• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

what makes you think Obamacare would pay for cosmetic liposuction?

this is either a strawman or a lie.

I wouldn't doubt that lipo is in there, however here is an article from last year at the 6 month anniversary of the train wreck known as Obamacare....Read it.

Today marks the six-month anniversary of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, widely known as ObamaCare. It is a day when the first significant round of benefits kicks in, and the Obama administration is taking every opportunity to tout them to the American public.

Insurers, we are being told, will no longer be able to impose annual limits or lifetime caps on benefits, and they will face a higher standard before than can drop anyone's coverage. Children will be guaranteed access to insurance, regardless of health condition. And there is more to come in the future.

Yet the administration is strangely silent about who will bear the cost of these benefits. Search the government's own health-reform website and you'll get the idea that the whole thing is one big free lunch.


The reality is that the cost of ObamaCare will be quite high for some people. By 2017, thousands of people in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio will be paying more than $5,000 a year in lost health-care benefits to make ObamaCare possible, according to a study published this month by Robert Book at the Heritage Foundation and James Capretta at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. For some New York City dwellers, the figure will exceed $6,000 a year. Unfortunate residents of Ascension, La., will pay more than $9,000 in lost benefits.

Who are these people? Are they the rich and the comfortable—the folks presidential candidate Barack Obama told us could afford to pay for health reform? Are they people who have excessively profited during a recession that's caused hardships for so many? Are they the ones who gained the most from the Bush tax cuts?

None of the above. According to the Book/Capretta study, the people getting hit with these very expensive tabs live in predominately low-income households. They are disproportionately minorities. They have trouble paying their own medical bills.

John C. Goodman: How Seniors Will Pay for ObamaCare - WSJ.com

j-mac
 
Last edited:
prove its in there...or it ain't.

No, I am not going to do some endless search so you can just disappear when proven wrong....Nice try though. BTW, this show me or it doesn't exist crap is a fallacy.

The damn bill is over 2500 pages long, I am sure there are a great many things in there that weren't covered before the bill.

j-mac
 
No, I am not going to do some endless search so you can just disappear when proven wrong....Nice try though...

ah, so you admit Obamacare does not cover cosmetic liposuction? good to know.

what..you think it does cover this procedure? prove it then. forgive me if I fail to simply take your word for it.
 
Of course, like most critics of health care reform, he has no idea what's in the bill. He just knows that he's against it.
 
Of course, like most critics of health care reform, he has no idea what's in the bill. He just knows that he's against it.

Good argument, the only reason a person might oppose health care reform as Obama's lobbyists and special interests wrote the bill is because they did not read the bill an so do not know what they are talking about.

What next, because he's racist as well?
 
Good argument, the only reason a person might oppose health care reform as Obama's lobbyists and special interests wrote the bill is because they did not read the bill an so do not know what they are talking about.

What next, because he's racist as well?

You mean the fact that he just admitted that he doesn't know if cosmetic surgery is covered in HCR doesn't indicate that he doesn't know what's in the bill? You think it's a valid argument to rail against HCR because of liposuction, even though liposuction wouldn't be covered?

Nice try, though. :roll:
 
No, I am not going to do some endless search so you can just disappear when proven wrong....Nice try though. BTW, this show me or it doesn't exist crap is a fallacy.

The damn bill is over 2500 pages long, I am sure there are a great many things in there that weren't covered before the bill.

j-mac

Actually, you cannot say something exists without proving it does. That is how this works.
 
Actually, you cannot say something exists without proving it does. That is how this works.

some folks think we should just take their word for it.

again...and again...and again.


sorry, but when you have a habit of lying & making baseless claims, I ain't gonna take your word for anything.
 
I wouldn't doubt that lipo is in there, however here is an article from last year at the 6 month anniversary of the train wreck known as Obamacare....Read it.



j-mac


The article references a Heritage Foundation analysis.

Briefly what happened with the ACA is Medicare will absorb some of the benefits offered by Medicare Advantage while reducing payment to the private insurers. Privately owned Medicare Advantage typically costs the government 14% more than when the benefit is provided by Medicare.

The Heritage Foundation is calculating costs of the benefits lost (that was formerly provided by MA) and translating them into monetary loss for the Medicare beneficiaries and it could if the beneficiary decided they didn't want to give up that benefit that Medicare didn't pickup.

That is what some would call trimming the 'fat', or we could continue to provide, at taxpayer expense, the free aspirin, free Band-Aids, free blood pressure machine, free ear thermometer, gym memberships, flu shots that MA's provided.
 
Of course, like most critics of health care reform, he has no idea what's in the bill. He just knows that he's against it.

I cannot believe that you walked straight into this one.

 
I cannot believe that you walked straight into this one.



Yeah, your response was 100% predictable. There's nothing wrong with Pelosi's statement. Basically what she said was that, once people (not Congress) really understand what's in HCR, they will like it. Well, it's been quite some time now and if someone hasn't taken the time to learn the first thing about HCR, I don't think it's Nancy Pelosi's fault.
 
Yeah, your response was 100% predictable. There's nothing wrong with Pelosi's statement. Basically what she said was that, once people (not Congress) really understand what's in HCR, they will like it. Well, it's been quite some time now and if someone hasn't taken the time to learn the first thing about HCR, I don't think it's Nancy Pelosi's fault.

Spin, spin.

We have to pass a bill before we can tell the public what is in the bill. Really? That's a fine position to take. Give me a break. There is nothing, NOTHING, preventing Congress from making available all the details of the bill to the public before they start the process of passing the bill. Nothing.

Secondly, even Congress didn't know what was in the bill. The reports of Congressmen not reading the bill in it's entirety are legion.


Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), one of the chief authors of the healthcare law, suggested Tuesday he did not read the entire piece of legislation.


Third, the fact that they passed a bill without reading it bit them in the ass:


In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
 
Yeah, your response was 100% predictable. There's nothing wrong with Pelosi's statement. Basically what she said was that, once people (not Congress) really understand what's in HCR, they will like it. Well, it's been quite some time now and if someone hasn't taken the time to learn the first thing about HCR, I don't think it's Nancy Pelosi's fault.

Wasn't it her and Obama who stated they were going to be the most transparent govt? Thought they were going to post bills for the public to mull over before votes. You are right it is up to each of us to eductate ourselves on what Congress is doing. It sometimes is diffucult when items are pushed through and information is not provided to the public till after the fact.

I will take what Pelosi stated at face value. I don't think she new what all was in it, when she voted for it.
 
Spin, spin.

We have to pass a bill before we can tell the public what is in the bill. Really? That's a fine position to take. Give me a break. There is nothing, NOTHING, preventing Congress from making available all the details of the bill to the public before they start the process of passing the bill. Nothing.

Spin spin is exactly right. That's what Pelosi was driving at. Once all of the Republical spin and lies about death panels and health care for illegals and all of that bullsh*t blows over, people will start to see for themselves it was all nonsense and the bill is actually good for the country.
 
More government while citizens are unemployed. Wouldn't less government and lower unemployment be better? Am I just dreaming?
 
More government while citizens are unemployed. Wouldn't less government and lower unemployment be better? Am I just dreaming?

Yep, you are just dreaming. How do you get less government? You fire government workers. How does that impact unemployment? It doesn't help!

In fact that's a big part of the reason unemployment isn't improving more quickly. Private industry is adding over a hundred thousand jobs a month but state and local governments are cutting tens of thousands of jobs every month.
 
Actually, you cannot say something exists without proving it does. That is how this works.


Why should I read the entire thing when the congress, and especially demo's wouldn't take the time to do so before passing it....I am just following their lead in supplying rhetoric without substantiating anything I say....Just like Pelosi....."We will have to pass the health care bill, to find out what is in the health care bill." Or the esteemed Jon Conyers, "Read the bill!, you know I love these people that say read the bill, how are you supposed to read the bill when it is 2500 pages and you need two lawyers to tell you what the bill says?"

So, give me a break with this crap....If you read what I actually said, I said that I didn't know if lipo was in it, but wouldn't be surprised.....

Now, drop the fallacies and get back to debate please.

j-mac
 
Why should I read the entire thing when the congress, and especially demo's wouldn't take the time to do so before passing it....I am just following their lead in supplying rhetoric without substantiating anything I say....Just like Pelosi....."We will have to pass the health care bill, to find out what is in the health care bill." Or the esteemed Jon Conyers, "Read the bill!, you know I love these people that say read the bill, how are you supposed to read the bill when it is 2500 pages and you need two lawyers to tell you what the bill says?"

So, give me a break with this crap....If you read what I actually said, I said that I didn't know if lipo was in it, but wouldn't be surprised.....

Now, drop the fallacies and get back to debate please.

j-mac

Your misreading of Pelosi's comments have been noted before, so i won't go into that. But the fact remains, you cannot claim something is there without provign evidence that it is there. This is basic.

And the only person committing a fallacy here is you. Sorry j.
 
Back
Top Bottom