• 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!

So if conservatives hate Obamacare so bad then what is your idea's?

jaeger19 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


just thought you might be interested
Click to expand...

It is indeed fascinating to see how Democratic politicians keep putting out these claims and how the lapdog Democratic media is so eager to propagate them. Everybody had pretty much given up on asserting that the scheme was "bending the cost curve downward" but, apparently, it's now necessary to again bend the truth curve downward in order to drum up enrollment.

Here's just one of many, many refutations:

Behind the Times’ ObamaCare ‘news’
 
head of joaquin said:
Oh I get it. Your method of economic analysis of healthcare industry costs involves how up a search term appears on google. That explains a lot.
Click to expand...

You didn't do what I suggested. If you had, you'd get it.

If I were a betting man though, I'd actually wager you did look it up, but are playing dumb. Tell us what you found, HOJ. It only took a couple seconds, right?
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

just thought you might be interested
Click to expand...

Hi, Jaeger, you may be interested in what Ben Domenech picked up at the recent Colorado Health Symposium:

Five Lessons From Obamacare Supporters | RealClearPolitics

Second, the concern over rate shock is tangible and real. My presentation focused on this issue, and the attendees responded with an outpouring of personal stories about how skeptical they are that young and healthy people will sign up. Two mothers, both liberal health policy activists, described how hard they had to work to convince their 25 and 26 year old sons to sign up for insurance at all (“but mom, it’s more than $100 a month!”). The audience laughed when I quoted from the recent piece from Timothy Jost suggesting that young and healthy people would sign up out of a sense of social obligation.
 
iguanaman said:
It's not a mistake to pay half what we do for HC and have better results. That's the data we have. Private HC is too expensive for a multitude of reasons, a few of which have been addressed with the AHC act. Have you received your check for overpayment of premiums yet? So far I have received 2 for my Golden Rule policy totaling over $1500 for 2 years.
Click to expand...

That's funny. I'm going to ask you what you think about it when your premiums double over the next 2 or 3 years. Mark your calendar. You're going to blame the insurance companies when it happens.
 
Sykes said:
In other words, "Don't even bother with the citations, I've already made up my mind."
Click to expand...

Yes, and the article you posted supports my position, so please continue to cite.
 
James D Hill said:
We are all in agreement. Our healthcare system is broken. 40 million Americans without health insurance and prices going trhu the roof. If not the AFA then what do you right wingers want? The status quo? That does not work. Greed has corrupted our health care system. Tort reform would be just a drop in the bucket and so would inerstate insurance. You have to do better that that my conservative friends. Why is it American conservatives are the only conservatives in the world who are against a state ran health care system? British,German and French conservatives do not seem to have a problem with it. Neither do Canadian conservitives. Are our conservatives more stupid than the rest?
Click to expand...

No we are not all in agreement.

I've never understood what people imagine is so wrong with our health care market. Note the last word, as opposed to the incorrect "system."

Perhaps American Conservatives, assuming for the nonce that you are correct, are the "only conservatives in the world who are against a state ran [sic] health care system" because all of the others have the option of coming here for quality care, and leaving their own flimsy systems to the less successful?

I know that when I worked at a hospital in Florida, we did a robust trade with Canadian patients who didn't wish to place themselves in the mechanical hands of for their own "system." It is assumed that this included a robust representation of Canadian Conservatives.

Frankly, since medicine is a second tier need, food and shelter being examples of top tier needs, I fail to see why it should not be purchased like other services.

This is not to say that people shouldn't have medical credit, but if we aren't socializing our food supply and housing, why medicine? You'll almost certainly die sooner, by several orders of magnitude without food or shelter, than without regular checkups.

Its funny how people think about this issue, really. If a couple sells their home and moves into a modest apartment in order to buy a fancy sports car, we criticize them for making a poor exchange.

But if that same couple sells their home and moves into a modest apartment to fund a medical procedure needed to save the life of their child, a child to which most of us would assign a value infinitely greater than the home, the same people will sequel that the couple were somehow cheated.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
That's because New York's insurance market was previously so over-regulated that costs were very high. The net effect of Obamacare in New York has therefore been deregulation and lowered costs. That will be the case almost nowhere else.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No.. the problem was that there was too little competitition, and too many people not buying healthcare insurance but getting healthcare. Very much like the rest of the country.

Point in fact.. Obamacare KEEPS the regulation that new York had.. for example no pre existing conditions... but added a mandate to buy health insurance and more competition
 
Last edited:
FederalRepublic said:
That's funny. I'm going to ask you what you think about it when your premiums double over the next 2 or 3 years. Mark your calendar. You're going to blame the insurance companies when it happens.
Click to expand...

LOL. Why don't you play the lottery if you can see the future? It's a lot more lucrative.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL. Why don't you play the lottery if you can see the future? It's a lot more lucrative.
Click to expand...
Because I'm not a betting man. This is an easy prediction, like driving straight at a rock wall and saying "We're going to hit that wall".
 
wbcoleman said:
It is indeed fascinating to see how Democratic politicians keep putting out these claims and how the lapdog Democratic media is so eager to propagate them. Everybody had pretty much given up on asserting that the scheme was "bending the cost curve downward" but, apparently, it's now necessary to again bend the truth curve downward in order to drum up enrollment.

Here's just one of many, many refutations:

Behind the Times’ ObamaCare ‘news’
Click to expand...

Just to point out.. your article refute the facts... it points out that savings might not be as much in other areas..and that NY premiums were higher than other areas..

But it doesn't refute that premiums will be lower than average. In fact.. though the article points out that some premiums might be higher than some of NY's subsidized premiums.. it fails to point out that the NY times article calculated rates WITHOUT factoring the federal subsidies that will be in place.

Before we continue.. a question... have you read the affordable care act? I have.
 
Oftencold said:
No we are not all in agreement.

I've never understood what people imagine is so wrong with our health care market. Note the last word, as opposed to the incorrect "system."

Perhaps American Conservatives, assuming for the nonce that you are correct, are the "only conservatives in the world who are against a state ran [sic] health care system" because all of the others have the option of coming here for quality care, and leaving their own flimsy systems to the less successful?

I know that when I worked at a hospital in Florida, we did a robust trade with Canadian patients who didn't wish to place themselves in the mechanical hands of for their own "system." It is assumed that this included a robust representation of Canadian Conservatives.

Frankly, since medicine is a second tier need, food and shelter being examples of top tier needs, I fail to see why it should not be purchased like other services.

This is not to say that people shouldn't have medical credit, but if we aren't socializing our food supply and housing, why medicine? You'll almost certainly die sooner, by several orders of magnitude without food or shelter, than without regular checkups.

Its funny how people think about this issue, really. If a couple sells their home and moves into a modest apartment in order to buy a fancy sports car, we criticize them for making a poor exchange.

But if that same couple sells their home and moves into a modest apartment to fund a medical procedure needed to save the life of their child, a child to which most of us would assign a value infinitely greater than the home, the same people will sequel that the couple were somehow cheated.
Click to expand...

just to point out.. we do in a way socialize food and housing... We heavily subsidize agriculture, from out right payments to price supports. And we heavily subsidize housing... from low interest government loans for developers, to hud, to FHA, to bank bailouts and low interest rates.

By the way.. your example illustrates why medical care is different. If a couple sells their home to buy a fancy sports car.. they trade security for a choice purchase...

In the second example.. people recognize that saving the life of their child is not the same "choice" as buying a fancy sports car.
 
Blaylock said:
Really? You've read the whole thing? Do you claim to understand it? All of it?

I'm calling solid digestive waste from a male bovine
Click to expand...

Yep.. read the whole thing.. and yep.. I understand it.... as far as it has been worked out. The ACA has a number of provisions that set up committees or appoint heads to implement programs or certain programs. But otherwise.. yep, other than being very comprehensive.. it really isn't that hard to understand. A lot of the problem is that for the last few years.. nobody has invested a lot of energy into implementing and developing it because they were waiting to see how all the challenges such as the supreme court case worked out.

And no bovine excrement from me. Its been accessible to the general public for years.
 
jaeger19 said:
No.. the problem was that there was too little competitition, and too many people not buying healthcare insurance but getting healthcare. Very much like the rest of the country.

Point in fact.. Obamacare KEEPS the regulation that new York had.. for example no pre existing conditions... but added a mandate to buy health insurance and more competition
Click to expand...

False. There was "too little competition" because over regulation kept many companies from entering the market. And Obamacare does not keep NY's regulations.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
False. There was "too little competition" because over regulation kept many companies from entering the market. And Obamacare does not keep NY's regulations.:peace
Click to expand...

I'll tell you what.. give me 5 specific examples of how OBamacare deregulates the NY market,
 
Jack Hays said:
Read and learn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Read it.. thanks.. it largely supports my position Again.

Even your own article points out that Obamacare essentially takes the regulation NY did locally, and imposes it nationally.

They even use a community rating.

the REAL difference is that NOW.. Obamacare mandates that everyone purchase insurance.. (something that NY did not impose) AND it added a bunch more competitors into the market. At least 8 that were previously outside the state.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see my post #243.
Click to expand...

Again..thats not 5 examples.. in fact the only one that might qualify is that OBamacare uses a 3 to 1 ratio versus the 1 to 1 that NY used..

Even your own article states the Obamacare takes NY regulations nationally.
 
jaeger19 said:
Read it.. thanks.. it largely supports my position Again.

Even your own article points out that Obamacare essentially takes the regulation NY did locally, and imposes it nationally.

They even use a community rating.

the REAL difference is that NOW.. Obamacare mandates that everyone purchase insurance.. (something that NY did not impose) AND it added a bunch more competitors into the market. At least 8 that were previously outside the state.
Click to expand...

False, again.:peace
 
jaeger19 said:
Again..thats not 5 examples.. in fact the only one that might qualify is that OBamacare uses a 3 to 1 ratio versus the 1 to 1 that NY used..

Even your own article states the Obamacare takes NY regulations nationally.
Click to expand...

Yes, and by bringing Obamacare to NY it mitigates the worst of NY.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes, and by bringing Obamacare to NY it mitigates the worst of NY.
Click to expand...

Yes.. you got it.. by adding competition (exchanges) and by a mandate that everyone obtain health insurance. (two conservative ideas by the way)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom