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

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Jan '14 17:56
    http://theweek.com/article/index/254564/the-hidden-costs-of-obamacare

    ObamaCare has delivered another sucker punch to the middle class. This time it's sticker shock.

    Now that most people can get past the tech problems of HealthCare.gov and actually see the real cost of insurance plans available, they are finding that Affordable Care is a big hit to the family budget. And when the family budget gets hit in the solar plexus, guess what happens to consumer spending and the economy?



    Perhaps it was not intended but the natural result of Obamacare is that people will have much less disposable income which means that many more people will be poor.

    Personally I think this is exactly what was meant to happen. Too many middle class people have too much money in the eyes of the elite. This is perfect way to suck that money right out of the middle class. The elite need more peasants, and Obamacare is creating more and more.
  2. 01 Jan '14 19:18
    Sen. Alexander forgot to mention that a 27-year old man in Memphis could previously buy a plan with no coverage for as little as $0/month! Under Obamacare, the cheapest available plan is a whopping infinity percent more expensive!
  3. 01 Jan '14 19:26
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Sen. Alexander forgot to mention that a 27-year old man in Memphis could previously buy a plan with no coverage for as little as $0/month! Under Obamacare, the cheapest available plan is a whopping infinity percent more expensive!
    Shut up Beavis, that sarcastic reply doesn't make any sense.
  4. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    01 Jan '14 21:48
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Shut up Beavis, that sarcastic reply doesn't make any sense.
    No arithmetic primer in your stocking again last Christmas?
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    01 Jan '14 22:21
    Originally posted by Eladar
    http://theweek.com/article/index/254564/the-hidden-costs-of-obamacare

    [b]ObamaCare has delivered another sucker punch to the middle class. This time it's sticker shock.

    Now that most people can get past the tech problems of HealthCare.gov and actually see the real cost of insurance plans available, they are finding that Affordable Care is a big hit to t ...[text shortened]... out of the middle class. The elite need more peasants, and Obamacare is creating more and more.
    The hit to GDP if this POS bill ever reaches full implementation is going to shock a lot of people. Still more jobs eliminated because of reduced demand. It won't be enough to win the Senate. Republicans need veto-proof majorities in both houses.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    01 Jan '14 22:26
    Doctors will be busy with everyone being insured. Lots of business for them.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Jan '14 22:50
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    The hit to GDP if this POS bill ever reaches full implementation is going to shock a lot of people. Still more jobs eliminated because of reduced demand. It won't be enough to win the Senate. Republicans need veto-proof majorities in both houses.
    A more healthy work force with more access to care is virtually certain to increase GDP. It will also increase employment in health services and the insurance industry.

    You already had the US economy in a hopeless freefall because of Obama's re-election. At some point, the other poultry stopped listening to Chicken Little.
  8. 02 Jan '14 01:07
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A more healthy work force with more access to care is virtually certain to increase GDP. It will also increase employment in health services and the insurance industry.

    You already had the US economy in a hopeless freefall because of Obama's re-election. At some point, the other poultry stopped listening to Chicken Little.
    As long as the fed continues to pump things will look decent enough.
  9. 02 Jan '14 14:02
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Shut up Beavis, that sarcastic reply doesn't make any sense.
    My point, which you apparently missed, is that it is pointless to compare the "cheapest" plan if they don't have the same coverage.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Jan '14 14:11
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    My point, which you apparently missed, is that it is pointless to compare the "cheapest" plan if they don't have the same coverage.
    But it isn't really.

    If the cheapest plan is good enough for me and they now tell me that it's no longer available because it's not good enough, but I'll be happy to know that I can buy a "good" plan for twice the price, I'm perfectly justified in complaining that the old plan was good enough for me and that I don't want to spend twice the price just because "they" think my old plan is not good.
  11. 02 Jan '14 14:15
    Originally posted by sh76
    But it isn't really.

    If the cheapest plan is good enough for me and they now tell me that it's no longer available because it's not good enough, but I'll be happy to know that I can buy a "good" plan for twice the price, I'm perfectly justified in complaining that the old plan was good enough for me and that I don't want to spend twice the price just because "they" think my old plan is not good.
    Well, that's an objection to the individual mandate and not to the cost of policies offered. Without demanding certain minimum coverage, the individual mandate would be meaningless.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    02 Jan '14 15:16
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Well, that's an objection to the individual mandate and not to the cost of policies offered. Without demanding certain minimum coverage, the individual mandate would be meaningless.
    It's an objection to both.
  13. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    02 Jan '14 16:46
    Originally posted by sh76
    But it isn't really.

    If the cheapest plan is good enough for me and they now tell me that it's no longer available because it's not good enough, but I'll be happy to know that I can buy a "good" plan for twice the price, I'm perfectly justified in complaining that the old plan was good enough for me and that I don't want to spend twice the price just because "they" think my old plan is not good.
    "Steeeeeeeerike!"
    - Chief Justice John Roberts
  14. 02 Jan '14 18:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    But it isn't really.

    If the cheapest plan is good enough for me and they now tell me that it's no longer available because it's not good enough, but I'll be happy to know that I can buy a "good" plan for twice the price, I'm perfectly justified in complaining that the old plan was good enough for me and that I don't want to spend twice the price just because "they" think my old plan is not good.
    A good plan is not a good plan for you. A good plan is a good plan for Society as they see it.

    You need to be forced to fund healthcare for others by way of increasing your rates. That is how it supposed to work.

    To pull this off Obama has decided to only offer plans that do as he wants which means that either you can do what he wants or go without health insurance and pay an extra tax.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    02 Jan '14 19:04
    Originally posted by sh76
    But it isn't really.

    If the cheapest plan is good enough for me and they now tell me that it's no longer available because it's not good enough, but I'll be happy to know that I can buy a "good" plan for twice the price, I'm perfectly justified in complaining that the old plan was good enough for me and that I don't want to spend twice the price just because "they" think my old plan is not good.
    People who brought those cheap plans also knew that if it didn't wind up covering all their health care costs, the government would eventually bail them out. Thus the rest of society was, in effect, subsidizing the cheap plans. These people really don't have much cause to complain; the government has decided to regulate the market in a manner that increasing overall efficiency and provides better health care coverage overall. If that means they lose their hidden subsidy, that's unfortunate for them but reasonable for the system and the great majority in it.

    I'd prefer there was no individual mandate, but saying that plans must meet minimum standards that make the system more efficient really doesn't offend me much.