• 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!

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Re the individual mandate: I can see three choices here:
1. The uninsured and indigent continue to use the emergency room as their clinic, passing the costs on to the rest of us.
2. The uninsured and indigent don't get health care at all. They either get well, or die.
3. Everyone is mandated to have health insurance.

Is there a fourth option?

Which do you choose, 1, 2, or 3?
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Childish and cowardly...

Any more so than you ignoring the beat down you have taken with your partisan BS?
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Re the individual mandate: I can see three choices here:
1. The uninsured and indigent continue to use the emergency room as their clinic, passing the costs on to the rest of us.
2. The uninsured and indigent don't get health care at all. They either get well, or die.
3. Everyone is mandated to have health insurance.

Is there a fourth option?

Which do you choose, 1, 2, or 3?

There are a million other options. They don't all have to be federal solutions.

Option 4n: Federal Government does a block Medicare/Medicaid grant to the states who then administer programs on the state and local level that give the individual far more political say than on the Federal level. The State of California, for example would get about as much from the Federal Government as Germany currently spends on it's health care program and their populations are similar. California could then build it's liberal utopia where all Californian's get single payer health care. Those who don't want state administered Health care could then leave the state if they so chose.

Option 4n+1: Same as 4n, but also remove the limitation on selling insurance across borders. This way people in California could still buy supplemental insurance if they wanted that would only cover procedures not covered by the state while people in, say, Texas could shop for whatever insurance they want from around the country and have it subsidized by the Texas block grant and/or their employer.

There, my two options have essentially created 50 options.

Freedom to choose. It's a wonderful thing.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

no Comrades there is no choice but the cowardly one, to become wards of the state.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

There are a million other options. They don't all have to be federal solutions.

Option 4n: Federal Government does a block Medicare/Medicaid grant to the states who then administer programs on the state and local level that give the individual far more political say than on the Federal level. The State of California, for example would get about as much from the Federal Government as Germany currently spends on it's health care program and their populations are similar. California could then build it's liberal utopia where all Californian's get single payer health care. Those who don't want state administered Health care could then leave the state if they so chose.

Option 4n+1: Same as 4n, but also remove the limitation on selling insurance across borders. This way people in California could still buy supplemental insurance if they wanted that would only cover procedures not covered by the state while people in, say, Texas could shop for whatever insurance they want from around the country and have it subsidized by the Texas block grant and/or their employer.

There, my two options have essentially created 50 options.

Freedom to choose. It's a wonderful thing.

I'm not sure how a block grant from the federal government is not a federal solution.

But, you do have a point: Give the options above to each of the 50 states, then see what they can do with them.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Indeed. We should assume that the Affordable Care Act is not "going away. And here is why:


No matter what your position on the spectrum of political ideology, I think we can all agree - competition requires rules.

All competitions are governed by rules. As in boxing, football, chess and so many others, if competitor(s) on one side choose not to play by the rules, they are disqualified, often in contempt. If they play by the rules and lose, most accept their loss with dignity. Democracy is also a competition - of ideas and of ideals. And voting is the ultimate action on the 'field.'

Of course, this isn't the only critically important competition in our government. Our congress competes on every bill that is introduced. Typically, the members of the House or Senate introduce a Bill and, after much back-and-forth negotiating between both parties and the various factions via committees, finally agree that a it merits moving forward, or not. If the Bill gets approved in that chamber, the other chamber then goes through much the same process. If approved by that chamber, then the negotiating between the Senate and the House begins, with many amendments from both sides, along the way. Often, months go buy. Only when both houses, and therefore both parties, agree that they have a 'win' (the legislation that results from the initial Bill), does it go the the President for final approval. This is often a very intense competition.

On the issue of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as President Obama has stated, Democrats and the American people have already won the competition, not once, not twice, but three times. After nearly a year, the House and the Senate voted to pass the legislation and the President approved it; when challenged, the Supreme Court found it constitutional; and with the ACA as a key differentiator in the 2012 election, the competition was won again. Handily.

Voting, whether by the public or in the halls of Congress, is a competition. The other side lost. They are now acting like school children who are throwing a fit because they don’t like the outcome of a fair, rules based, competition. Still worse, they think they deserve the right to play the game again, with their own rules.

Actually, they want to play with no rules. They lost the Superbowl but they want to take back the rings from the winning team . And they are prepared to shoot the ref’s, the spectators, and perhaps those who watched on television, if they don’ get the Superbowl rings back. The American people would never allow this kind of behavior in the competition we know as football!

Do not settle for anything less in government than we expect on the football field.

Challenge those who whine when they lose.

If anything the president is whining about not getting his trophy while the game is still being played. He's like the player who spiked the football before he got to the end zone, and then bitched about it when the other team picked up the ball. The game of politics doesn't have a buzzer.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?

Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:

Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)

What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.

- End employer-based coverage or at least required employer-based coverage.

- Bypass health insurance policies and have mandatory direct flat-rate unlimited access individual and family competition driven hospital/doctor group memberships.

- The whole country reups or picks a new hospital on the same month each year so that hospitals do their best at educating the public on why theirs is the best and selling their memberships similar to political campaigns.

- Include escrow and/or national affiliation components to cover unplanned treatment while away from home.

- Rebates for meeting individual and collective group healthy lifestyle percentage benchmarks including things like low cholesterol, low body mass index, low heart rate, works out regularly, no tobacco, voluntary underage type IDs that prohibit alcohol sales, etc.

- Collect membership fees from something people have no choice but to be a part of like payroll and business licensing to minimize non-compliance.

- Make failure to be in a healthcare group a serious problem similar to letting your car insurance lapse.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I'm not sure how a block grant from the federal government is not a federal solution.

Because it is administered at the state level and at the state discretion. It could just as easily be left to the state to collect health care taxes directly if you prefer.

The point is that between Medicare and Medicaid the Government already spends as much as Germany per-capita on Healthcare. If they went ahead and did a per-capita block grant the states could each do what they feel is best in their state for their residents. Presumably California would try a single payer system almost immediately while other states would go their own way.

The citizens of the country could then either vote for direct change in their state to a system they would prefer, or even quicker with their feet by moving to a state with policies that they want.

But, you do have a point: Give the options above to each of the 50 states, then see what they can do with them.

It was the point of Federalism in the first place. The laboratory of the States. If Maine comes up with a great solution then other states could copy it... but if Maine screws the pooch they won't take the rest of the states down with them. Federalism compartmentalizes failure and distributes success.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Because it is administered at the state level and at the state discretion. It could just as easily be left to the state to collect health care taxes directly if you prefer.

The point is that between Medicare and Medicaid the Government already spends as much as Germany per-capita on Healthcare. If they went ahead and did a per-capita block grant the states could each do what they feel is best in their state for their residents. Presumably California would try a single payer system almost immediately while other states would go their own way.

The citizens of the country could then either vote for direct change in their state to a system they would prefer, or even quicker with their feet by moving to a state with policies that they want.



It was the point of Federalism in the first place. The laboratory of the States. If Maine comes up with a great solution then other states could copy it... but if Maine screws the pooch they won't take the rest of the states down with them. Federalism compartmentalizes failure and distributes success.

I've often wondered just what would happen if California were to have a single payer health care. On the one hand, it could attract employers who wouldn't have to pay for employee health insurance. On the other hand, it would attract people who don't have health insurance.

If, on the other hand, the entire country had a single payer health care system, it would take the burden of providing health insurance off of the backs of the employers, but would not encourage people to move from one state to another seeking freebies.
 
I've often wondered just what would happen if California were to have a single payer health care. On the one hand, it could attract employers who wouldn't have to pay for employee health insurance. On the other hand, it would attract people who don't have health insurance.

If, on the other hand, the entire country had a single payer health care system, it would take the burden of providing health insurance off of the backs of the employers, but would not encourage people to move from one state to another seeking freebies.

As soon as people saw the tax money withheld from their paycheck to pay for single payer health care, they would see very quickly that it's not a freebie.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Changes to Obama care... end the employer mandate to provide health insurance. One of the problems with the healthcare system is employers buying insurance for their employees.

Allow all employers to pay into a tax free HSA for all employees regardless of what insurance they pick. This allows employers to get the tax and recruitment advantages for paying or helping to pay for their employees healthcare insurance.. but allowing the employee to select the exact coverage that they need.

End the restriction on who and when you can use the exchanges. If you have a state exchange? Great.. you should be able to purchase on that exchange.. the federal exchange or another states exchange and still get your subsidy. And if your employer pays for part of your healthcare.. you should be able to opt out and go for an exchange if this works better for you.

End that tax on medical devices... pure stupid and increases prices

Require medicare fiscal intermediaries to hire professionals in the field of medicine to review claims and to do focused claims review.. based on real medical necessity rather than whether code A matches with diagnosis B.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

As soon as people saw the tax money withheld from their paycheck to pay for single payer health care, they would see very quickly that it's not a freebie.

It would be for the people who don't have a paycheck. That's the down side to having a single payer system in California, or any state.
 
It would be for the people who don't have a paycheck. That's the down side to having a single payer system in California, or any state.

And those people most likely wouldn't be able to afford to move to California.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

And those people most likely wouldn't be able to afford to move to California.

Let's hope not, if that is, we ever do adopt a state wide single payer health care system.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?

Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:

Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)

What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.

I think that if we created experimental cities to test out new social reforms and policies like the ACA, then everyone will have more reason to adopt such policies through out the states when these policies prove to be successful. We could turn some military bases into these experimental communities or just make secure cities that are closed to those who do not agree to live by the experimental laws.

From another post that is related, 10-02-13,*07:42 PM:

I believe that there is a solution that makes everyone happy. If we can create a city or area to experiment certain laws like the ACA then everyone can see if it will work in the end.*

We could separate society based on which laws and programs they want to obey and pay for. So for the affordable care act we could create experimental zones where the law and program will be in effect. That way people who want it can go to those places and people who do not want the program can stay where they are. Cities could be created with unique laws like the affordable care act. These zones could be supplemented by border culture mixing zones where people who fundamentally disagree with each other can synthesize their fundamental differences of belief. Constant communication between those differing zones would be required to keep the peace and to challenge deeply held beliefs and spread good ideas.

I have thought about making a nature mimicking plan for the US society to follow if they choose to. It will include building "Social Contract" Communities and cities where people must agree to obey a set of laws and rules that restrict the ability to harm others and require people to make progress for society rather than serving individual interests exclusively.*

10/2/2013, 7:16 PM The country is divided so why should we continue to live together when this is only causing government shutdowns and gridlocks. We need to compromise by letting those who do not want a law to affect them to have a place to go where the law will not affect them. If they do not want to help the poor then they can go to a city where they do not care for the poor or care for the poor with out government. Eventually the places with ineffective laws will perish and those with good laws will succeed.


from http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-and-political-platforms/174187-can-we-end-shutdown-setting-aside-place-those-do-not-want-aca.html
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I think that if we created experimental cities to test out new social reforms and policies like the ACA, then everyone will have more reason to adopt such policies through out the states when these policies prove to be successful. We could turn some military bases into these experimental communities or just make secure cities that are closed to those who do not agree to live by the experimental laws.

From another post that is related, 10-02-13,*07:42 PM:

I believe that there is a solution that makes everyone happy. If we can create a city or area to experiment certain laws like the ACA then everyone can see if it will work in the end.*

We could separate society based on which laws and programs they want to obey and pay for. So for the affordable care act we could create experimental zones where the law and program will be in effect. That way people who want it can go to those places and people who do not want the program can stay where they are. Cities could be created with unique laws like the affordable care act. These zones could be supplemented by border culture mixing zones where people who fundamentally disagree with each other can synthesize their fundamental differences of belief. Constant communication between those differing zones would be required to keep the peace and to challenge deeply held beliefs and spread good ideas.

I have thought about making a nature mimicking plan for the US society to follow if they choose to. It will include building "Social Contract" Communities and cities where people must agree to obey a set of laws and rules that restrict the ability to harm others and require people to make progress for society rather than serving individual interests exclusively.*

10/2/2013, 7:16 PM The country is divided so why should we continue to live together when this is only causing government shutdowns and gridlocks. We need to compromise by letting those who do not want a law to affect them to have a place to go where the law will not affect them. If they do not want to help the poor then they can go to a city where they do not care for the poor or care for the poor with out government. Eventually the places with ineffective laws will perish and those with good laws will succeed.


from http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-and-political-platforms/174187-can-we-end-shutdown-setting-aside-place-those-do-not-want-aca.html

For the ACA, I think there IS such a place. It's called Massachusetts. ;)
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

I've often wondered just what would happen if California were to have a single payer health care. On the one hand, it could attract employers who wouldn't have to pay for employee health insurance. On the other hand, it would attract people who don't have health insurance.

If, on the other hand, the entire country had a single payer health care system, it would take the burden of providing health insurance off of the backs of the employers, but would not encourage people to move from one state to another seeking freebies.


Well, for the employers it would probably be a wash because what they save up in benefits costs they would lose in taxes. I think in the long run they would likely not dive in since in the traditional systems that have some control over their benefit expenses and in single payer system they don't.

Maybe California to sell their plan across state lines and make a profit...
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Hell, I couldn't afford to move to California if I wanted to, and I make pretty good money.

I live in California, but couldn't afford a house in the SF Bay area. Houses aren't out of sight expensive everywhere. Taxes on the other hand, well, Oregon beckons at times.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?

Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:

Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)

What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.

Scrap the whole thing.:lol: It very well may happen.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Can we PLEASE make the assumption that Obamacare isn't "going away" for the purposes of this thread?

Here's what I'd like to see changed right away:

Enact a meaningful penalty for those who don't sign up for healthcare insurance. The penalty in place right now is meaningLESS.
Lower the definition of full-time (for the purpose of Obamacare coverage) from its current 30 hours to 20 hours a week. It is virtually impossible for companies to staff positions at 19 hours a week. This would avoid what's happening now -- employers cutting hours to 29. (That's doable from a staffing standpoint. Nineteen hours a week is not.)

What would you like to see changed? For God's sake!!!! Don't say "Scrap the whole thing," as that is NEVER going to happen.
Analysis subsequent to the political power play that got this hugely questionable overcomplicated boondoggle past a very skeptical House of Reps has revealed so many holes that if implemented as is will greatly harm the American people in a number of ways and bring the economy down to a recession .. or worse.

I've read a number of impartial analysis reports this past year, and what I took from them was the huge number of holes discovered in Obamacare that will cause disasters.

So my preference is Boehner's: delay implementation until all the holes are plugged to the satisfaction of all the impartial analysts.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

...and here I thought you guys had something to debate ...:sigh:
Guess I was wrong ... :no:
Your here just to play stupid games...:laughat:
Yeah. Sometimes I'm just here to play stupid games.
 
Re: Obamacare - What would you like changed?

Congress, on the other hand, is not just playing games (according to them, of course.)

No. They are definitely playing games, and they're playing by the president's rules, finally.
 
Back
Top Bottom