• 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!

SC rules on the ACA

By a 7-2 rulings the ACA stays.
Ill post the same thing in this thread I did in the other

Good!

the crazy thing is with all the attacks on it, and fighting it every step of the way . .overall it is still a massive success!

its a success and theres so much of it (based on government admin) that is a shit show

thats amazing!



Why not just WORK on the parts that are broken and need improvement . . . .noooo certain congress members want to attack it simply based on team politics

so sad
 
We already know Trump was a failure and a con artist... I'm asking a simple question... Which is a more efficient way to provide healthcare to the population?

Is he a BILLIONAIRE?

Yes or no?
 
le sigh, I think you and I are done.

You have no desire to debate in any good faith whatsoever.
Advocate for single payer instead of reliance on some bad law (the ACA)


How many businesses are NOT started because someone needs to stay with a large corporation for healthcare benefits?
 
We already know Trump was a failure and a con artist... I'm asking a simple question... Which is a more efficient way to provide healthcare to the population?
Which is a more efficient way to provide healthcare to the population?

Its not that SIMPLE

That's why we haven't done it(wink)

Your not a simpleton are you(LOL)?
 
How many businesses are NOT started because someone needs to stay with a large corporation for healthcare benefits?
One of the reasons I have stayed with my company for 20 years and not gone for a higher paying job is due to my older son's insurance needs, which is a diagnosis that is not 100% guaranteed to be covered if I change jobs. I have probably missed out on an extra 35k/yr for a good period of time.

He is independent now and has his own arrangement (and I have started making my own moves), but yes this employer based stupidity can be a real drag on our economy.
 
How many businesses are NOT started because someone needs to stay with a large corporation for healthcare benefits?
I don't know, want to show me? I don't feel that businesses need to be involved with healthcare either.
 
Its not that SIMPLE

That's why we haven't done it(wink)

Your not a simpleton are you(LOL)?

It's so complicated that EVERY advanced country in the WORLD has some variation... Stop the bullshit... We all know why conservatives oppose it.... It has NOTHING to do with being complicated..
 
This is a nothing burger ruling, because it is narrowly on standing.

That said, it's clear the Court wants the issue to go away. ACA is shitty law, but it is the law.
 
It's so complicated that EVERY advanced country in the WORLD has some variation... Stop the bullshit... We all know why conservatives oppose it.... It has NOTHING to do with being complicated..

Every advanced country in the world doesn't have a 13% BLACK population like us right?


You know how Blacks are twice as likely to be on the GOV tit than whites right and are a MINORITY?
 
Every advanced country in the world doesn't have a 13% BLACK population like us right?


You know how Blacks are twice as likely to be on the GOV tit than whites right and are a MINORITY?


Don't hold back... just let that racism out... LMAO
 
You got some numbers handy? Total inputs and total outputs will be fine.

Sure, he's the first ten years:

Capture.png

Capture.png
 
Sure, he's the first ten years:

Capture.png

Capture.png
I was looking for something more along the lines of how much it cost vs how much was spent but it looks like that chart is showing that the expected expenditures were lower than predicted.
With and without subsidy is what I am looking for. What I am ultimately trying to get at is what the actual 'cost' was , how much did it affect healthcare costs to others etc.

Where is the balance? Which is ultimately why i think the ACA is a bad law, but i do advocate for a single payer model.
 
The ACA is doomed to fail on it's own, unless the government continues to heavily subsidize it.
The government will continue to do what is necessary to keep ACA afloat. It isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
While the Dem's have both legislatures, they ought to really look into single payer UHC
No chance of that happening. While a large percentage of voters do support UHC, more prefer a public health insurance option.

79072BFB-6CEA-4182-8F7D-3C2A44EDE028.jpeg

The best thing Democrats can do now, IMO, is to work on improving ACA.
 
I was looking for something more along the lines of how much it cost vs how much was spent but it looks like that chart is showing that the expected expenditures were lower than predicted.
With and without subsidy is what I am looking for. What I am ultimately trying to get at is what the actual 'cost' was , how much did it affect healthcare costs to others etc.

The cost of the ACA is the value of marketplace spending (subsidies) + new spending on the Medicaid expansion. Both of those were lower than expected because health care cost growth fell more than anticipated. Total Medicaid spending in the first decade actually came in below the no-ACA (i.e., no Medicaid expansion) baseline, which is remarkable.

As for what health care costs others, that's what national health expenditures are: all national spending on health care, all the costs of the American health care system. That came in trillions below the baseline, which obviously failed to anticipate the post-ACA dip in health care cost growth.
 
Race card !!!!!(LOL)


Was I right .. Yes or no?

(silence)


Explain how having a population that is 13% black makes universal healthcare "complicated"?
 
Explain how having a population that is 13% black makes universal healthcare "complicated"?
I doubt that the black population alone or at all is what makes it complicated. What makes it complicated is that about half of the country doesnt pay into what would be subsidizing their healthcare (the "poor").

They have no skin in the game so they will use as they see fit and are subsidized to do so.
 
I doubt that the black population alone or at all is what makes it complicated. What makes it complicated is that about half of the country doesnt pay into what would be subsidizing their healthcare (the "poor").

They have no skin in the game so they will use as they see fit and are subsidized to do so.


Can you think of a better economic stimulus than to remove the burden and cost of managing and providing health insurance from employers?
 
Not a surprise at all. Just as I have been expecting since fall.
 
Back
Top Bottom