• 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.

Obamacare? Voters are kind of over it.

Paschendale said:
But you admit to not knowing the full effect, yet decry it as a certain catastrophe. How can both be true?
Click to expand...
You dont know the full effect, admit the very people that passed it are the ones that are scared ****less of seeing it implemented, yet you support it? How the **** can THAT be? Oh yeah...because you want it to be so.

I WANT it to be fully implemented. I wanted all the waivers killed and for the country to see the full impact. But...we cant see it...can we. And why is that?
 
Neomalthusian said:
#4 is least necessary. Most of what are called "essential" are essential aspects of insurance. What's essential when it comes to insurance is protection from medical bankruptcy as a result of unlikely accidents and major illnesses.
Click to expand...

Selection of policy type is a customer decision.
 
Paschendale said:
If you don't know the outcome, why are you so afraid of it?



How? Right wingers keep repeating that mantra, as if somehow the insurance companies in a few states are magically not gouging the population and will rise to the top in short order. No state has super special cheap insurance. How exactly is this a fix to the problems we have?
Click to expand...

More choices, more competition.
 
Jack Hays said:
More choices, more competition.
Click to expand...

So... you're just hopeful? More choices doesn't mean any better choices. More competition doesn't mean better products. Most likely the only result of such a move would be consolidation into a few big companies and less competition. That is not a solution.
 
Paschendale said:
So... you're just hopeful? More choices doesn't mean any better choices. More competition doesn't mean better products. Most likely the only result of such a move would be consolidation into a few big companies and less competition. That is not a solution.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I disagree. More choices does mean better choices, and more competition means better products. The auto industry is a case in point.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I disagree. More choices does mean better choices, and more competition means better products. The auto industry is a case in point.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's quite surprising how the cost of a new car has steadily dropped
 
Jack Hays said:
The origin of the discussion was that interstate competition would create more choices for insurance purchasers.
Click to expand...

No, the origin of the discussion was that interstate competition would lower prices. See post #77

It was your post. Did you forget what you were arguing?

Here
Dave Mittner said:
Thing is, they don't realize what they actually hate.

It's not the ACA, itself, that's causing prices in rural areas to be higher than urban areas. It's market competition (or the lack there-of). It's the free market. It's capitalism. It's the insurance companies' decisions to pull out of rural areas, leaving few options behind--and those remaining insurance companies being able to charge more due to lack of competition.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Allowing competition across state lines would probably eliminate (or at least mitigate) that problem.
Click to expand...

Buh-bye Jack!!
 
sangha said:
No, the origin of the discussion was that interstate competition would lower prices. See post #77

It was your post. Did you forget what you were arguing?

Here




Buh-bye Jack!!
Click to expand...

That was last night's exchange, but the point remains valid. This evening's focus had shifted.
 
sangha said:
Yes, the point is you've got nothing.
Click to expand...


Nice try but no. Take any of the 50 separate markets we have today and match it up with any other. You will find plans available in one but not the other. Now repeat that for all 50 markets and you have an idea of the radical expansion of choice that would be created by interstate competition.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nice try but no. Take any of the 50 separate markets we have today and match it up with any other. You will find plans available in one but not the other. Now repeat that for all 50 markets and you have an idea of the radical expansion of choice that would be created by interstate competition.
Click to expand...

And yet, you can't describe one single one

BTW, there's more than 50 insurance markets.
 
sangha said:
And yet, you can't describe one single one

BTW, there's more than 50 insurance markets.
Click to expand...

I don't need to describe any to make my point. And 50 markets is enough to make my point about interstate commerce.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't need to describe any to make my point. And 50 markets is enough to make my point about interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

No you don't need to do anything, but having absolutely no evidence to support your point shows how worthless it is.

You ran away from that point almost as quickly as you ran away from your claim that competition would make insurance cheaper
 
KevinKohler said:
What's different now?


All we've done is further socialized that cost. We've done NOTHING to address the real issue...


Which is why a broken bone should cost 250K in the first ****ing place.
Click to expand...

anigif_enhanced-buzz-24624-1378330229-5.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom