Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Nov '13 16:41
    in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html

    If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't receive subsidies will definitely be paying more. There we have it, even the Obama Administration has admitted that the Affordable Care Act makes Care more expensive.

    It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.
  2. 15 Nov '13 17:47
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html

    If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
    It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
    If the Queen gave Obama the book 1984 then that explains why they would say something more expensive is more affordable. Also explains Why he says stuff like raising the debt ceiling does not increase debt.
  3. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    15 Nov '13 20:45
    *sigh*
    I'll never get a Harley.
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    15 Nov '13 20:58
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html

    If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
    It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
    The reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
  5. 15 Nov '13 22:08
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html

    If people who receive subsidies are still paying more, then those who don't ...[text shortened]...
    It takes a liberal to be able to say that making something more expensive makes it affordable.[/b]
    Liberals will never admit it's not a fundamentally good plan.

    Lately they seem to have received a memo telling them to say "the old plans are all substandard 'junk' plans!!!"

    They've got a point. In the "land of the free and the home of the brave", it's too risky for a 60 year old to buy a plan that doesn't offer pre-natal care.

    Our ancestors sailed across the Atlantic in hopes of being free. That took courage. But none of these early pilgrims would have advised us to be so courageous as to not have prenatal coverage at age 60.

    People are free to lead their own lives of course, but we have to scale back some freedoms. If it doesn't hurt someone else, you should be free to do it. And 60 year olds who don't have pre-natal coverage are clearly hurting other people by their reckless, thoughtless actions.
  6. 15 Nov '13 23:28 / 3 edits
    Dude the Obama government is gonna give us all a lot of free stuff, like the Obama phone lady has explained:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

    Let's not forget Soldier Girl, another Obama fan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXz-tlK2pkI
  7. 15 Nov '13 23:38
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    The reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
    Good call, because the government has an excellent track record of ratcheting back subsidies.
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    15 Nov '13 23:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Good call, because the government has an excellent track record of ratcheting back subsidies.
    I see that, as usual, none of the bat-crap crazy rightists around here want to debate the substance of the matter. It's like talking to a cage full of parrots that was put next to a radio set to Glenn Beck for a month. Huh.
  9. 17 Nov '13 19:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    The reason for this seems pretty simple: because of the website glitches, not enough people have signed up through the exchanges yet. The more who sign up, the better it will get. I think the solution is to increase the federal subsidy just for the first year until such time that the exchanges are strong enough to leave the nest. When this rocket gets off the ground and into the black, the federal subsidy can be ratcheted back accordingly.
    The pricing is not due to the glitches. The price increase is due to Obamacare itself. The present price structure was determined before Obamacare was even launched.

    If your position is that cost doesn't matter (just keep increasing subsidies) because the government's pockets are infinitely deep, then there is nothing to discuss.
  10. 17 Nov '13 20:22
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    *sigh*
    I'll never get a Harley.
    You don't need a Harley. First off, it's carbon producing and bad for the environment. Secondly, motorcycles are dangerous and will only add to health care costs and add years to your life.

    So there you have it, the nanny state has come to your rescue. Why fight it?
  11. 17 Nov '13 20:23
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I see that, as usual, none of the bat-crap crazy rightists around here want to debate the substance of the matter. It's like talking to a cage full of parrots that was put next to a radio set to Glenn Beck for a month. Huh.
    There is nothing to debate. It is all cast into stone. Why they fight is beyond me.