Obamacare
lets see how many people are for it that i can argue with.
For
Side Score: 12
|
 |
Against
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
I got my Obamacare cost me less then $100 a mth, saved over $110 over my last med cost, so what ever man Its working out for me, Fox News Fucking lies, I saved money and so did my sons mother with the kids. If you make less then 94k a year as a single person you will save, over that I dont know, I dont make over that so... Side: For
I have no need to lie, don't believe me check it out for yourself, go to the web site and get a quote, if you make less then a certain amount your rates will be lower. Get a quote, dont dismiss the idea untill you see it for yourself, I did it at first to see what all the fuss was about regarding the website not working hype a few weeks back, not really planing on anything but after seeing my quotes I took the deal. Side: For
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
A single payer system is great as long as you don't need to see a specialist or need surgery quickly. The fact is the wait time is much shorter in the US than any single payer system. My aunt was Canadian, and she needed surgery three times in her life. Every time she flew to the US to have it done. She didn't want to have to wait. Once she had double vision in her eyes and the wait time to see a specialist was approximately 6 months. Within a week she had surgery here in the US and was back home. Yes, she could afford it, she was well off. I assume you are a card carrying liberal who wants the government in control of everything. You know the type, the government knows whats best for everyone because the individual is incapable of making their own decisions wisely. Side: For
1
point
First off, yes I guess I am a liberal in the fact that I am left of center, but I take a conservative stance on guns and affirmative action, so I wouldnt call myself a typical liberal. Btw, almost every country I've seen that has socialized healthcare has a great middle class, here in america, most people go broke because of unexpected medical bills. Side: Against
1
point
1
point
It's not going to pan out. The ruling from the Supreme Court held that it was Constitutional because the mandate is a tax. It is only Constitutional if the punitive tax is not coercive concerning buying in. The only way for it to not be coercive in this way is if the tax is lower than what it would cost to buy in. The mandate is necessary for the plans success, especially considering the preconditions portion. The Supreme Court ruling cut out its teeth. It basically says that if it's effective then it isn't Constitutional. For it to remain Constitutional, it must remain ineffective. This spells calamity in the long run. Side: Against
1
point
It would pan out if everybody in the white house would stop trying to make everything the president tries to do an epic battle. (I'm talking of course about the republicans). All other major countries have universal healthcare, and these are countries who based their constitutions on ours. So it could definitely pan out, but the reporters who have gotten you to say it's not are successful in swaying many to believing the same thing. Side: For
1
point
You are correct that every other industrialized country has universal health care. They also pay up the ass for it in taxes. The middle class in this country is much better off than the middle class in other European countries. The difference is in Europe there are not as many wealthy people and the poor are better of to a degree. But then again each country in Europe is much smaller population wise than the US. It is easier to help the less fortunate over there than here. Side: For
1
point
It would pan out if everybody in the white house would stop trying to make everything the president tries to do an epic battle. (I'm talking of course about the republicans). All other major countries have universal healthcare, and these are countries who based their constitutions on ours. So it could definitely pan out, but the reporters who have gotten you to say it's not are successful in swaying many to believing the same thing. Side: For
While I concede that there are a few nice parts of the law, the individual mandate is just awful. For liberals, this is paradise. The government telling you what you MUST buy. Liberals can't wait til they can one day tell you what kind of car you must buy, what type of food to eat, how much insulation your house must have. The list can go on and on. Its open season on individual liberties. Obama sold this that everyone would come out ahead. Only a fool would believe this. There are going to be winners and losers in this. A classic example of redistribution of wealth. The cost estimate has already gone from 900 billion to 2.8 trillion over 10 years. Obama cut a deal with the insurance companies, basically subsidizing them over the next few years to get them on board. As of right now, there will be more uninsured people of January 1st than there were on December 31st. Finally, there will be millions of people in the middle class who lost their insurance over the next couple of years who simply can't afford the new premiums. Not to mention how many people will have to find a new doctor AND a new hospital, something Obama guaranteed would never happen. This is what really upsets alot of people. Some can afford the extra payments but lose their doctor they have had for decades. We will just have to wait a few years to see how expensive health care will be. Remember, Obama declared health insurance will go down by an average of 2500 per year for the average family. I don't believe it, only liberals do, who are delusional that health care will be cheaper under Obamacare. Side: Against
|
