• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Boo Radley said:
You guys have been wrong in predicting these cases again and again. When will you consider you know know the law or the Constitution as well as you think?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that you take a course in American Government, specifically in regards to the Separation of Powers and how the US Supreme Court is supposed to work. It's not that we predicted wrong, it's that five of the nine justices acted as activist judges. They legislated from the bench. What they are supposed to do is interpret the constitutionality of a law based on how it is written....not interpret it according to what they would like it to say. The US Spreme Court is of the Judicial branch. If they want to legislate, they should resign from the court and run for congress.
 

No, sport. Experiance in healthcare does not necessarily qualify as research. Are you actually involved in providing healthcare? Or do you just sell health insurance?
 

However, when the lad reaches the age of 27, his mom will have to cut the apron strings.
 

Here is the oppinion of the court:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

Point out where majority made its error.
 

Medicare savings? It is actually medicare theft. They pulled half a trillion dollars from Medicare to help pay for obamacare. In doing so, they are not reimbursing medicare doctors at a rate less then it actually costs to treat medicare patients. It is creating a shortage of medicare doctors. Taxes on medical device makers?.......stupid move. The so-called affordable healthcare act was supposed to make healthcare affordable...not more expensives. Adding taxes to the drug companies will make medical drugs more expensive. And the rest does not come merely from families that make over $250,000 a year. It is robbing blind, anyone who does not qualify for a subsidy.
 

Actually, the money they took from Medicare did not come from reimbursements to doctors, and there are more doctors who accept Medicare now than there have ever been before
 

You are kidding, right? You think computerized and online records would not have happened without Obamacare? That was beginning long before the moron in the oval office even dreamed of running for president.
 

You have no clue whatsoever about performance. The so-called outcome based pay does not account for the bad health habits or gene pool of the patients.
 
JasperL said:
Wrong, at least in Tennessee. Here you have to be poor, and a mother or disabled. If you're just poor, chances are very good you do NOT qualify for Medicaid, and we're talking just above the poverty level poor.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so facts are optional in your world. I knew that. You can see the list of those who qualify here:

https://www.tn.gov/tenncare/article/tenncare-medicaid


Don't like that? Here's the state summary:


The charity has about 70 guys, all of them poor, most of them working. Almost none of them qualify for Medicaid unless they are classified as disabled. So it doesn't matter much what you "buy" that is what the program covers.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Not at all. A study does not have to necessarily agree with my point of view....it merely needs to be based on actual science or common sense.
Click to expand...

No, you categorically dismissed studies about healthcare in general. You're dismissing them because you know that studies in general don't support your stance- based on the conclusions they reach, not the way they get there.
 
Conservative said:
Quality never was the issue in ACA and it is obvious it won't provide quality but rather just coverage and it won't reduce costs as no federal entitlement program does that.
Click to expand...

Quality and cost control are indeed the issues in the ACA. We've gone from the days of "the law is too many pages and tries to do too much!" to "it's narrowly focused and does very little!"
 
Greenbeard said:
Quality and cost control are indeed the issues in the ACA. We've gone from the days of "the law is too many pages and tries to do too much!" to "it's narrowly focused and does very little!"
Click to expand...

Name for me one govt. run program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost and actually lowered prices? Stop thinking with your heart and buying the liberal rhetoric
 
Conservative said:
Name for me one govt. run program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost and actually lowered prices? Stop thinking with your heart and buying the liberal rhetoric
Click to expand...

The ACA

Maybe not--it's costing significantly less than it was supposed to cost.

But we have seen some interesting things on the price front.

Here's a first: January hospital prices lower than a year ago
 
Greenbeard said:
The ACA

Maybe not--it's costing significantly less than it was supposed to cost.


But we have seen some interesting things on the price front.

Here's a first: January hospital prices lower than a year ago
Click to expand...

ACA hasn't even been fully implemented but has had many of the tax increases and money has already been stolen from Medicare which was a self funded program paid for by FICA taxes. SS costs were lower than expected to because the life expectancy was much lower than the original payout date so I await for the Federal Social program that cost less than intended

You do also realize these are projections and not reality??
 
Conservative said:
ACA hasn't even been fully implemented but has had many of the tax increases and money has already been stolen from Medicare which was a self funded program paid for by FICA taxes.
Click to expand...

It's pretty fully implemented at this point, you can drop this nonsense.

You do also realize these are projections and not reality??
Click to expand...

Don't worry, we have actual costs for the first year. It was more than a third cheaper than promised.

CBO Provides First Snapshot of Coverage Expansion Costs

The projections have consistently overshot the reality. Which is another way of saying the law has consistently cost less than it was supposed to.

So next time someone asks you (or you feel the need to ask) when a federal program has been cheaper than promised, you have an answer! The ACA.
 

No the enrollment isn't what has been projected and that affects costs. The fines haven't kicked in yet for many businesses thus full implementation hasn't taken place. You buy what you are told and nothing is going to change your mind including actual results. You confuse projections with facts and look at one year as an example of years to come. Liberals love having people like you

Any idea how the subsidies affect costs and do you even have a clue what CBO does and the accuracy of their PROJECTIONS??
 

I can't even tell--are you acknowledging that it's costing less (significantly less) than it was supposed to or not? You seem to be in full-on excuse mode for why that should be so I'm assuming the answer is yes.

In which case, again consider your question answered. Which program has ever cost less than promised? The ACA!

Any idea how the subsidies affect costs and do you even have a clue what CBO does and the accuracy of their PROJECTIONS??
Click to expand...

They seem to have significantly overestimated the cost of the ACA, I'll grant you that.
 

No, the point remains projections are just that and to base those projections on a year is nothing but foolish and inaccurate. Any idea how accurate the CBO is on their projections? Why don't you look it up? Now tell me what happens if you are wrong and costs skyrocket like they have done with SS and Medicare? Why do you so willingly accept

They over estimated the costs because the enrollment isn't as expected and people aren't going to sign up until the fines kick in. it is amazing how low you can get the costs with taxpayer subsidies, isn't it?
 
sangha said:
Actually, the money they took from Medicare did not come from reimbursements to doctors, and there are more doctors who accept Medicare now than there have ever been before
Click to expand...

Facts are such difficult things for some to accept....
 
ObamacareFail said:
You have no clue whatsoever about performance. The so-called outcome based pay does not account for the bad health habits or gene pool of the patients.
Click to expand...

Well, sparky, it's become quite obvious to which one of us has no clue.

Quality based performance measures are just that, they improve quality of care. And they are starting to work quite well, from what I've been seeing.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are kidding, right? You think computerized and online records would not have happened without Obamacare? That was beginning long before the moron in the oval office even dreamed of running for president.
Click to expand...

Actually, the move to EMR was initiated by the stimulus bill in 2009.

And yeah, if that didn't jump start the system, it might not have happened for a long, long time.

So remember to say 'Thanks, Obama' for that too. It's going to improve medical care considerably.
 
Conservative said:
No, the point remains projections are just that and to base those projections on a year is nothing but foolish and inaccurate. Any idea how accurate the CBO is on their projections?
Click to expand...

The projections are what are "promised" in advance. No kidding they turned out to be inaccurate--the ACA has been coming in well below what was promised. That's my point.

Like I said, you have your answer. Which program's costs have ever come in below what was promised? The ACA!
 
Threegoofs said:
Facts are such difficult things for some to accept....
Click to expand...

The question is why was any money taken from Medicare for ACA?? Do you understand what funds Medicare? Any problem with your taxdollars that were to fund YOUR Medicare being taken to fund a program that is not part of Medicare??
 
Conservative said:
The question is why was any money taken from Medicare for ACA?? Do you understand what funds Medicare? Any problem with your taxdollars that were to fund YOUR Medicare being taken to fund a program that is not part of Medicare??
Click to expand...

No money was taken from Medicare to fund the ACA. What is mixing you up is that the ACA saves Medicare money- it slows the rate of increase of the cost of healthcare and subsidies offset some of the need for Medicare. Some Republican politicians tries to spin that as if the ACA cut the budget for Medicare for a while, but it wasn't true. Stranger still, Republicans suddenly arguing that cutting Medicare is a bad thing is totally ridiculous. They've spent decades trying to cut Medicare lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…