Total Posts:195|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obamacare - Enlighten an Ignorant Liberal

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:24:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The republican obsession with Obamacare has never ceased to amaze me. They acted like passing this legislation was going to ruin our country. Well, it passed and we're still here, the economy continues to get stronger or at least hold while other countries economy falls apart, and more and more Americans are insured. The states that have seen the biggest impact are the ones who allowed the medicaid expansion and the ones who didn't (nearly all republican controlled) have seen the least impact.

Everything I just said is what I understand to be true and fairly non-controversial. What I have never heard are any valid arguments for why Obamacare is so terrible and needs to be scrapped immediately. So if you are one of those "Repeal Obamacare!" enthusiasts please enlighten an ignorant liberal: What am I missing?

And as a bonus I would really love one of you guys to tell me what proposals have been put forward that you endorse as a replacement.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:34:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 7:24:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
The republican obsession with Obamacare has never ceased to amaze me. They acted like passing this legislation was going to ruin our country. Well, it passed and we're still here, the economy continues to get stronger or at least hold while other countries economy falls apart, and more and more Americans are insured. The states that have seen the biggest impact are the ones who allowed the medicaid expansion and the ones who didn't (nearly all republican controlled) have seen the least impact.

Everything I just said is what I understand to be true and fairly non-controversial. What I have never heard are any valid arguments for why Obamacare is so terrible and needs to be scrapped immediately. So if you are one of those "Repeal Obamacare!" enthusiasts please enlighten an ignorant liberal: What am I missing?

And as a bonus I would really love one of you guys to tell me what proposals have been put forward that you endorse as a replacement.

I'm a UK citizen with right wing political views. I can confirm to all skeptical republicans that free government provided healthcare to citizens is a good thing. I think options for better off people to pay for expensive treatment should exist and this can be done in the UK by using private healthcare firms. If you need a hip replacement and don't want to put up with a one month waiting list you can pay "10, 000 and have it tomorrow.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

I'm a very healthy 31 year old man who had health insurance through BCBS of Michigan before Obamacare. My deductible was high, around $3k-5k, and I paid less than $150 a month. This plan made sense for me since during the time I had it, I only had to go to the doctor 2 or 3 times in several years. My rates didn't climb any more than MAYBE $10 per month during that period. My coverage amount I don't remember, but it would have covered me over an extensive network up to and including a catastrophic, very high cost, life-end event.

When Obamacare's first major deadline came through, I had ignored it, hoping my plan would be grandfathered through. Late in 2013 I got a notice in the mail from BCBS that my plan was no longer going to be legal for BCBS to sell under the new law, and I needed to shop around. The included quote literally read like this:

"You're eligble for these plans!
Bronze Plan Cost: $
Silver Plan Cost: $$
Gold Plan Cost: $$$"

And no, I didn't make up the numbers. Because there were no numbers. It actually listed the "cost" with the dollar sign symbol, not a real number. So the cost was obviously astronomical because I need to call to find out. They already knew my specifics, they could have given me a ballpark figure, you know, that included integers. So I waited it out.

In November, 2013, I got a call at work from my boss telling me I needed to sign up on the company plan that day so they don't get in trouble for not offering healthcare insurance to all their employees. I inquired about the price and coverage and other details: Deductible: $12,000. Cost: $859 per month. What doctors and offices participate in the plan's network: No guarantees.
"Can I get a different plan? I can't afford that."
My boss and the BCBS rep on the phone told me the new law only allowed him to purchase one plan type for all of his employees, so that's the best they could do, and it made sense to get the Gold Plan, since all of his employees except me were over 45.
There's no sense beating around the bush. I flipped out. I had no logical purpose for going to the doctor often enough to justify the monthly cost, and there would be no way I could rack up enough bills under normal circumstances to even touch the $12k deductible. The plan's only use for people like me was to drain money.

So I shopped around after work, and it didn't get much better with the Bronze Plan. If my memory serves me right, my deductible didn't drop much, it was still $8000 as opposed to the few thousand I was used to (and had saved for, just in case), and the cost was still around $800 dollars per month, and the available network of doctors and offices was just as uncertain. I signed a waiver for my boss telling him I would not accept insurance from the company, even though they offered, and found a loophole program that isn't great, and still cost me around $250 a month and has its own problems, but at least it's affordable.

My wife worked full time at the time and her company was generous enough to shield the employees by absorbing the massive price increases for one year, and she kept her plan throughout her maternity leave and even shortly after she quit. So she didn't quite understand why I was so upset.

But then the new enrollment period came, and she was about to be without insurance. I tried to get her on my plan, which would cost about $450 /mo. for all of us, but she did not like that it was a reimbursement system where you self-pay, then get the money later.

So she logged on to healthcare.gov. She was required to give personal information like SS#, phone # and other ways to specifically identify her before a quote would even be given. Once she did, the regular enrollment process began, but every other web page we were directed to in the process had a large graphic telling her she was not eligible for a regular heathcare plan, and the only way forward was to follow a provided link to Medicaid. No thanks. Her sister is on Medicaid. The clinics that take Medicaid money are awful. They aren't paid enough by Medicaid to recoup their costs if they operated like a respectable clinic, so they have to run you through like log in a high efficiency sawmill. But only after waiting for many hours, and MAYBE getting in before the office closes for the day. Some are even notorious for performing unneeded procedures to stay financially afloat.

So I convinced my wife to come on board with my reimbursement exception program. It works, but it's not what was advertised by the Affordable Care Act.

So it's all over, and we're OK, relatively unscathed by the law. Except my wife, having supplied her number to heathcare.gov still receives calls from them over a year later soliciting her to sign up on healthcare.gov. She has explicitly and clearly, multiple times told them to stop calling her. They lie and say OK, you've been removed from the call list, but they just have someone else call her from a different number.

Now, I've complained to everyone about this, so let me get the usual excuses out of the way:

"But the program needs young healthy people like you to pay in because you can afford it."

I am not interested in being a healthy $45k 31 year old trying to pay for a house, a new family, and start something for retirement, and at the same time supplementing the health care costs of 50-70 year olds who have already had the opportunity to invest for retirement and advanced their career to be making $60-150k and no longer have children at home. I will share the burden of taking care of the aging...when it comes to MY parents. Not yours. Pick up your own slack.

"Well, you're a rare exception. Most people are really benefiting."

Good for them. I am not benefiting. I am getting royally SCREWED because of the previous justification's logic. If there's really so few of us, let us get back on the old system. According to this justification's logic, there's so few of us getting screwed, it won't matter if we drop out. So let us!

"Well you're OK now, so what are you complaining about?"

Yeah, until/if the exception gets closed. And very few people in my situation are actually eligible for the program I found. So they'll just pay the fine, go on Medicaid, or get gouged.

Look, we might disagree on a whole bunch of things, but I'm a real person with real practical reasons for not liking this law. I don't particularly like Obama or agree with him on much, but this is not an esoteric issue like an overseas police operation that will never effect me. There's been plenty Obama and liberal policies that don't even touch me. If Obama and the Congress wanted to do something good for healthcare, fine, great. But practical, real world experience with this law has not been good for me. I'm not using this as a political opportunity, and I don't care if Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, or Abraham Lincoln signed it into law, or what party endorses or opposes it. It is a bad law with bad effects on me and my family, for no good reason.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

And in the case of these individual stories, no one ever argued that the law is perfect. If there is a hole in the law... then let's fix it. I mean seriously, does anyone here think that the country has benefited from republicans repealing Obamacare 60 times in the House when they could have put their efforts into improving it instead? Anyone?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 8:26:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 7:24:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
The republican obsession with Obamacare has never ceased to amaze me. They acted like passing this legislation was going to ruin our country. Well, it passed and we're still here, the economy continues to get stronger or at least hold while other countries economy falls apart, and more and more Americans are insured. The states that have seen the biggest impact are the ones who allowed the medicaid expansion and the ones who didn't (nearly all republican controlled) have seen the least impact.

Everything I just said is what I understand to be true and fairly non-controversial. What I have never heard are any valid arguments for why Obamacare is so terrible and needs to be scrapped immediately. So if you are one of those "Repeal Obamacare!" enthusiasts please enlighten an ignorant liberal: What am I missing?


It's only been in effect since 2014 right? (well most of the major stuff). It can take a few years for the free market to adjust.

And as a bonus I would really love one of you guys to tell me what proposals have been put forward that you endorse as a replacement.

Fully subsidized healthcare for the poor, and more competition between Insurance companies. An immediate end to having only 2 insurance companies allowed to operate within some states for example.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 8:46:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
"But the program needs young healthy people like you to pay in because you can afford it."

This is the entire point of Obamacare and one Republicans should use to appeal to young people. We are already going to be funding the retirement of Baby Boomers and won't get any of it back when we retire. Now, on top of that, they want us to fund their health care. That is unacceptable; we are not slaves. We're not obligated to sacrifice our youth to help some Baby Boomers live in luxury.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 8:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

So in other words, you don't care if people are hurt by bad government policy. Tough luck that the young people lobby isn't as big as AARP.

And in the case of these individual stories, no one ever argued that the law is perfect. If there is a hole in the law... then let's fix it.

There is no way to fix the fact that anyone who is healthy and under 30 is going to be f*cked given that is the whole point of the law.

I mean seriously, does anyone here think that the country has benefited from republicans repealing Obamacare 60 times in the House when they could have put their efforts into improving it instead? Anyone?

Republicans have no more interest in fixing government-run healthcare. We fundamentally oppose the concept.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:07:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 8:50:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

So in other words, you don't care if people are hurt by bad government policy.

When you start off with "in other words..." you should follow it with a statement that represents what was just said. You weren't even close.

I stated that individuals being hurt by government policy is inevitable anytime something is changed. I then explained that the way we go about determining whether it is in fact bad policy is by weighing the Pros and Cons and determining which carries more weight. You don't just cherry-pick the Cons and then proclaim it to be bad law because it has Cons.

I mean seriously, does anyone here think that the country has benefited from republicans repealing Obamacare 60 times in the House when they could have put their efforts into improving it instead? Anyone?

Republicans have no more interest in fixing government-run healthcare. We fundamentally oppose the concept.

Then perhaps republicans should give up their seats to those who have an interest in governing.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:14:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Double, you state that no system will benefit everyone, yet you ask people for their opinion!

If someone receives no benefit or is even hurt by a system, they will dislike it wholeheartedly. It's all opinionated, and people will vote based upon their own experiences.

Obamacare is the biggest form of corporate welfare there is. It practically made 30 million new customers for these selective corporations in the medical industry, and drove many others out of business.

Not to mention the rocketing healthcare cost.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

I'm a very healthy 31 year old man who had health insurance through BCBS of Michigan before Obamacare. My deductible was high, around $3k-5k, and I paid less than $150 a month. This plan made sense for me since during the time I had it, I only had to go to the doctor 2 or 3 times in several years. My rates didn't climb any more than MAYBE $10 per month during that period. My coverage amount I don't remember, but it would have covered me over an extensive network up to and including a catastrophic, very high cost, life-end event.

When Obamacare's first major deadline came through, I had ignored it, hoping my plan would be grandfathered through. Late in 2013 I got a notice in the mail from BCBS that my plan was no longer going to be legal for BCBS to sell under the new law, and I needed to shop around.

You have the right to appeal.

The included quote literally read like this:

"You're eligble for these plans!
Bronze Plan Cost: $
Silver Plan Cost: $$
Gold Plan Cost: $$$"

And no, I didn't make up the numbers. Because there were no numbers. It actually listed the "cost" with the dollar sign symbol, not a real number. So the cost was obviously astronomical because I need to call to find out. They already knew my specifics, they could have given me a ballpark figure, you know, that included integers. So I waited it out.

In November, 2013, I got a call at work from my boss telling me I needed to sign up on the company plan that day so they don't get in trouble for not offering healthcare insurance to all their employees. I inquired about the price and coverage and other details: Deductible: $12,000. Cost: $859 per month. What doctors and offices participate in the plan's network: No guarantees.
"Can I get a different plan? I can't afford that."
My boss and the BCBS rep on the phone told me the new law only allowed him to purchase one plan type for all of his employees, so that's the best they could do, and it made sense to get the Gold Plan, since all of his employees except me were over 45.
There's no sense beating around the bush. I flipped out. I had no logical purpose for going to the doctor often enough to justify the monthly cost, and there would be no way I could rack up enough bills under normal circumstances to even touch the $12k deductible. The plan's only use for people like me was to drain money.

So I shopped around after work, and it didn't get much better with the Bronze Plan. If my memory serves me right, my deductible didn't drop much, it was still $8000 as opposed to the few thousand I was used to (and had saved for, just in case), and the cost was still around $800 dollars per month, and the available network of doctors and offices was just as uncertain. I signed a waiver for my boss telling him I would not accept insurance from the company, even though they offered, and found a loophole program that isn't great, and still cost me around $250 a month and has its own problems, but at least it's affordable.

My wife worked full time at the time and her company was generous enough to shield the employees by absorbing the massive price increases for one year, and she kept her plan throughout her maternity leave and even shortly after she quit. So she didn't quite understand why I was so upset.

But then the new enrollment period came, and she was about to be without insurance. I tried to get her on my plan, which would cost about $450 /mo. for all of us, but she did not like that it was a reimbursement system where you self-pay, then get the money later.

So she logged on to healthcare.gov. She was required to give personal information like SS#, phone # and other ways to specifically identify her before a quote would even be given. Once she did, the regular enrollment process began, but every other web page we were directed to in the process had a large graphic telling her she was not eligible for a regular heathcare plan, and the only way forward was to follow a provided link to Medicaid. No thanks. Her sister is on Medicaid. The clinics that take Medicaid money are awful. They aren't paid enough by Medicaid to recoup their costs if they operated like a respectable clinic, so they have to run you through like log in a high efficiency sawmill. But only after waiting for many hours, and MAYBE getting in before the office closes for the day. Some are even notorious for performing unneeded procedures to stay financially afloat.

So I convinced my wife to come on board with my reimbursement exception program. It works, but it's not what was advertised by the Affordable Care Act.

So it's all over, and we're OK, relatively unscathed by the law. Except my wife, having supplied her number to heathcare.gov still receives calls from them over a year later soliciting her to sign up on healthcare.gov. She has explicitly and clearly, multiple times told them to stop calling her. They lie and say OK, you've been removed from the call list, but they just have someone else call her from a different number.

Now, I've complained to everyone about this, so let me get the usual excuses out of the way:

"But the program needs young healthy people like you to pay in because you can afford it."

I am not interested in being a healthy $45k 31 year old trying to pay for a house, a new family, and start something for retirement, and at the same time supplementing the health care costs of 50-70 year olds who have already had the opportunity to invest for retirement and advanced their career to be making $60-150k and no longer have children at home. I will share the burden of taking care of the aging...when it comes to MY parents. Not yours. Pick up your own slack.

"Well, you're a rare exception. Most people are really benefiting."

Good for them. I am not benefiting. I am getting royally SCREWED because of the previous justification's logic. If there's really so few of us, let us get back on the old system. According to this justification's logic, there's so few of us getting screwed, it won't matter if we drop out. So let us!

"Well you're OK now, so what are you complaining about?"

Yeah, until/if the exception gets closed. And very few people in my situation are actually eligible for the program I found. So they'll just pay the fine, go on Medicaid, or get gouged.

Look, we might disagree on a whole bunch of things, but I'm a real person with real practical reasons for not liking this law. I don't particularly like Obama or agree with him on much, but this is not an esoteric issue like an overseas police operation that will never effect me. There's been plenty Obama and liberal policies that don't even touch me. If Obama and the Congress wanted to do something good for healthcare, fine, great. But practical, real world experience with this law has not been good for me. I'm not using this as a political opportunity, and I don't care if Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, or Abraham Lincoln signed it into law, or what party endorses or opposes it. It is a bad law with bad effects on me and my family, for no good reason.

No offense but your story seems very strange. Based on the information you provided you and your wife would have an estimated monthly premium as low as $350/mo.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:45:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 7:34:50 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 11/15/2015 7:24:39 PM, Double_R wrote:

I'm a UK citizen with right wing political views. I can confirm to all skeptical republicans that free government provided healthcare to citizens is a good thing. I think options for better off people to pay for expensive treatment should exist and this can be done in the UK by using private healthcare firms. If you need a hip replacement and don't want to put up with a one month waiting list you can pay "10, 000 and have it tomorrow.

You do realize that the U.K., among every single other E.U. nation with nationalized healthcare, is currently scrambling to find a way to add sustainability to their healthcare systems...right?

I mean how can you live in the U.K. and not know that for about 5 years now, a team has been assembled to try and identify a way to make your healthcare system sustainable?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 9:07:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 8:50:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

So in other words, you don't care if people are hurt by bad government policy.

When you start off with "in other words..." you should follow it with a statement that represents what was just said. You weren't even close.

You said it doesn't matter that Obamacare hurts him or anyone else with a sad story.

I stated that individuals being hurt by government policy is inevitable anytime something is changed. I then explained that the way we go about determining whether it is in fact bad policy is by weighing the Pros and Cons and determining which carries more weight. You don't just cherry-pick the Cons and then proclaim it to be bad law because it has Cons.

Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

I mean seriously, does anyone here think that the country has benefited from republicans repealing Obamacare 60 times in the House when they could have put their efforts into improving it instead? Anyone?

Republicans have no more interest in fixing government-run healthcare. We fundamentally oppose the concept.

Then perhaps republicans should give up their seats to those who have an interest in governing.

We are interested in governing. That's why it is 'repeal and replace'. We just aren't interested in promoting or retaining failed liberal ideology
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 10:27:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:07:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 8:50:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

So in other words, you don't care if people are hurt by bad government policy.

When you start off with "in other words..." you should follow it with a statement that represents what was just said. You weren't even close.

You said it doesn't matter that Obamacare hurts him or anyone else with a sad story.

Read the above, please find and highlight the part where I said this.

I stated that individuals being hurt by government policy is inevitable anytime something is changed. I then explained that the way we go about determining whether it is in fact bad policy is by weighing the Pros and Cons and determining which carries more weight. You don't just cherry-pick the Cons and then proclaim it to be bad law because it has Cons.

Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

Completely irrelevant. Please see the bold.

Republicans have no more interest in fixing government-run healthcare. We fundamentally oppose the concept.

Then perhaps republicans should give up their seats to those who have an interest in governing.

We are interested in governing. That's why it is 'repeal and replace'.

Then where is this replacement, and why is all the attention focused on all the terrible things about Obamacare as opposed to how their alternative is better? The latter is what governing is.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 10:30:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:27:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:07:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 8:50:52 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 7:51:56 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/16/2015 4:13:01 AM, Skynet wrote:
Hey DoubleR,
I'll just tell you the experiences of myself and my wife with the old system and the new system.

With all due respect, I appreciate your story but it is mostly irrelevant to this question. There is no such thing as a new system that will benefit everyone, so telling me a personal horror story does not affirm anything. In fact this is one of the reason's why I started this thread, because personal stories are all I ever hear. I am interested in the big picture, that is how we determine whether a law is in fact a good law.

So in other words, you don't care if people are hurt by bad government policy.

When you start off with "in other words..." you should follow it with a statement that represents what was just said. You weren't even close.

You said it doesn't matter that Obamacare hurts him or anyone else with a sad story.

Read the above, please find and highlight the part where I said this.

I stated that individuals being hurt by government policy is inevitable anytime something is changed. I then explained that the way we go about determining whether it is in fact bad policy is by weighing the Pros and Cons and determining which carries more weight. You don't just cherry-pick the Cons and then proclaim it to be bad law because it has Cons.

Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

Completely irrelevant. Please see the bold.

No, it's not irreverent. It's literally a con, and a pretty major one. Ultimately you just like it, don't understand why you like it, and can't comprehend why someone who can't afford their new plan they are forced to buy might be a tad bit upset.

Republicans have no more interest in fixing government-run healthcare. We fundamentally oppose the concept.

Then perhaps republicans should give up their seats to those who have an interest in governing.

We are interested in governing. That's why it is 'repeal and replace'.

Then where is this replacement, and why is all the attention focused on all the terrible things about Obamacare

Because Obamacare is terrible

as opposed to how their alternative is better? The latter is what governing is.

There have been many plans. Off the top of my head, Marco Rubio and the House Study Committee have proposed their own plans.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:07:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:30:20 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:27:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 11/29/2015 9:07:55 PM, Double_R wrote:

I stated that individuals being hurt by government policy is inevitable anytime something is changed. I then explained that the way we go about determining whether it is in fact bad policy is by weighing the Pros and Cons and determining which carries more weight. You don't just cherry-pick the Cons and then proclaim it to be bad law because it has Cons.

Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

Completely irrelevant. Please see the bold.

No, it's not irreverent. It's literally a con, and a pretty major one. Ultimately you just like it, don't understand why you like it, and can't comprehend why someone who can't afford their new plan they are forced to buy might be a tad bit upset.

You haven't paid attention to a word I said. I have already acknowledged every point you're making, now please acknowledge my point and read the bold. Here, I'll underline it as well...

We are interested in governing. That's why it is 'repeal and replace'.

Then where is this replacement, and why is all the attention focused on all the terrible things about Obamacare

Because Obamacare is terrible

Still waiting for you to substantiate this claim.

HINT: That's where reading the bold would help.

as opposed to how their alternative is better? The latter is what governing is.

There have been many plans. Off the top of my head, Marco Rubio and the House Study Committee have proposed their own plans.

Great, so perhaps you can explain what these plans are about and how they solve the problems of Obamacare?
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:13:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 7:24:39 PM, Double_R wrote:
The republican obsession with Obamacare has never ceased to amaze me. They acted like passing this legislation was going to ruin our country. Well, it passed and we're still here, the economy continues to get stronger or at least hold while other countries economy falls apart, and more and more Americans are insured. The states that have seen the biggest impact are the ones who allowed the medicaid expansion and the ones who didn't (nearly all republican controlled) have seen the least impact.

Everything I just said is what I understand to be true and fairly non-controversial. What I have never heard are any valid arguments for why Obamacare is so terrible and needs to be scrapped immediately. So if you are one of those "Repeal Obamacare!" enthusiasts please enlighten an ignorant liberal: What am I missing?

And as a bonus I would really love one of you guys to tell me what proposals have been put forward that you endorse as a replacement.

If your premise is that Obamacare resulted in economic growth and prosperity, then you are incorrect. Yes, since Obamacare was implemented in 2013 the economy has strengthened, and yes this is despite economic turmoil abroad. However, these realities are completely unrelated.

For example, Colorado's economy (a state allowing the expansion) has picked up speed because of an increase of fracking. Presently, due to an increase in enrollment and inflationary costs across Medicaid from Obamacare, Colorado is running into a fiscal disaster which will metastasize during fiscal year 2016-2017. I could go state by state to debunk your claim that economic growth is dependent on the implementation of Obamacare.

That said, here is my take on Obamacare... Before it was implemented, conservatives claimed it would reduce coverage, given 15 million Americans have gained coverage, I'd say this prediction is incorrect. The successes of Obamacare include coverage for millions of previously uninsured people, lower financial distress for health related costs, and lower costs of premiums (which were predicted to substantially increase before the law took effect).

However, I believe TN05 hit the nail on the head when he stated that government run health care is a failed liberal policy. Private insurance remains preferable for both access and quality of care. Prior to 2013, doctors and hospitals were already refusing to take in Medicaid patients; the problem is even worse now.

Healthcare reforms should focus on making private insurance available and affordable for everyone, not just the affluent. Obamacare does the opposite, it dumps millions of impoverished Americans on an overwhelmed and failing system.

Insurance that doesn't insure health coverage is worthless, and as doctors and hospitals in metro areas increasingly deny Medicaid patients care, Obamacare and Medicaid become worthless programs compared to the private sector.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:31:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:37:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:31:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov



And....?
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:42:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov

Frankly, unless you are somewhat well off financially, your options for plans are fairly limited. Obamacare furthers this imbalance by funneling the poorest Americans onto Medicaid, rather than making existing private insurance more affordable.

The point people on this thread are making, is that the template provided by Medicaid caters to the 'average,' ergo young, healthy people get screwed paying for excesses they don't need.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:45:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:37:24 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:31:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov



And....?

It's a similar lie.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:51:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The government is a crappy risk assessor. This isn't something we should pay government to do for us. It would be like asking the garbageman to take out your spleen.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:51:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For many it is a coercion issue, government should not force a person to buy anything, government should kept transactions between individuals voluntary.

A person should be able to purchase any insurance or medical care that another person is willing to supply, without third party interference.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:52:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:45:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:37:24 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:31:46 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov


And....?

It's a similar lie.

You said, " Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care."

And I said "you can get just that from healthcare.gov"

The video you posted has no relevance.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:53:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:51:56 PM, Chang29 wrote:
For many it is a coercion issue, government should not force a person to buy anything, government should kept transactions between individuals voluntary.

A person should be able to purchase any insurance or medical care that another person is willing to supply, without third party interference.

Which is why I strongly advocate allowing insurance companies to compete, and simply subsidize the poor directly.
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:01:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:42:01 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:29:57 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:24:41 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:15:23 PM, stealspell wrote:
At 11/29/2015 10:07:19 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yet this is a pretty big con - young, heathy people are being forced to buy an expensive product they don't need, on top of every other thing they have to pay for.

How are you or someone else in your family going to pay for an emergency surgery if you don't have this "product you don't need"?

Young people want to buy low premium high deductible rare emergency contingency plans, because they wont see a doctor every week like a 70 year old would. That's the product they need. Not some whacked out, senior gold, one size fits all care.

And you can get just that from healthcare.gov

Frankly, unless you are somewhat well off financially, your options for plans are fairly limited. Obamacare furthers this imbalance by funneling the poorest Americans onto Medicaid, rather than making existing private insurance more affordable.

If they're poor they can't afford private insurance. Also, private insurance is always going to be more expensive because it has one element the publicly funded system doesn't: capitalistic interest.

The point people on this thread are making, is that the template provided by Medicaid caters to the 'average,' ergo young, healthy people get screwed paying for excesses they don't need.

What excesses? Is there any evidence of this? So far this thread seems to be lacking it.