• 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!

Why oppose Obamacare?

ObamacareFail said:
I don't give a damn about cherry picked 60 minutes segments. Truth is that anyone with enough brain cells to read contracts they sign can could always fight the insurance companies if they denied what they were contractually obligated to provide.
Click to expand...
Whether you given a damn or not doesn't refute what is revealed in the videos, and they are not 'cherry picked' because the videos give
perspectives on the frequencies of such occurrences, but, of course, if you had watched the videos, you would have known that, or you did watch the videos, and your bias is so complete you can't see reality.

Your argument about 'contracts' is irrelevant. The videos reveal the extent of industry denying claims, period, end of argument.

Your feelings and assumptions about what people could or should to are irrelevant. The industry did indeed deny claims and got away with it, legally or illegally. The ACA put a stop to it.
But then you qualified for a subsidized policy. You had affordable premiums. before even getting to the deductible, there was still the premiums higher then my monthly mortgage. Saving a few bucks on an office visit would have been of no comfort. What the Obamacare coverage would have provided on the average doctor visit was less then the amount of the co-pay advertised on the policy. The remainder would have been be billed to me. And if I needed surgery, the first $6000.00, would have been on me in any given year.

Which part of "You qualified for subsidy and I did not" do you not understand? I did not have the option of a $132 per month plan with a $500 deductible. The lowest rate I could get was over three times the cost of my existing policy that the ACA canceled. And yes I checked out silver and gold plans. I would have been merely trading a massively high deductible for more massively high monthly premiums. What's the point? I still would not seen any net benefit unless something catastrophic occurred healthwise.

How many times do I have to point out that I did not qualify for subsidies? The exchanges were meaningless to me. I solved the issue for myself by enrolling in VA Healthcare. I am no 66 and also have Medicare Part A.
Click to expand...

All you are pointing out is an aspect of the ACA that needs correcting. But, then we are back to my original point that republicans do want want Obama to have a legacy, whether or not it benefits millions of Americans, they could care less, and they have no plan. In fact, republicans wouldn't even be talking about health care but for Obama and the ACA.
 
OscarLevant said:
All you are pointing out is an aspect of the ACA that needs correcting. But, then we are back to my original point that republicans do want want Obama to have a legacy, whether or not it benefits millions of Americans, they could care less, and they have no plan. In fact, republicans wouldn't even be talking about health care but for Obama and the ACA.
Click to expand...
ACA doesn't need "correcting." It needs to be abolished completely. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to establish any form of national healthcare or insurance. Which is why 18 States have taken the ACA to the Supreme Court to be completely overturned as unconstitutional.

With Amy Coney Barrett soon to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is guaranteed that ACA will be tossed as unconstitutional, and there will be no federal replacement.
 
Glitch said:
ACA doesn't need "correcting." It needs to be abolished completely. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to establish any form of national healthcare or insurance. Which is why 18 States have taken the ACA to the Supreme Court to be completely overturned as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Well, it's withstood every lawsuit against it thus far.

So, we go with medicare for all. Medicare has been the law of the land for a long time, so how are they going to rule it 'unconstitutional' ?

With Amy Coney Barrett soon to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is guaranteed that ACA will be tossed as unconstitutional, and there will be no federal replacement.
Click to expand...

And 20,000,000 will lose their health care.

Good work. People will die, and This will be the reason you will lose the house, the senate, and the presidency.

then we will enact medicare as an option, if the courts shoot it down, we will change the balance of power in the courts.

Why?

2,868,676 more votes were cast for a democrat president in 2016, 17,537,638 more votes were cast for democrats than republicans in the senate in 2018, and 9,710,275 more votes were cast for democrats than for republicans in the house in 2018,. These are incontrovertible facts.
Click to expand...

Because there are far more of us, than there are of you, and our cause is the will of the people, whether you like or not.

We will prevail, we have the numbers.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Sure there is. Its made the rest of our healthcare skyrocket. My benefits are now like a mortgage payment thanks to that piece of absolute shit Obama.
Click to expand...
Well you have crappy insurance
 
OscarLevant said:
Because of Obama, can't have any legacy by a man with an African name.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'd prefer not to have a forced, stupid redistribution policy authored by a man or woman regardless of what his or her name might be.
 
humbolt said:
Nope. I'd prefer not to have a forced, stupid redistribution policy authored by a man or woman regardless of what his or her name might be.
Click to expand...
Like Medicare?
 
OscarLevant said:
Whether you given a damn or not doesn't refute what is revealed in the videos, and they are not 'cherry picked' because the videos give
perspectives on the frequencies of such occurrences, but, of course, if you had watched the videos, you would have known that, or you did watch the videos, and your bias is so complete you can't see reality.
Click to expand...

The information in the videos is absolutely cherry picked.

OscarLevant said:
Your argument about 'contracts' is irrelevant. The videos reveal the extent of industry denying claims, period, end of argument.
Click to expand...

My argument is spot on. Anyone who does not read a contract before signing it is lacking in either brain cells or common sense. Certainly some insurance claims were denied. If a claim is filed for services not covered, the insurance provider is not obligated to cover it. If it is contractually covered, then you can force the provider to cover it. I did. Just read the damn contracts before you sign them. Insurance coverage even under the ACA is not unlimited.

OscarLevant said:
All you are pointing out is an aspect of the ACA that needs correcting. But, then we are back to my original point that republicans do want want Obama to have a legacy, whether or not it benefits millions of Americans, they could care less, and they have no plan. In fact, republicans wouldn't even be talking about health care but for Obama and the ACA.
Click to expand...

Your biggest problem is that you lack the ability to keep partisan politics out of it. You are more concerned with Obama's legacy then you are about affordable health insurance. That's why you are projecting what you want to think the republicans motives are . I am not a republican and do not give a damn about legacies. Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of which party came up with it. If your little buddy Obama had been smart, he would have included the republicans in the healthcare conversation and met them half way. Theyy could have come up with reform that both sides and the American people could have lived with and the democrats would have received the lions share of the credit for it. Instead they went forward with an unpopular bill with no political cover. You simply fail to learn from history. The biggest single reason the democrats lost the House and the majority of state legislatures in 2010 was the passage of Obamacare. It wiped them out in 2014 as well when they lost the Senate and it contributed to the hildabeast losing in 2016. yet you are still defending the legislation, simply because it's Obama's handiwork. You qualified for subsidies and do not seem to care about most Americans getting screwed by Obamacare. As for fixing the ACA, one, they would have to bring it in compliance with the US Constitution and two, they would have to force Health Insurance providers to compete for business. As the ACA stands now, the insurance providers have a captive customer base, at least in regards to those getting coverage through their employers. No motive to compete.. They can charge whatever the government allows them to charge. The individual m andate has thankfully been repealed. Now the employer mandate must also be repealed.
 
OscarLevant said:
Well, it's withstood every lawsuit against it thus far.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
OscarLevant said:
So, we go with medicare for all.
Click to expand...
Already held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). In that case 26 States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit against the ACA, and won their MediCare case. The federal government may not force any policy on any State. Every State must be given a legitimate choice whether or not they wish to participate.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.
Click to expand...

OscarLevant said:
Medicare has been the law of the land for a long time, so how are they going to rule it 'unconstitutional' ?
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it constitutional. The Department of Education has been part of the federal government since 1980, and it also blatantly violates the US Constitution.

OscarLevant said:
And 20,000,000 will lose their health care.
Click to expand...
About same number that lost their healthcare when anti-American leftists implemented ACA. But that is okay, right? Millions can die, but as long as government gets more power you are fine with that. We know your ilk all too well.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You simply fail to learn from history. The biggest single reason the democrats lost the House and the majority of state legislatures in 2010 was the passage of Obamacare. It wiped them out in 2014 as well when they lost the Senate and it contributed to the hildabeast losing in 2016. yet you are still defending the legislation, simply because it's Obama's handiwork.
Click to expand...

Live in the now.

August 2018: Fox News poll: Voters like Obamacare more than GOP tax cuts
September 2018: Half of 2018’s Democratic campaign ads are about health care
October 2018: To Rally Voters, Democrats Focus on Health Care as Their Closing Argument
November 2018: Democrats won the House with the largest midterms margin of all time | Health care topped the economy as the biggest issue for voters

August 2020: Opposition to Obamacare Becomes Political Liability for GOP Incumbents
September 2020: What Obamacare? Republican candidates go mum on health care law
 
Glitch said:
In that case 26 States, several individuals, and the National Federation of Independent Business brought suit against the ACA, and won their MediCare case. The federal government may not force any policy on any State. Every State must be given a legitimate choice whether or not they wish to participate.
Click to expand...

Basically impossible to believe someone who doesn't know the difference between Medicaid and Medicare read and/or understood NFIB.
 
AlphaOmega said:
Sure there is. Its made the rest of our healthcare skyrocket. My benefits are now like a mortgage payment thanks to that piece of absolute shit Obama.
Click to expand...

Wrong, below is your piece of ******
Health care CEOs took home $2.6 billion in 2018
www.axios.com

Health care CEOs made $2.6 billion last year

The median pay was $7.7 million.
www.axios.com www.axios.com

With the above wouldn't you ask youself: Holy **** look at those profits and CEO compensation, why are they charging me so much?
 
Mostly because the right wing frames it as 'socialism' which to them is a dirty word.

In a few cases the technical details don't sit well with some people but on the whole the tens of millions who gained cover under Obamacare and would lose it if the Republicans removed it (remember they have no replacement plan, that is the plan) are better of with it.
 
AlphaOmega said:
I'm going to fine you 1000 dollars per year if you don't buy a new car every 2 years. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
What’s your point? You are required to buy car insurance for those cars, pay a fee for a license to drive them, and pay for the cops who will arrest you for not doing so. We live in an interdependent society, where we have decided to levy taxes or impose responsibilities on one another through a representative process. Much the same in every country. Don’t like it, sue or elect people to change the rules.
 
AlphaOmega said:
How much should CEOs make?
Click to expand...

Money looks pretty damn good for insurance companies, so why all the increases in premiums? Why are you blaming Obama for what you call a mortgage payment.

You are way off when pointing blame

The earnings and stock prices of health care companies have increased a lot more than the broader market since former President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010.
www.axios.com

Earnings of health care companies have soared under the ACA

Health care stocks have outperformed the broader market.
www.axios.com www.axios.com
 
Glitch said:
ACA doesn't need "correcting." It needs to be abolished completely. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to establish any form of national healthcare or insurance. Which is why 18 States have taken the ACA to the Supreme Court to be completely overturned as unconstitutional.

With Amy Coney Barrett soon to be confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is guaranteed that ACA will be tossed as unconstitutional, and there will be no federal replacement.
Click to expand...
So Medicare, Medicaid and the VA are unconstitutional? Face it, Trump and the republicans have campaigned on “repeal and replace.” They thus are on board, sort of, and are probably secretly hoping the suit fails. (If it succeeds, I can imagine them saying, “Holy shit! What do we do now?”) The battle is over. We have joined, or at worst are slowly preparing to join the rest of the developed world. In one form or another - even if the suit succeeds - we will have national health care, and years from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about, just like we roll our eyes when we hear Reagan’s apocalyptic condemnation of Medicare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom