Debate: The ACA is a Republican plan through and through (TUH's Proof vs. BarNone's Proof))

[Broke Wave]

Nothing breh you? Don't usually see you defend corporations except in this case.

I think the ACA on a scale of 1-10 is a 6 in terms of making me happy. I hate every aspect of it especially the idea of being forced to pay a private corporation, but at its end goal it does expand Medicaid a little bit and eventually cover everybody... which even though is being done in a perverse way is still being done.

 

[Blackking]

It is, however, a bit of a stretch to say that the ACA is a Republican idea because a specific concept out of 2,000 pages derives from a GOP platform.

The key concepts.

 

[No1]

Republican and Democrat are pretty benign terms when it comes to public policy... It's clear that the ACA has its roots in the Neo-Liberal fervor that surrounded the signing of NAFTA in the early 90's... it may have progressive intentions but it certainly is not a progressive policy or even an original idea... that being said when faced with the alternative (nothing), it's a brilliant success.

Indeed Broke. But define "progressive policy" because I think you're conflating progressive with a socialized policy which is not necessarily required. Or at least that was the thought process of many Democrats in the 90s and the Massachusetts legislature in the mid 2000s. The fact is, no one knows how a complete overhaul would work in the US, which is why I always endorsed the compromise where medicare would be extended to the most expensive groups of people not yet on medicare. It was going to be for a period of 10 years to monitor it alongside what we have now (got dropped in Congress). My only point is that Democrats who call this a Republican plan to seem less radical and those who call it one to voice their displeasure miss the greater point of whether or not it's a good policy or building block.

I think you're sensible enough to know the genesis of something does not necessarily determine its effect. The only reason I even addressed it is because only @tru_m.a.c and I seem be the only people to ever address where it fails and where it helps on a substantive level as opposed to worrying about a name.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

TUH, my friend literally just talked to me the other night about all the stuff you mentioned. It makes sense. They viewed government insurance as just more competition in the free market (a good thing)

 

[Type Username Here]

TUH, my friend literally just talked to me the other night about all the stuff you mentioned. It makes sense. They viewed government insurance as just more competition in the free market (a good thing)

Yup. A compromise to me would be a single payer system or a public option. Would I want is like the NHS they have in the UK which provides government services throughout the health care field, not just insurance. Government owned hospitals, clinics, etc.

So to me a single payer or public option would have been a true compromise.

This Republican plan is a corporate plan. It seems a way to force a transfer of money from the public to the private.

All you have to do is ask the people who support this on the Democratic side if they also support private prisons, voucher schools and other private measures. Most would say no because it's coming from Republican politicians.

But let President Booker or President Biden say the same exact plan and my hunch is you will have Democrats cheering for it.

 

[theworldismine13]

tuh is basiacally right on point, "obamacare" is a centrist republican plan from the 90s, that is pretty obvious, im not sure what the big argument is about

 

[No1]

The key concepts.

Name me the list of key concepts that are entirely GOP concepts. I will wait. I will spot you the mandate and the exchanges (which work different than how Repubs intended back in 1993...this is probably the most annoying part that people won't grasp) Go ahead, the article above outlines them which I'm becoming increasingly convinced that none of you read.

I hope you understand the argument you're forcing yourself to make... (but this is my last post on what is a stupid argument...that I just had to address).

@theworldismine13 The argument is that people like TUH (who is wrong and who I have shown is wrong, but then again you always have trouble analyzing arguments ) refuse to support anything that helps people if it also helps a corporation and if it may have some Republican concepts in it. Thus, I demonstrated how (a) comparing it to the 1993 Repub plan is false because it is closer to the mid 2000s Romney plan (which it is...even down to the names of various rates of coverage) and (b) how that plan was passed by a democratic supermajority that had to override Romney's veto...and then implement it wit a Democratic governor. That's really the only reason this argument is happening.

So basically he is ignoring the fact that I just definitively demonstrated that it is identical to what people have in my home region of Massachusetts because that would defeat his 1993 argument and thus leave him with nothing more than his "corporation benefit = bad no matter the circumstance" argument and he knows that's not good enough for most people. Which was demonstrated in this thread.

TWISM, I can repost your last reply to me if you want but it was prior to my final post.

 

[kevm3]

It was obvious since this was proposed. This has "insurance company friendly" stamped all over it. It is a policy that is mutually beneficial to the govporation conglomerate. Either you pay insurance companies money for merely existing or you pay the government money. All of this republican resistance is for show. This plan WILL be put into effect. It completely eliminates the price controlling mechanism of non participation. if you HAVE to have insurance, insurers can essentially charge you any price they want or you will have to pay the government money on the other end of the equation. It's a bad news policy, but because people are so caught up in partisan politics, they will defend it. We hear about all of this competition that's supposed to lower prices, but what's stopping the competition from banding together and price fixing? The government? lol yeah alright.

 

[theworldismine13]

TWISM, I can repost your last reply to me if you want but it was prior to my final post.

i dont even know what this means

why did you delete my post? that is completely un kosher

 

[Type Username Here]

tuh is basiacally right on point, "obamacare" is a centrist republican plan from the 90s, that is pretty obvious, im not sure what the big argument is about

Obvious as hell. Imagine if McCain won and proposed this plan, you wouldn't hear the end of it from the left.

The same disdain they have for private prisons, voucher schools and other privatization methods they would have for this.

I've said it all along, all that it took to drive in Reaganomics as a platform of the Democrats was Obama repackaging it. Started with Clinton and finished with Obama. Now Reaganomics is the norm.

 

[Type Username Here]

It was obvious since this was proposed. This has "insurance company friendly" stamped all over it. It is a policy that is mutually beneficial to the govporation conglomerate. Either you pay insurance companies money for merely existing or you pay the government money. All of this republican resistance is for show. This plan WILL be put into effect. It completely eliminates the price controlling mechanism of non participation. if you HAVE to have insurance, insurers can essentially charge you any price they want or you will have to pay the government money on the other end of the equation. It's a bad news policy, but because people are so caught up in partisan politics, they will defend it. We hear about all of this competition that's supposed to lower prices, but what's stopping the competition from banding together and price fixing? The government? lol yeah alright.

This is an atrocious idea. When you look at the 90s Republican plans this was stolen from, idea for idea, it becomes evident that this is just forcing wealth transfer.

I wouldn't be surprised if the business mandates keep getting pushed back or completely done away with. The individual mandate is the key here. That's where the customers are.

 

[Type Username Here]

Me: Do you support privatizing schools and using vouchers?
Typical Democrat/Obama Worshiper: No, that's a Republican plan and will have unintended consequences. It puts profits over people.

Me: Do you support getting rid of unions and letting Businesses decide the welfare of the worker and labor practices?
Typical Democrat/Obama Worshiper: No, that's a Republican plan and will have unintended consequences. It puts profits over people.

Me: Do you support privatizing social security?
Typical Democrat/Obama Worshiper: No, that's a Republican plan and will have unintended consequences. It puts profits over people.

Me: Do you support privatizing prisons?
Typical Democrat/Obama Worshiper: No, that's a Republican plan and will have unintended consequences. It puts profits over people.

Me: Do you support privatizing healthcare?
Typical Democrat/Obama Worshiper: Well, you see, this will allow more people to join into the privatized health care system and the health insurance companies will eventually help us go to public healthcare because they will not use their profits to lobby against it. Corporations aren't bad, they will keep our interests at heart in this case. Yea, it borrows from a Republican plan but Democrats now LOVE this Republican corporate plan, and I should too.

 

[No1]

i dont even know what this means

why did you delete my post? that is completely un kosher

Because somehow through some glitch you posted before my post was finished, I don't even know how you saw it...I had it as a draft. So I was giving you the opportunity to respond to my actual post. The reason I said I can re-post is so that you don't have to start from scratch so calm down. There is nothing un-kosher about a site glitch.

 

[IGSaint12]

It's a Democrats now after republicans went to the lengths of shutting down the government over it. And I don't even mind.

 

[No1]

It was obvious since this was proposed. This has "insurance company friendly" stamped all over it. It is a policy that is mutually beneficial to the govporation conglomerate. Either you pay insurance companies money for merely existing or you pay the government money. All of this republican resistance is for show. This plan WILL be put into effect. It completely eliminates the price controlling mechanism of non participation. if you HAVE to have insurance, insurers can essentially charge you any price they want or you will have to pay the government money on the other end of the equation. It's a bad news policy, but because people are so caught up in partisan politics, they will defend it. We hear about all of this competition that's supposed to lower prices, but what's stopping the competition from banding together and price fixing? The government? lol yeah alright.

This type of misinformation right here is why I responded. All due respect family, but it's obvious that you have a bare bones idea of this bill or how the health industry works. So how about we get past "partisan politics" and start talking about the actual bill (which I'm not even sure will work). @tru_m.a.c are you seeing this I have class please educate this brother.

First and foremost the competition is not the only price control mechanism. As a mattter of fact, lawmakers aren't even sure what exactly will contain costs so there are a variety of different cost control measures in the bill. Much of it is about shifting the types of services providing. I.E. in-patient vs. outpatient care or what about the medicare extensions... As a matter of fact, we should probably deal this thread and actually make a thread about the cost control measures in the PPACA and whether or not they will work.