich but from the middle class

second it was sold on a lie "You can keep your doctor" "you can keep you health insurance" "it will save the public 2,500 a year on health care" you can try and say those are nothing but republicans talking point, but there is proof after proof showing all of them are blatant unadulterated lies, and like any product that is sold under a lie it is called false advertisement and companies get sued every day for doing just that. you can return the product and sue the company for damages caused by those lies

third it is just one more step closer to socialism you know that oppressive political system that has put one country in bankruptcy and many more will follow.

forth it will cause poorer health care. doctor reimburisment on treatment have been cut. they have to hire an extra person to do the paper work. meaning one less nurse they can hire. many doctors are leaving, retireing early or not participate in the exchange coverage plans. so we will have less health care help with 10 of millions more into the system. this will cause worse care long waiting periods if your lucky to find a doctor, get test and treatment. what Obama care was supposed to solve by keeping people from going to the emergency room with a cold will continue to happen because people will not be able to find a doctor or get put on a long waiting period to see one

fifth it has hurt job growth small companies will not grow they will not hire to go above 49 employees so not to have their cost of doing business go up by 20% or more by being forced to provide insurance or pay a hefty fine it is also causing many business to either cut hours to part time only hire part time and through a temp service

I ran into my old boss last week. he owned a sheet metal shop that I did auto cad for. he told me he had to retire early and close up shop forcing over 200 on the unemployment line because the insurance plan he did offer that we only paid 25 cents a week because he covered the rest of the premium out of his pocket. but because of Obama care it didn't meet the requirements and he couldn't afford to pay anymore then he already was and couldn't afford to pay the fine so he bit the bullet and closed shop. I can tell he was devastated for doing so. stories like this is happening all over America caused by Obama care
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
where should I startng first it is a tax on the young and healthy middle class and their families they are forced to pay a higher premium to support yet again another hand out
its a tax but using the insurance companies as the middle man to levy that tax. its a redistribution of wealth but not from the rich but from the middle class
Nonsense.
Mandates were a GOP idea to prevent Freeloading. Those guys who get free medical care in the emergency room, including the young.
Just as with mandatory auto insurance.
The "Transfer of wealth" was from those paying for insurance to those without it.
Mandates is about Everyone paying.
try again.


trfj said:
second it was sold on a lie "You can keep your doctor" "you can keep you health insurance" "it will save the public 2,500 a year on health care" you can try and say those are nothing but republicans talking point, but there is proof after proof showing all of them are blatant unadulterated lies, and like any product that is sold under a lie it is called false advertisement and companies get sued every day for doing just that. you can return the product and sue the company for damages caused by those lies
Most Will keep their health insurance Unchanged through their employer,
I am self-employed and pay 2000 a Month for coverage. (Aetna QPOS, NY)
I will almost certainly now get it Much cheaper through health exchanges.

trfj said:
third it is just one more step closer to socialism you know that oppressive political system that has put one country in bankruptcy and many more will follow.
Ah yes, the Red threat!
Just like our [socialist] Medicare recipients get services much cheaper. The Govt is a bigger/better bargainer.
EVERY other of the 29 OECD Nations has Universal Healthcare and at app HALF The cost of ours.

trfj said:
forth it will cause poorer health care. doctor reimburisment on treatment have been cut....
That's The idea!
The Big winners have been our Rich doctors and Med supply cos/the losers everyone else.

trfj said:
fifth it has hurt job growth small companies will not grow they will not hire to go above 49 employees so not to have their cost of doing business go up by 20% or more by being forced to provide insurance or pay a hefty fine it is also causing many business to either cut hours to part time only hire part time and through a temp service
Once you get past 49 employees, you are way past mom and pop stores, unless you have 20 of them.

trfj said:
I ran into my old boss last week. he owned a sheet metal shop that I did auto cad for. he told me he had to retire early and close up shop forcing over 200 on the unemployment line because the insurance plan he did offer that we only paid 25 cents a week because he covered the rest of the premium out of his pocket. but because of Obama care it didn't meet the requirements and he couldn't afford to pay anymore then he already was and couldn't afford to pay the fine so he bit the bullet and closed shop. I can tell he was devastated for doing so. stories like this is happening all over America caused by Obama care
Then he's not a very smart boss. I'm sure the employees would happily take a small monthly pay cut to pay for Obamacare/Any-Healthcare but keep their jobs.
 
Last edited:

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
where should I start
first it is a tax on the young and healthy middle class and their families they are forced to pay a higher premium to support yet again another hand out
its a tax but using the insurance companies as the middle man to levy that tax. its a redistribution of wealth but not from the rich but from the middle class

Don't you get that all these years it has been the sick being denied coverage that has subsidized those cheaper rates? You were able to get an affordable health plan only because people with heart conditions and cancer were shown the door.
 

274ina

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,415
Reaction score
641
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1: Becasue employers will no longer control peoples HC
2: the Mega rich will pay for the subsidies for the poor.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
1: Becasue employers will no longer control peoples HC
2: the Mega rich will pay for the subsidies for the poor.

employers never controled its employees health care it was a service they provided you where not forced to participate there was no fine/tax if you didn't

the rich will is not be paying the subsides the young healthy middle class will be with higher premiums co-pay and deductibles then what they would have paid before Obama care. get your facts straight and stop parroting false democrat talking points
 

solletica

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
6,073
Reaction score
926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN

1) To get Obamacare, you must pay the insurance co. premiums.

2) Once you pay the premiums, Obamacare will pay for your flu shot* ++ *** ++++ ****

* - participating in-network clinics only
++ - coverage for specific vaccines, see sec A-237D55 for exclusions
*** - coverage requires following guidelines listed under sec C-2786G for "Exclusions on Preventive Care coverage"
++++ - examination for other illnesses, blood tests may not be covered. See sec D-987JUN21
**** - other restrictions/exclusions apply. See p. 873 for special exclusions
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,707
Reaction score
37,826
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nonsense.
Mandates were a GOP idea to prevent Freeloading. Those guys who get free medical care in the emergency room, including the young.
Just as with mandatory auto insurance.
The "Transfer of wealth" was from those paying for insurance to those without it.
Mandates is about Everyone paying.
try again.

Actually you failed to address his argument. Your one salient point is that the individual mandate was originally a GOP counter to HillaryCare's Employer Mandate. A tax it is and remains, and the community rating absolutely makes it a wealth transfer.

Most Will keep their health insurance Unchanged through their employer,
I am self-employed and pay 2000 a Month for coverage. (Aetna QPOS, NY)
I will almost certainly now get it Much cheaper through health exchanges.

I hope that you do - but many many many are not. For example, one of the laws problems is that the fee for employers not insuring employees does not extend to their families, and so employers are droping family coverage left and right. Your anecdote aside, his point (that Obamacare will cost many people their insurance and their doctors) remains correct.

Ah yes, the Red threat!
Just like our [socialist] Medicare recipients get services much cheaper. The Govt is a bigger/better bargainer.
EVERY other of the 29 OECD Nations has Universal Healthcare and at app HALF The cost of ours.

Yup. Once you start rationing supply, overall costs do remain lower. We pay more, and we get more. That doesn't mean that the Govt is a better bargainer - take a look at the growing number of providers who refuse to take any more Medicare/Mediaid patients. Good bargainers reach mutually beneficial positions - they don't bargain themselves out of the market.

As for socialism, (shrug) the political left has been fairly blatant about the fact that they see this program as a step towards socialized medicine. That's not conspiracy theory mongering, it's accurate reporting of their intentions.

That's The idea!
The Big winners have been our Rich doctors and Med supply cos/the losers everyone else.

Hooray! Now old and poor people can't get medical care! Yippee!

.....wait......

:thinking

Once you get past 49 employees, you are way past mom and pop stores, unless you have 20 of them.

No, you are a small construction business like my uncle's. I have no idea if he's already chopped the people he has to or just bumped them down to part time. Obamacare has destroyed the 40 hour work week. That's not Sean Hannity saying it - it's Unions saying it.

Then he's not a very smart boss. I'm sure the employees would happily take a small monthly pay cut to pay for Obamacare/Any-Healthcare but keep their jobs.

Wait. You are agreeing that this program reduces the take-home pay of our blue collar workers, then, and are selling that as the silver lining for "well at least they shouldn't have to lose their jobs"? And that's the silver lining?
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN

1. It was passed by Democrats, and in particular, Obama - a President the Republicans particularly hate above all others. This plan actually originated from the Republicans years ago.

2. I believe the real fear is that it will work and become another historical, landmark bill passed by the Democrats, like the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare.

3. Many Republicans, especially the masses, don't really understand it. It's not socialized medicine in any way (it's private market insurance where ins cos compete to sell people policies).

4. Many people think it's providing free health care to the masses (like that's a bad thing, anyway), but it's not. If you're an individual earning over $46k a year, you pay full price, just like now.

5. Many people have been told that it's causing small businesses to drop coverage, but there's no statistical evidence of that. In fact, the ACA gives small businesses a tax credit to help with providing insurance, unlike currently.

6. Many people have been told that it's causing larger businesses to drop handling coverage, but that's been looked at by the govt, and the percentage of businesses doing that is about 1%....the same as before the ACA. This has been a long range trend, like dropping pensions has been.

7. Stories are circulating that ins. premiums are skyrocketing. But that's not true. The premiums will actually be less once the final provisions of the ACA are instituted, when you compare similar coverages. The ACA has been in effect since 2010. Premiums have increased LESS in that time that decades before.

8. Many people have been told it has death panels that will decide when elderly people will die (that is, decide they won't get treatment). Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin, in particular, harped on this for a long time back in 2009 or so. There are no death panels (the ACA has been in effect since 2010...we'd know if a lot of grandmas were being put to death by death panels).

9. Many people have been told that you won't be able to get coverage if you have pre-existing condition, unlike now. Just the opposite is true. You can be denied ins. currently if you have a pre-existing condition, but under the ACA, you cannot be denied coverage. This has been in effect for some time, now. A lot of people have health care now because of this provision. (They pay full price for it, BTW.)

10. Many people think Obamacare gives free health ins. to the masses, namely lazy deadbeats who don't work. It doesn't. As stated above, it provides subsidies on a sliding scale for people whose income is about 400% above the poverty line, on down to where they qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid provides free care (if yu can find someone in your area who takes it). Obamacare does not.

11. Many people think Obamacare is for people who don't work. But they've been misinformed. It's not. It's mainly for what we call the working poor and anyone else who doesn't get health care through their employers.

12. There's a saying that the difference between a Republican and a Democrat is that the Democrat loses sleep worrying that someone somewhere isn't getting something he's entitled to, and the Republican loses sleep worrying that someone somewhere is getting something he isn't entitled to. The Republicans are against the govt helping anyone to get health care. It's the principle of the thing. Seriously. They believe it's worth not getting health care to millions with pre-existing conditions or hard working min. wage workers, if someone who doesn't, in the Republican point of view, work as hard as they do, also gets help with health care. They are just so against the 1% unjustly getting something, that they are willing for the 99% not to get it, too.

13. They say they are against the mandate. That anti-mandate position is against the Republican philosophy of personal responsibility. We are all part of the medical system, like it or not. I believe the reason they are against the mandate in this instance is that the ACA needs the mandate in order to function properly and not cost the govt money, and to bring down costs. No mandate....the ACA fails, is their thinking. Obama didn't want the mandate. He had to be convinced. He's a smart man, so I'm sure he was convinced of the necessity of the mandate, or he wouldn't have included it.

MAINLY, it's that it's a Democratic Party law. Evidence: Bush passed the Medicare Part D legislation...totally unfunded (unlike the ACA), adding $1TRILLION + to the debt, at the same time sending us to expensive war(s) AND cutting taxes twice for the wealthy. Medicare Part D provides prescription coverage in Medicare to seniors AND contains a provision that the govt cannot negotiate discounted prices for the drugs (an unheard of provision). The Republicans had no problem with that legislation and passed it overwhelmingly, despite it not costing seniors anything and despite Republicans being against Medicare.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually you failed to address his argument. Your one salient point is that the individual mandate was originally a GOP counter to HillaryCare's Employer Mandate. A tax it is and remains, and the community rating absolutely makes it a wealth transfer.
I addressed His point completely. Whatever YOU think "the point" was is your opinion/extranea.

cpwil said:
I hope that you do - but many many many are not. For example, one of the laws problems is that the fee for employers not insuring employees does not extend to their families, and so employers are droping family coverage left and right. Your anecdote aside, his point (that Obamacare will cost many people their insurance and their doctors) remains correct.
You can pervert it any way you like.
Bottom Line? More money will flow TO Healthcare be it in penalty or premium and more will be insured. Already is.

cpwill said:
Yup. Once you start rationing supply, overall costs do remain lower. We pay more, and we get more. That doesn't mean that the Govt is a better bargainer - take a look at the growing number of providers who refuse to take any more Medicare/Mediaid patients. Good bargainers reach mutually beneficial positions - they don't bargain themselves out of the market.
The Govt, AS I SHOWED, already Is a much better bargainer.. as it is in every other OECD country.
Another Disingenuous remark that's part of a larger partisan, not reason-based, agenda.

cpwill said:
As for socialism, (shrug) the political left has been fairly blatant about the fact that they see this program as a step towards socialized medicine. That's not conspiracy theory mongering, it's accurate reporting of their intentions.
Let's have a national referendum on Medicare.
90%?


cpwill said:
Hooray! Now old and poor people can't get medical care! Yippee!
.....wait......
:thinking
Let's have a national referendum on Medicare.
90%?

The difference between us and indeed the difference between me and most others here, is my positions are fact/math based.. while others are predictable 98% by party.


cpwill said:
Wait. You are agreeing that this program reduces the take-home pay of our blue collar workers, then, and are selling that as the silver lining for "well at least they shouldn't have to lose their jobs"? And that's the silver lining?
Someone WILL Pay for healthcare, be it in reduced salary or increased personal premium. Baffled as to your point.
More people will pay and less free ride. Again, Mandates was a [good] GOP idea.
 
Last edited:

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN

Higher Premiums
Paying for people who don't pay anything.
Not Government's business.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Okay, so I think I have a basic-ish understanding of Obamacare. What I still would like is a list of reasons Republicans are against it and explanation why. And none of the "OBAMA IS SATAN" crap. I want facts.

BEGIN
When you poll people and call the hea/thcare law by its real name: Affordable Care Act, only about 30% of the people oppose it. When you name it Obamacare, about 47% do.

Tells me all I need to know.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Higher Premiums
Paying for people who don't pay anything.
Not Government's business.
1381201_733573663335950_601662404_n.jpg
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Healthcare isn't a right. They can work for it like the rest of us.

Why should employers be saddled with healthcare? I hate that, myself. Employer provided healthcare results in us being far less competitive compared to places like Germany and Japan, not to mention it costs me dollars I'd rather see put in my paycheck.
 

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
6,775
Reaction score
1,123
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why should employers be saddled with healthcare? I hate that, myself. Employer provided healthcare results in us being far less competitive compared to places like Germany and Japan, not to mention it costs me dollars I'd rather see put in my paycheck.

What does that have anything to do with what I said?
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What does that have anything to do with what I said?
Difference of opinion. I want healthcare to be the "government's business". And paying for the healthcare of people who pay nothing is cheaper in the long run. And, instead of ever rising premiums, lets just do away with them and toss in a tax.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I disagree

If the government was in charge of healthcare they would not be protecting the rights or liberties of the people. All they would be doing is providing people healthcare services at the expense of fellow citizens.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If the government was in charge of healthcare they would not be protecting the rights or liberties of the people. All they would be doing is providing people healthcare services at the expense of fellow citizens.
You don't know that.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You don't know that.

Of course I know that. Healthcare is a service, not a human right, and if government provided it the taxpayers would be billed.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Of course I know that. Healthcare is a service, not a human right, and if government provided it the taxpayers would be billed.

I'd rather be taxed on it than pay these ungodly premiums that are split between me and my employer. It'll probably be cheaper--no profits for greedy insurance companies, and we can begin to see some cuts in medical fees and drug costs as well. We have the highest priced healthcare in the world, but the 40th as far as quality. Our system is broken.

Only the Fox News, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crowd still believe the lie that our broken healthcare system is worldclass. The rest of us know better..
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,707
Reaction score
37,826
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I addressed His point completely. Whatever YOU think "the point" was is your opinion/extranea.

No, you didn't. The ACA remains a wealth redistributor (as you later tacitly admit) and it remains a tax.

You can pervert it any way you like.
Bottom Line? More money will flow TO Healthcare be it in penalty or premium and more will be insured. Already is.

Except that you later claim that that is somehow magically ineffecient.

The Govt, AS I SHOWED, already Is a much better bargainer.. as it is in every other OECD country.
Another Disingenuous remark that's part of a larger partisan, not reason-based, agenda.

That is incorrect. What you showed is that other countries pay less for the healthcare they receive. What they receive is not necessarily equal to what the US receives, nor do you account for the piggy-backing that they do off the advances that are overwhelmingly the result of our medical investment.

For example, China in the 1950s paid far less per person for food than the average American. What do you want to bet that, given the option, the average Chinese citizen during that time would have loved to have had to bear the expense of the American?

Government provision of goods where you do not pay at the point of receipt increases demand beyond the capacity of supply to meet (as demand always increases when the marginal cost drops to effectively zero); resulting in the imposition of a series of rationing mechanisms.

For example, as I pointed out (and as you notably failed to answer), the reduction in the reimbursement schedules has led to ever-increasing numbers of providers refusing to accept any more Medicare/Medicaid patients. Arguing that a "good negotiator" is one who sticks (for whatever reason) to a number that destroys the deal is like arguing that a surgeon who successfully fixes the identified problem but consistently kills his patients in the process is a "good doctor".

Let's have a national referendum on Medicare.
90%?

:) that's cute strawman you have there. Medicare =/= National Single Payer program.

The difference between us and indeed the difference between me and most others here, is my positions are fact/math based...

:lol: just not well grounded in basic economic theory.

Someone WILL Pay for healthcare, be it in reduced salary or increased personal premium. Baffled as to your point.

This program increases the cost on our low-income workforce in terms of reduced disposable income and benefits. We cost the worker full time employment and offer him a portion of a crappy (but now more expensive) healthcare plan as the mitigant.

More people will pay and less free ride. Again, Mandates was a [good] GOP idea.

On the contrary - guaranteed issuance plus community rating ensures that more people will free ride in the form of refusing to purchase insurance until they develop a costly preexisting condition, but cannot be refused.

People consistently follow their incentives. Even in healthcare. ;)
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,707
Reaction score
37,826
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd rather be taxed on it than pay these ungodly premiums that are split between me and my employer. It'll probably be cheaper--no profits for greedy insurance companies, and we can begin to see some cuts in medical fees and drug costs as well. We have the highest priced healthcare in the world, but the 40th as far as quality. Our system is broken.

Only the Fox News, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh crowd still believe the lie that our broken healthcare system is worldclass. The rest of us know better..


:shrug: where would you rather develop cancer? Need brain surgery? Access a specialist?
 
Top Bottom