• 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!

House Bill Defunds Health Care

aberrant85 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1379520833-M0U+hZzlocDrMbeP5FlRag

House Bill Cuts Health Funds, Raising Odds of U.S. Shutdown

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: September 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks.

So what's going on here? Another defeat Obamacare vote? And will this shut down the government like in the 90's? If so, will it come back to bite the Republicans in the a**?

Why the urgency to defeat this "train wreck"? If that's what this is, why not let it fail and bring down its Democratic authors? Republicans have shown they can play politics with the welfare of the American people by threatening the full faith and credit of the country, so why not let the law destroy itself, then sweep in and take the credit for predicting it?

My question is, do Republicans fear that ACA will not be the disaster they predict, or even worse, a success, and are trying to sabotage it before they look bad for opposing it? Or is this just a stunt to appease their radical right wing? "Obamacare delenda est"?
Click to expand...

Its a wedge issue. Same as anything the democrats do. Too bad only some of recognize that BOTH parties are the problem, not one or the other.
 
aberrant85 said:
Anarchy?

I'm curious: who remembers the last government shutdown? I was too busy playing with LEGO to care. Was it awful, or was it no big deal? And with the economy today, would it be worse now?
Click to expand...

Twas' much ado about nothing. The National Parks were closed and departments did not process new applicants for government services outside of that not much.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
people with Pr-existing conditions were being denied coverage, Under the affordable care act insurance company's can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that insurance companies should not be able to refuse to pay for treatment ever, preexisting conditions or not. This certainly could have been handled in another way though.

An important fact to remember is that a lot of employers are going to dump their insurance for their employees because it will probably be cheaper for a lot of them to take the tax penalty instead of pay for insurance for all of their employees. Also, a lot of people will probably do the same, if they are young and healthy.

For example, here in MA we have had these types of laws in effect for a long time. I figured out that I pay approximately 1500 a year for my health insurance coverage. If I dumped my health insurance covered and had to pay the tax penalty, it would be approximately a $600 penalty (I know this because I mistakenly did not renew my insurance one year and had to pay).
 
Anthony60 said:
Hey, guess what? It's Friday night, with Saturday and Sunday coming up. The government has shut down! Oh, no! What are we going to do?
Click to expand...
Beer:30 :thumbs:
 
EdwinWillers said:
What makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do this? What?

Or if this is easier, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________? Insert 1) pre-existing conditions. 2) Affordablility. 3) Guarantee of life-saving treatment. 4) Whatever...
Click to expand...

a insurance company can deny coverage to someone just because they have had a history of cancer, and there is no obligation on the part of the government to prevent someone from dieing.

Health care is something that many people rely on if they get sick, and people should not have to lose everything financially because a insurance company refused to pay for life saving treatment. the government has a moral obligation to care for the lives of its citizens.

Or are the lives of citizens expendable?
 
The Man said:
Not anarchy, shut down the Federal government. With state and local governments, we don't need a federal government. We could function just fine without it.
Click to expand...

The limited powers listed in the Constitution would be next to nothing by the standards of our day.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
a insurance company can deny coverage to someone just because they have had a history of cancer, and there is no obligation on the part of the government to prevent someone from dieing.
Click to expand...
I'm asking this in all seriousness - seriously... you're kidding, right?
 
I did not realize The Boner admired Don Quixote so much to go tilting at modern windmills in this fashion.


Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."
"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.
"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."
"Take care, sir," cried Sancho. "Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the millstone."
—Part 1, Chapter VIII.
Click to expand...

So who will play Sancho Panza to The Boner?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
a insurance company can deny coverage to someone just because they have had a history of cancer, and there is no obligation on the part of the government to prevent someone from dieing.

Health care is something that many people rely on if they get sick, and people should not have to lose everything financially because a insurance company refused to pay for life saving treatment. the government has a moral obligation to care for the lives of its citizens.

Or are the lives of citizens expendable?
Click to expand...

The government has no "moral" obligation. It's purpose is to govern. It was not created to be an emotional entity...
 
ChrisL said:
I completely agree that insurance companies should not be able to refuse to pay for treatment ever, preexisting conditions or not. This certainly could have been handled in another way though.

An important fact to remember is that a lot of employers are going to dump their insurance for their employees because it will probably be cheaper for a lot of them to take the tax penalty instead of pay for insurance for all of their employees. Also, a lot of people will probably do the same, if they are young and healthy.

For example, here in MA we have had these types of laws in effect for a long time. I figured out that I pay approximately 1500 a year for my health insurance coverage. If I dumped my health insurance covered and had to pay the tax penalty, it would be approximately a $600 penalty (I know this because I mistakenly did not renew my insurance one year and had to pay).
Click to expand...

it truely sickens me when the well being of a human being is worth less then profit.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and being denied medical insurance simply for having a preexisting condition, something that is up to the insurance company to define, is what exactly? a sign of flawless freemarket principles?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. State laws already had this covered as each state saw fit.

Preexisting conditions were covered after a wait period.

If your support for the disaster called Obamacare was based on that, you bought into a BS line brought to you by a bunch of liars and misrepresenter's.
 
AngryOldGuy said:
Nothing changed except the the fact that the Republicans won and we got a cut in the rate of growth of government, this time the stakes are so much higher and it is a foregone conclusion that we will fail to defund Osamacare so it is all pointlessness in the extreme
Click to expand...

The only reason that the Republicans have been increasing the debt ceiling is due the leadership was pushing on doing so. Now the Republicans in the House are demanding that they do a showdown and the Republican leaders are relenting.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
The government has no "moral" obligation. It's purpose is to govern. It was not created to be an emotional entity...
Click to expand...

so if it has no moral obligation, why does the government have to provide law enforcement or punish crime. after all it is apparently not their obligation to enforce what is right or wrong.
 
Even Warren Buffett says to dump Obamacare. It's a POS.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
it truely sickens me when the well being of a human being is worth less then profit.
Click to expand...

Human life is worth even less if there is no profit in it. Look how the communists treated their people.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so if it has no moral obligation, why does the government have to provide law enforcement or punish crime. after all it is apparently not their obligation to enforce what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

This is what you're not getting. Government doesn't have to provide law enforcement. It's tax payers desire that to be a necessary function for society as a whole, not on an individual basis forced as a duty of a private entity...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
so if it has no moral obligation, why does the government have to provide law enforcement or punish crime. after all it is apparently not their obligation to enforce what is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

of coarse it is...and here it is.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom