ACA vs ObamacareFollow

When was it that the GOP suggested a similar system?

Well, obviously, encouraging healthy people who pay more for premiums than they get for services to enroll in health insurance is going to mean higher premiums all around. Because socialism. Right?

You've had your annual mammogram then?

"So, Mr. Roo... tell me what happened here..."
"Communism?"

Never work here in the Worker's Paradise. "Red meat :(" Much more viable.

If only Mittens won the election, then healthcare for everyone!

Excuse me? Was there a quote from an elected member of the national Republican party saying that the ACA was "worse than slavery" and "literally kills people"? Quoting other people saying that's what he said isn't the same thing.

Also, are you seriously trying to argue that his statement is why people oppose the ACA? Cause I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of people who oppose Oamacare today also opposed it prior to like 2 weeks ago. So... want to try again? Where are these lies that were told that made people oppose the ACA. Remember, the law was passed (and opposed) back in 2009/2010. So at least try to limit this to things actually said during the process of writing/passing the law itself.



Let's not forget the context:



I'm not saying that the second group was not lied to ever by anyone about any subject. I'm saying that the reasons they were told to oppose Obamacare were not lies, in specific contrast to those who were urged to support Obamcare who were told that was about reducing the cost of health care and that no one's taxes would go up as a result. These statements were at best misleading and at worst out right lies.



Huh? Who cares about some commercial? I'm talking about words spoken over and over by our president when he was actively working to convince people to support the ACA. And those words were false. And not just a little bit false, but the kind of false that anyone who thought about how our health care system works should have known were false. The entire point of the ACA is to push people off their existing health care and into the government managed exchanges. The only way the financial math even comes remotely close to working is if literally millions (tens of millions actually) of people are forced to participate in those exchanges.

(in order to work) The law actually requires that large numbers of people lose their current coverage and go onto those exchanges. Something that we conservatives warned about repeatedly. The claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it was a lie back then, and is still a lie today. Sure, the law doesn't force anyone to change their health care, but it creates massive financial incentives for them or their employers to change. It's like passing a law that forces you to pay twice as much money for ham sandwiches, while subsidizing turkey, and claiming "if you like your ham sandwiches, you can still buy them". Sure. Technically true, but the whole point of the law is to try to get people to eat turkey instead of ham, right?

Same thing here. The whole point of the law is to try to get people to purchase insurance through the exchanges and not directly (or though their employers). There are a host of taxes and incentives in place to do this.



No, it's not. You said that as long as every person is treated the same, then the system is fair. Specifically, it didn't matter if businesses were treated differently because the people working for them were all treated the same. I countered with a specific example showing that this is not true. Individuals are rewarded or punished under Obamacare based on what can only be viewed as alignment with political agenda. Which kinda brings up another problem with Obamacare (and ties back into that commercial you keep harping on about): The law gives far too much leeway to the executive branch (HHS) in terms of execution. It allows for precisely this kind of favorite playing that we're seeing. We're seeing the Obama administration handing out exemptions in some incredibly questionable ways (which I'm sure just only happen to benefit their own political allies). So yeah, that's a major point of contention and it's why the GOP keeps bringing up the need to extend exemptions and exceptions for everyone. If the law is so broken that it can't be applied to government employees or union workers, then how can it be fine for everyone else?



It's more than that, but that's part of it. We should hold off implementing any portion of Obamacare for which we're providing exemptions. Which is most of it. Again, if it's so great, why do some employers not have to comply with it?



Where the hell did you get those numbers? You are, at a minimum, looking at only part of the budget picture.



Well. At least you're admitting finally that your argument consists of repeating lies you were told. We're getting somewhere!




And? How many times has he said "If you like the health care you have, you will get to keep it" (or some variation of that)? No one's arguing that he didn't talk about some number of people who could not afford health care. We're arguing that he convinced people to agree to help that group obtain health care by claiming that it would not cost them anything and their own health care cost/coverage would not be impacted.

Both of those were lies. A large percentage of people who currently have health insurance will see their premiums rise and/or the coverage by their employers cut (or dropped entirely) and/or higher tax bills to pay for them. I would say at least a majority of the set of people who had health insurance prior to the passage of Obamacare will see one or all of those effects.

[quote]President Obama and President Clinton made it very clear that this can be only successful if people partake in it or prices will increase. Furthermore, that it'll be challenge to win the "young and healthy", as the fine might be more tempting.[/quote]

Yes. By deliberately misleading them about whether this meant that *they* would have to pay more out of pocket. Please tell me you can see the underlying deception of telling people who currently choose not to buy health insurance (because they're healthy, single, 20 somethings) that their costs will not go up, their taxes will not go up, and only "the rich" will have to pay more for this, and then adding "we all have to do our parts" to that list. You get that those same young folks all think that the people doing their parts will be other people and not them.

Hell, I remember repeatedly trying to drum it into all the young people on this forum that they were the ones who were going to get most screwed by this. I don't recall a single person responding with "Oh. I know that I'll have to pay hundreds of more dollars a year that I can't afford to help pay for care for other people and I'm fine with it!". What I got was either silence, or a quick change of subject.

And that's not counting all the folks who have health insurance, and will see their premiums go up as a result of the need to subsidize that group. You don't honestly think they thought they they were the ones Obama was speaking about as having to "do their part". Doubly so when this is included with constant claims that current costs wont go up. How can you reconcile that?

Also. Please stop using youtube videos as sources. Link to a transcript and provide quotes please.

Edited, Oct 8th 2013 6:00pm by gbaji

No, because my premium increases far outpaced the price of bread.

Oh, because text is less likely to be faked, incorrect or taken out of context and is overall more believable than an actual video of the person saying something viewed by millions.... GTFOHWTBS

SpoilerExcuse me? Was there a quote from an elected member of the national Republican party saying that the ACA was "worse than slavery" and "literally kills people"? Quoting other people saying that's what he said isn't the same thing.

Also, are you seriously trying to argue that his statement is why people oppose the ACA? Cause I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of people who oppose Oamacare today also opposed it prior to like 2 weeks ago. So... want to try again? Where are these lies that were told that made people oppose the ACA. Remember, the law was passed (and opposed) back in 2009/2010. So at least try to limit this to things actually said during the process of writing/passing the law itself.

So, how do you classify them?

SpoilerLet's not forget the context:
I'm not saying that the second group was not lied to ever by anyone about any subject. I'm saying that the reasons they were told to oppose Obamacare were not lies, in specific contrast to those who were urged to support Obamcare who were told that was about reducing the cost of health care and that no one's taxes would go up as a result. These statements were at best misleading and at worst out right lies.

I am full aware of the context. You are admitting that Republicans have made blatant lies about ACA, but dismissing them because you believe no one believed them. First off, you don't know who believed what. Secondly, if they are willing to lie about something so obviously wrong, then they obviously lied about more subtle things.



Every politician who ever ran a campaign. Why else do you think so much money is invested in spamming our media with ads?

SpoilerThe entire point of the ACA is to push people off their existing health care and into the government managed exchanges.

...
The only way the financial math even comes remotely close to working is if literally millions (tens of millions actually) of people are forced to participate in those exchanges.

(in order to work) The law actually requires that large numbers of people lose their current coverage and go onto those exchanges. Something that we conservatives warned about repeatedly.

...
The claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it was a lie back then, and is still a lie today. Sure, the law doesn't force anyone to change their health care, but it creates massive financial incentives for them or their employers to change. It's like passing a law that forces you to pay twice as much money for ham sandwiches, while subsidizing turkey, and claiming "if you like your ham sandwiches, you can still buy them". Sure. Technically true, but the whole point of the law is to try to get people to eat turkey instead of ham, right?

Same thing here. The whole point of the law is to try to get people to purchase insurance through the exchanges and not directly (or though their employers). There are a host of taxes and incentives in place to do this.


That's blatantly false. The point of ACA is to provide affordable healthcare to every person, not to force people to get on ACA. What you are purposely misconstruing is that the movement is to go after everyone who are not currently insured or can't afford it. There is absolutely no motive to have people to give up their current existing health care to go to ACA. That's like asking people to give up work to get food stamps and live in government housing.

So, even though you're not forced to change health care, it's a lie because you don't like it? Employers care about money, they have been ******** over employees over full time benefits for decades before ACA.

SpoilerNo, it's not. You said that as long as every person is treated the same, then the system is fair. Specifically, it didn't matter if businesses were treated differently because the people working for them were all treated the same. I countered with a specific example showing that this is not true. Individuals are rewarded or punished under Obamacare based on what can only be viewed as alignment with political agenda. Which kinda brings up another problem with Obamacare (and ties back into that commercial you keep harping on about): The law gives far too much leeway to the executive branch (HHS) in terms of execution. It allows for precisely this kind of favorite playing that we're seeing. We're seeing the Obama administration handing out exemptions in some incredibly questionable ways (which I'm sure just only happen to benefit their own political allies). So yeah, that's a major point of contention and it's why the GOP keeps bringing up the need to extend exemptions and exceptions for everyone. If the law is so broken that it can't be applied to government employees or union workers, then how can it be fine for everyone else?
....
It's more than that, but that's part of it. We should hold off implementing any portion of Obamacare for which we're providing exemptions. Which is most of it. Again, if it's so great, why do some employers not have to comply with it?



You just talked in a whole circle with the hopes of befogging the point. ACA mandates that everyone either has healthcare or get fined. No one is exempted from that and you haven't provided anything to the contrary. A business != a person.



http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/53171277#53171277

SpoilerAnd? How many times has he said "If you like the health care you have, you will get to keep it" (or some variation of that)? No one's arguing that he didn't talk about some number of people who could not afford health care. We're arguing that he convinced people to agree to help that group obtain health care by claiming that it would not cost them anything and their own health care cost/coverage would not be impacted.

Both of those were lies. A large percentage of people who currently have health insurance will see their premiums rise and/or the coverage by their employers cut (or dropped entirely) and/or higher tax bills to pay for them. I would say at least a majority of the set of people who had health insurance prior to the passage of Obamacare will see one or all of those effects.

The point is that he has been clear from the start that ACA is directed to the minority and not the majority in which you claim.

Spoiler
Yes. By deliberately misleading them about whether this meant that *they* would have to pay more out of pocket. Please tell me you can see the underlying deception of telling people who currently choose not to buy health insurance (because they're healthy, single, 20 somethings) that their costs will not go up, their taxes will not go up, and only "the rich" will have to pay more for this, and then adding "we all have to do our parts" to that list. You get that those same young folks all think that the people doing their parts will be other people and not them.

Hell, I remember repeatedly trying to drum it into all the young people on this forum that they were the ones who were going to get most screwed by this. I don't recall a single person responding with "Oh. I know that I'll have to pay hundreds of more dollars a year that I can't afford to help pay for care for other people and I'm fine with it!". What I got was either silence, or a quick change of subject.
And that's not counting all the folks who have health insurance, and will see their premiums go up as a result of the need to subsidize that group. You don't honestly think they thought they they were the ones Obama was speaking about as having to "do their part". Doubly so when this is included with constant claims that current costs wont go up. How can you reconcile that?
That mentality is the exact reason why it is so important for everyone to be insured, ACA or not. Just because you're 20 something and healthy doesn't mean you can't get hurt and sick. So, who is paying the bill when the uninsured is in the hospital? Wouldn't you like it better if everyone paid for their own insurance? You will eventually get sick, it's just a matter of time. You might be paying for Joe now, but Joe's great grandson will be paying for you later.

People were complaining about the length of his posts. He used spoiler tags to shorten it.

Ideally, he'd make more concise points, but we get what we get.

If you put him on ignore, that's essentially what you get. Well worth it, imo.

.

Because freedom. Also liberty.

Freedom isn't free, yo!!

Does make it a lot easier to tell who has some idea of what they're talking about, and who doesn't and is rambling to cover it up.

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 11:41am by lolgaxe