• 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!

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

j-mac said:
How many of those wonderful utopias have the population of the US?

NEXT!!!


J-mac
Click to expand...


Right, because we all know that economies of scale make things more expensive. :roll:

NEXT!!!
 
Keridan said:
So basically you are saying that doctors and health companies make too much money so our only options are socialism or facism? I don't think so.

See what I did there? I took your tactic of way oversimplifying a point so it sounds crazy, ignores points, and becomes easier to argue.
Click to expand...

Actually what you did is state the point rather succinctly. And you are mostly correct. Except that the best system is really one where the government sets the pay schedule for private providers, which isn't exactly socialism or fascism.

I could also say that you want to blame uninsured sick people in one breath and greedy corporations in the next. I could point out several ways and back them up why government is largely responsible for increased pricing, but you aren't interested in actual debate. You have shown that in your provocative replies. I could only expect snide responses and poorly veiled anger in response.
Click to expand...

Generally it's a better strategy to actually make your argument than it is to talk about the argument you *could* make.

I hope they strike it down, too. But there is a reason they gave up quickly on single-payer. I don't think you'd see that result as quickly as you hope. Also, even setting aside the points against socialized medicine, we aren't ready for an abrupt transition. If it were to pass, it would take at least a decade to move without destroying our current medical system.
Click to expand...

It would be a dramatic transition, but it's been done elsewhere. The best way to do it would be via a public option. Let the private insurers compete against national insurance and may the best man win.

The reason you didn't get an immediate response is that it's honestly hard to say. Seeing as how they are promised some 30 million new customers and about 25 million of those were voluntarily without insurance, they will probably do quite well for themselves. They will take a hit in the inability to evaluate risk and being forced to take on very sick people, but they will make that up in volume and overall cost of their product.
Click to expand...

That's right, and it's why there has to be a mandate to make the system work.

Likely they will make tons of money.
Click to expand...

What, are you a socialist or something? ;)
 
j-mac said:
How many of those wonderful utopias have the population of the US?

NEXT!!!


J-mac
Click to expand...

Well, once again no one sugested utopia, so someone decides to try and divert with a flippant strawman remark. Collor me shocked.

Anyway, explain why you think population makes a significant difference as to effect how well such a program would work here.

:coffeepap
 
Thunder said:
why should I pay for the defense of YOUR state? why I should my tax-dollars go to Federal funding of YOUR roads?
Click to expand...

Because...those federal dollars also defend YOUR state....and because YOU use those same roads?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm trying to say should is the wrong word. FACT: You are and will as long as we have to treat people who can't pay. Whine, stomp your feet, ask any questions you want. The fact will be that you will pay for someone else.
Click to expand...

And so, in response to that, you're going to use government force to require people to purchase a privately produce product?

Ever wonder how many people that are behind this thing have stocks in major insurance corporations?

Make no mistake, this is going to change LITTLE...the people who are footing the bill for healthcare NOW are STILL going to be footing the bill for health care after this bill...the only REAL change is that a select group of people are going to get very, extremely, ludacrously, filthy, stinking, stupid rich.
 
AdamT said:
Actually what you did is state the point rather succinctly. And you are mostly correct. Except that the best system is really one where the government sets the pay schedule for private providers, which isn't exactly socialism or fascism.
Click to expand...

Then even if I granted your premise, which I certainly don't, it's still a false dichotomy. It presents only two of many possible options.

I won't quibble over word choice, due to the fact that fascism and socialism are both terms that have varied definitions.

AdamT said:
Generally it's a better strategy to actually make your argument than it is to talk about the argument you *could* make.
Click to expand...

This is generally true. However, I was demonstrating why I was getting bored with this debate. My goal was not to convince.

AdamT said:
It would be a dramatic transition, but it's been done elsewhere. The best way to do it would be via a public option. Let the private insurers compete against national insurance and may the best man win.
Click to expand...

This is based on the assumption that it passes and pulls in part that never made it into the bill, so I'm not going to argue it. Everyone is welcome to their ideals.

AdamT said:
That's right, and it's why there has to be a mandate to make the system work.
Click to expand...

Yes, a mandate would be necessary to make this new law work. That doesn't make it the right law.

AdamT said:
What, are you a socialist or something? ;)
Click to expand...

Predicting a profit for companies when the free market is removed further instead of being introduced properly does not a socialist make.
 
Last edited:
I find it so odd that the very same people that decry and denounce the uber wealthy .01 percent in this country as being the foul beasts that keep the everyday man from being able to climb the social ladder, are to a PERSON lining up in defense of, and in support of this bill, and with just a tiny SHRED of common freaking since says this bill is going to create a few more of those .01 percenters, the fast easy way....and it AIN'T gonna be the common working man that gets the bump up.
 
KevinKohler said:
And so, in response to that, you're going to use government force to require people to purchase a privately produce product?

Ever wonder how many people that are behind this thing have stocks in major insurance corporations?

Make no mistake, this is going to change LITTLE...the people who are footing the bill for healthcare NOW are STILL going to be footing the bill for health care after this bill...the only REAL change is that a select group of people are going to get very, extremely, ludacrously, filthy, stinking, stupid rich.
Click to expand...

My first choice is UHC. However, it's not on the table. Second choice would have been the public option. Again, not on the table. You cannot have what people want in the bill without mandating people ahve insurance. We have more than a few disconnects here in this country. People want changes and servaces, but seem to think no method of paying for should be adopted.

While not perfect by any streach of the imagination, if removed, we will be where we've been for as long as I can remember, no where. No change. No movemnent toward real change. Simply stuck with a very, very poor system. A poor and expensive system that leaves too many with too little access.

Now, instead of trying to go back to no reform, I've tried to encourage efforts to keep working toward something more effective. If I believed this was someplace to stop, I'd be an idiot.

As for footing the bill, I'm not sure of exactly who you speak of. But I agree there is nothing we can where some are not paying more than others. Paying for care doesn't go away under any system.
 
I understand that sometimes there is a need to compromise...but I also know that there are few cases were compromise results in and entirely new direction, one that was unentended from the get go, and is wholly destructive for all those involved. It's kinda like not voting for a person simply because you think they have a better chance of "getting the other guy out of office". That kind of mindset quickly leads from the frying pan to the fire. This is one such case. Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance is going to hurt the majority of americans, and help a few get very very very very very very very rich. The people who are footing the bill now....patients who pay higher health care costs at the counter due to hospitals passing the cost of those who can't pay on to those who can....are the SAME people who will be paying the bill in terms of premiums and simple insurance costs. Don't you get it? This is not health care reform...it's not even health INSURANCE reform...all it is is a bill that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. Do you think that everyone out there can afford to buy it, unless the cost is drastically reduced? And what's going to reduce that cost? A grateful insurance company, due to all the new customers is has? Laughable. No, those costs are going to be passed on to the people that CAN afford to pay...same as it is now. What this bill wants me to do is trade my freedom of choice in order to have "official" coverage of people who can't afford it otherwise, and the result will be some filthy stinking rich people get made out of the deal.


I'll pass.
 
KevinKohler said:
I understand that sometimes there is a need to compromise...but I also know that there are few cases were compromise results in and entirely new direction, one that was unentended from the get go, and is wholly destructive for all those involved. It's kinda like not voting for a person simply because you think they have a better chance of "getting the other guy out of office". That kind of mindset quickly leads from the frying pan to the fire. This is one such case. Requiring everyone to purchase health insurance is going to hurt the majority of americans, and help a few get very very very very very very very rich. The people who are footing the bill now....patients who pay higher health care costs at the counter due to hospitals passing the cost of those who can't pay on to those who can....are the SAME people who will be paying the bill in terms of premiums and simple insurance costs. Don't you get it? This is not health care reform...it's not even health INSURANCE reform...all it is is a bill that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. Do you think that everyone out there can afford to buy it, unless the cost is drastically reduced? And what's going to reduce that cost? A grateful insurance company, due to all the new customers is has? Laughable. No, those costs are going to be passed on to the people that CAN afford to pay...same as it is now. What this bill wants me to do is trade my freedom of choice in order to have "official" coverage of people who can't afford it otherwise, and the result will be some filthy stinking rich people get made out of the deal.


I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Radical changes don't happen often. They often require some major stife and conflict. Absent radical change brought about by very painful conflict, the next best thing is compromise that works towards a direction, towards problem solving.

I'm not sure we can get much worse than we are today without reform. Without reform, insurance costs were and are rising. Without reform, business was and is dropping insurance. Without reform, access was and is less than in coutnries with UHC. And without reform, we have paid more and still do than nearly any other country, and for less access.

The pain that is needed for radical reform will be hard to come by, especially when we have distractions like PS or the silly celebreity of the month shinning brightly in front of us. We distract easily.
 
Boo Radley said:
Radical changes don't happen often. They often require some major stife and conflict. Absent radical change brought about by very painful conflict, the next best thing is compromise that works towards a direction, towards problem solving.

I'm not sure we can get much worse than we are today without reform. Without reform, insurance costs were and are rising. Without reform, business was and is dropping insurance. Without reform, access was and is less than in coutnries with UHC. And without reform, we have paid more and still do than nearly any other country, and for less access.

The pain that is needed for radical reform will be hard to come by, especially when we have distractions like PS or the silly celebreity of the month shinning brightly in front of us. We distract easily.
Click to expand...

Change for the sake of change is another one of those actions that leads quickly to the fire, from the pan. If this were about health insurance reform, I'd be on board 100%. If this were about health care reform, I'd be on board, but maybe at about 60-70%. But this is about neither of those things...this is about forcing people into becoming customers for a product. If you think of people as cattle, being herded by farmers (politicians), into specific gates and trucks (health insurance companies), then you will have an idea of how I feel about what this bill currently represents. I just can't trust it.

Why can't I purchase health insurance over state lines? Why is it more viable to force every single eating, breathing american to purchase health insurance, rather than to affect that one, simple change? I ask myself questions like this, and all I can come up with are some very negative conclusions.
 
KevinKohler said:
Change for the sake of change is another one of those actions that leads quickly to the fire, from the pan. If this were about health insurance reform, I'd be on board 100%. If this were about health care reform, I'd be on board, but maybe at about 60-70%. But this is about neither of those things...this is about forcing people into becoming customers for a product. If you think of people as cattle, being herded by farmers (politicians), into specific gates and trucks (health insurance companies), then you will have an idea of how I feel about what this bill currently represents. I just can't trust it.

Why can't I purchase health insurance over state lines? Why is it more viable to force every single eating, breathing american to purchase health insurance, rather than to affect that one, simple change? I ask myself questions like this, and all I can come up with are some very negative conclusions.
Click to expand...

It's a LOT more than change for change's sake. It's coverage for 30 million people who don't have it. It's the elimination of denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. It's the end of lifetime limits. It's more choice and better rates for self employed people. It's allowing young adults to keep their parents' coverage until they get on their feet. I understand that a lot of folks don't like the way we got here but I can't understand how anyone can argue that these aren't all good things. And not small things.
 
It's coverage for 30 million people who don't have it
Click to expand...
. Why should I be FORCED to purchase health insurance to grant this?
It's the elimination of denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.
Click to expand...
How does making purchasing health insurance mandatory in order to bring this about? Why can't we do this WITHOUT the mandate?
It's the end of lifetime limits.
Click to expand...
Again, why the mandate? How does making more customers for health insurance companies bring this about?
It's more choice and better rates for self employed people.
Click to expand...
Being able to purchase insurance over state lines would do a LOT more for this than forcing everyone to buy insurance.
It's allowing young adults to keep their parents' coverage until they get on their feet.
Click to expand...
Again, allowing for more competition in the market accomplishes this...I don't understand why we need this insurance purchase mandate to achieve this.
I understand that a lot of folks don't like the way we got here but I can't understand how anyone can argue that these aren't all good things. And not small things.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is why we need to force people to purchase the product in order to bring about changes in said product.

I don't HAVE to buy a toyota in order for toyota to issue a recall on faulty excelerators.
 
KevinKohler said:
. Why should I be FORCED to purchase health insurance to grant this?
How does making purchasing health insurance mandatory in order to bring this about? Why can't we do this WITHOUT the mandate? Again, why the mandate? How does making more customers for health insurance companies bring this about? Being able to purchase insurance over state lines would do a LOT more for this than forcing everyone to buy insurance. Again, allowing for more competition in the market accomplishes this...I don't understand why we need this insurance purchase mandate to achieve this.

What I don't understand is why we need to force people to purchase the product in order to bring about changes in said product.

I don't HAVE to buy a toyota in order for toyota to issue a recall on faulty excelerators.
Click to expand...

First, you aren't being forced to buy anything. You can choose to go without insurance if you think that's a smart thing to do ... and pay a penalty instead.

Why should you have to?

1. Because we live in a society where we band together to look after the less fortunate; and

2. Because if you make the stupid choice not to purchase health insurance then the rest of us will have to pay for your stupidity when you get sick.
 
KevinKohler said:
Change for the sake of change is another one of those actions that leads quickly to the fire, from the pan. If this were about health insurance reform, I'd be on board 100%. If this were about health care reform, I'd be on board, but maybe at about 60-70%. But this is about neither of those things...this is about forcing people into becoming customers for a product. If you think of people as cattle, being herded by farmers (politicians), into specific gates and trucks (health insurance companies), then you will have an idea of how I feel about what this bill currently represents. I just can't trust it.

Why can't I purchase health insurance over state lines? Why is it more viable to force every single eating, breathing american to purchase health insurance, rather than to affect that one, simple change? I ask myself questions like this, and all I can come up with are some very negative conclusions.
Click to expand...

I don't think taht is how I would define it. It is changed aimed at solving a specific problem. We have to pay for people without coverage who guess wrong or can't afford coverage. It's more expensive and less managable to pay for this care as we ahve been doing.

As for buying over state lines, well, because some states have different laws and provisions that would require either the policy you buy from another state to meet, which would raise their costs, or for the state to agree to not impose those requlations, which isn't likely to happen. Much of what comes from the conservative side, be it this or tort reform, are things that really wouldn't be noticed if passed. So the answer to your question, is your one simple change would do nothing of consequence.
 
AdamT said:
First, you aren't being forced to buy anything. You can choose to go without insurance if you think that's a smart thing to do ... and pay a penalty instead.

Why should you have to?

1. Because we live in a society where we band together to look after the less fortunate; and

2. Because if you make the stupid choice not to purchase health insurance then the rest of us will have to pay for your stupidity when you get sick.
Click to expand...

And now address all of my other issues.

Look, it just seems to me that this bill does very little, but takes a LOT to do it. I still don't buy it. All I see is an industry that is about to be filled with customers who are forced into BEING customers by the law. If health insurance costs me....1,200 a year....and the fee for not HAVING health insurance is close to the same....then that is enforcing it via law. You can call it a fee, a subsidy, whatever you want. Doesn't change what it is.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think taht is how I would define it. It is changed aimed at solving a specific problem. We have to pay for people without coverage who guess wrong or can't afford coverage. It's more expensive and less managable to pay for this care as we ahve been doing.

As for buying over state lines, well, because some states have different laws and provisions that would require either the policy you buy from another state to meet, which would raise their costs, or for the state to agree to not impose those requlations, which isn't likely to happen. Much of what comes from the conservative side, be it this or tort reform, are things that really wouldn't be noticed if passed. So the answer to your question, is your one simple change would do nothing of consequence.
Click to expand...

I have to politely disagree. There are a ton of things you can purchase over state lines, and laws don't impede doing so. I simply don't see how health insurance will be THAT different.

And again, I don't see how it's going to cost anymore or any less, before or after this bill. The cost will remain fixed, it's just going to get spread around...IE, socialized. And half assed socialism rarely works. Either go all the way, or go home.
 
AdamT said:
It's a LOT more than change for change's sake. It's coverage for 30 million people who don't have it. It's the elimination of denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. It's the end of lifetime limits. It's more choice and better rates for self employed people. It's allowing young adults to keep their parents' coverage until they get on their feet. I understand that a lot of folks don't like the way we got here but I can't understand how anyone can argue that these aren't all good things. And not small things.
Click to expand...

It's the end of personal freedom. It is the beginning of socialism. It is the head of the government telling you that they can take better decisions about your care than you.
 
KevinKohler said:
And now address all of my other issues.

Look, it just seems to me that this bill does very little, but takes a LOT to do it. I still don't buy it. All I see is an industry that is about to be filled with customers who are forced into BEING customers by the law. If health insurance costs me....1,200 a year....and the fee for not HAVING health insurance is close to the same....then that is enforcing it via law. You can call it a fee, a subsidy, whatever you want. Doesn't change what it is.
Click to expand...

I don't know what universe you're living in, but the average cost of a family health insurance premium in America is over $13,000 a year. You can elect not to have health insurance and it will cost you about $650/yr. to defray the expense that you will actually impose on the rest of us who are responsible enough to provide for our own health care needs.

The bottom line is that people who can afford health insurance but who refuse to buy it raise everyone else's health care costs. When adults act like children I have no problem treating them like children.
 
Blue_State said:
When our government acts like a dictatorship, I have no problem treating/calling it a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Well, you do that. But when a candidate campaigns on health care reform, and then wins and proposes a health care reform bill, and it passes by a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate, that is democracy -- not dictatorship.
 
disneydude said:
No unlike you, I don't bitch and moan about paying taxes. I consider the ability to pay back into a country that has given me the opportunities that it has a privilege and part of the costs of living in this great country. I don't buy into the me me me mentality that believes that I should be able to keep everything to myself, because I recognize that without the benefits that this country has provided me, I wouldn't have what I do.
Click to expand...


Ok, so without giving away who you are, or what the truth of your income v. tax rate is, tell us a general figure of what you pay in taxes.

j-mac
 
AdamT said:
Well, you do that. But when a candidate campaigns on health care reform, and then wins and proposes a health care reform bill, and it passes by a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate, that is democracy -- not dictatorship.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, real democracy....Super majorities in house and senate, people screaming no while they pass it anyway in the middle of the night, and the leader of the house proclaiming that we have to pass it to find out what is in it......Yeah, that is real democracy......pfft.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so without giving away who you are, or what the truth of your income v. tax rate is, tell us a general figure of what you pay in taxes.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I know my immediate family makes $250+ a year, but not much more, however they live pretty comfortably and do support a small tax raise if necessary. I am not at that level yet, but I hope to be within 20 years.

j-mac said:
Oh yeah, real democracy....Super majorities in house and senate, people screaming no while they pass it anyway in the middle of the night, and the leader of the house proclaiming that we have to pass it to find out what is in it......Yeah, that is real democracy......pfft.




j-mac
Click to expand...

I agree, it is ridiculous that they had to have a supermajority just to pass a bill! This is supposed to be a democracy, and the filibuster has made the democratic process almost useless. (though I know you were saying the opposite and hinting that somehow even having a supermajority is not enough of a reason to pass something they've promised to pass)
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Oh yeah, real democracy....Super majorities in house and senate, people screaming no while they pass it anyway in the middle of the night, and the leader of the house proclaiming that we have to pass it to find out what is in it......Yeah, that is real democracy......pfft.


j-mac
Click to expand...

It passed by a majority in the House and super majority in the Senate after months and months of back and forth. If anyone didn't know what was in it they were simply too lazy to read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom