• 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!

Obama Address the Nation on the government shutdown.

Mithros said:
Um.... The debt limit is effectively a limit on the number of TBills the Treasury can sell to investors.

Here's how the government works. Congress dictates how much the government will spend and what it will spend it on. Then Treasury pays the bills. If Treasury doesn't have enough money from taxes, they raise money by things like selling TBills. We can do this very cheaply because the US government is considered to be one safest investments in the world.

However, the treasury isn't allowed to raise the money to pay for what congress has already approved, then the US will no longer be a safe place to invest. It will become expensive to finance our debt and our economy will crash.

I know you don't wish the US harm, but defaulting on the debt will destroy the US more than any terrorist attack ever could.
Click to expand...

Well now, if the Treasury "pays the bills" how come the bill keeps getting larger? (I know the answer as most people do.)

The reason the "bill" keeps getting larger is not because the debt limit isn't high enough. The reason the "bill" keeps getting higher is not because the Treasury is not selling enough T-Bills.

It's spending to much money on things like Obamacare.
 
Conservative said:
you use the term millions because that is what you are being told. You don't need the ACA to get that small percentage insured but what you are ignoring are the actual millions who are eligible for insurance but CHOOSE not to participate and the millions eligible for Medicaid that don't sign up for Medicaid thus are called uninsured. You see, personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world.
Click to expand...

So your answer is no, I didn't know that people are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions? You need to do some reading.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, so now you change what you are saying....Before, you were trying to say that Obama and demo's merely took the Heritage plan, and implemented it in a bill, now, you want to say that they took the concept...Ok, I guess that is politics today, and why people mostly either tune out, or don't understand much outside the talking points.

Although I will give it to demo's that they found an internal plan that was never forwarded out of Heritage that some points dove tail with the current mess that demo's jammed through in the dead of night, but it is NOT honest to imply that republicans have ANYTHING to do with this law simply because you can point to a concept that was never even put out there as any kind of legislation to debate.
Click to expand...
LOL.....yes it was a super-secret Heritage plan that was never talked about.....except by Gingrich...or implemented by Romney......sshhhh...don't tell anyone.

The denial is funny.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm not sure which is dumber, trying to pin this argument to someone.....or taking the position of endorsing it.
Click to expand...

Libbos don't believe in personal responsibility and now you all are arguing for government enforced personal responsibility.

What's dumb is supporting the Liberal agenda.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Your argument is that if you had employer based insurance, it has been ended as of October 1st, 2013?
Click to expand...

That is up to your employer to a certain extent. A couple of things here...

1. The ACA mandates what must be covered in the plans already in force out there, so although employers may not all just drop them on their own, the things that may have been negotiated in terms of keeping premiums low for their employees may disappear, and premiums will skyrocket causing people to choose whether or not they can afford the adjusted employer based plan, or the costly higher deductible government plan. Either way, it is a lose, lose for the middle class worker.

2. Some pretty big employers are indeed dropping their HC insurance plans, and or, at the same time reducing hours to meet the 30 hour work week requirement under the ACA to avoid the penalty for dropping them, thus shifting the burden of insuring these people from the employer, to the tax payer.

Now, it is no secret that liberals have a certain disdain for profit, and business in general terms, but this is highly cynical. It would seem on the surface that the latter part of my points helps business, but in fact it hurts them in the long run...Think of it this way, if a business makes everyone part time to avoid the current penalties involved with the law today, then has to go out and hire say 25% more people part time to cover production at current levels, (which due to current administration meddling with the BLS accounting as to what qualifies as a job) makes the administration look like hero's right? Now consider, the end goal of this turd of a law, is to get to a single payer system ultimately, at that point, you have people in the middle, and lower classes here screwed. Their downward adjusted hours means less pay, and their taxes go through the roof to cover the costs, and that includes business as well. It is a cynical, and devious plan to be sure.
 
iguanaman said:
You are acting like you don't know that millions are denied health care coverage for a multitude of reasons under the OLD system? Have you ever heard of pre-existing conditions? Of lifetime caps on coverage?
Click to expand...

Pre-existing conditions didn't prevent people from getting insurance, it might have delayed it but not prevent it. Obamacare does pretty much the same thing with its enrollment procedures.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You don't have to buy insurance....you can continue to be irresponsible.

You are making a stance for the "right" to be irresponsible.....that is fine with me.
Click to expand...

This is your attempt to be dishonest here....I didn't say that, and I explained what I am saying, so you can stop with this attempt right now.

Now, answer the question I asked you.
 
Conservative said:
you use the term millions because that is what you are being told. You don't need the ACA to get that small percentage insured but what you are ignoring are the actual millions who are eligible for insurance but CHOOSE not to participate and the millions eligible for Medicaid that don't sign up for Medicaid thus are called uninsured. You see, personal responsibility doesn't exist in your world.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of nonsensical gibberish, a complete meltdown of a post.
 
iguanaman said:
So your answer is no, I didn't know that people are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions? You need to do some reading.
Click to expand...

And your answer is we need ACA because Obama and liberals say so. "I don't have specific knowledge of the numbers of people being denied coverage but I believe everything Obama and the liberal elite tells me" You actually think we need ACA because people are being denied insurance because of pre existing conditions? Wow!
 
Conservative said:
And your answer is we need ACA because Obama and liberals say so. "I don't have specific knowledge of the numbers of people being denied coverage but I believe everything Obama and the liberal elite tells me" You actually think we need ACA because people are being denied insurance because of pre existing conditions? Wow!
Click to expand...
Amazing, isn't i? Some people actually believe this is a health"care" law.
 
j-mac said:
That is up to your employer to a certain extent.
Click to expand...
In other words, the Grassley provision is the opposite of what the PPACA mandates to private employer insurance coverage.

Or.....were you not following along with the context of that discussion?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL.....yes it was a super-secret Heritage plan that was never talked about.....except by Gingrich...or implemented by Romney......sshhhh...don't tell anyone.

The denial is funny.
Click to expand...

This is more dishonesty. I never said that Heritage's plan was "super secret" or anything of the kind....or that "it was never talked about".... That is your characterization. What was talked about by Gingrich in the '80s, or implemented in a state by its Governor are not what is going on here.

During the 80's under Gingrich, the "Catastrophic Care act" was passed in 88, and literally repealed one year later....The people didn't want this crap then, and they don't want it today. As for Romney, and Mass. That is where this should be, not in the federal government.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
In other words, the Grassley provision is the opposite of what the PPACA mandates to private employer insurance coverage.

Or.....were you not following along with the context of that discussion?
Click to expand...

ON that part of the discussion I wasn't following along, bring me up to speed with how you think the Grassley Provision mandates/or doesn't mandate private employer coverage...
 
j-mac said:
This is more dishonesty. I never said that Heritage's plan was "super secret" or anything of the kind....or that "it was never talked about".... That is your characterization. What was talked about by Gingrich in the '80s, or implemented in a state by its Governor are not what is going on here.

During the 80's under Gingrich, the "Catastrophic Care act" was passed in 88, and literally repealed one year later....The people didn't want this crap then, and they don't want it today. As for Romney, and Mass. That is where this should be, not in the federal government.
Click to expand...
No dear, not "1988"....


Over at Mother Jones, David Corn discovers that like the Newt Gingrich of three years ago, the former speaker’s for-profit think tank, the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), also promotes the individual health insurance mandate:

Gingrich first backed the concept in 1993, “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he said on Meet the Press. He supported the idea in 2007 — writing in a Des Moines Register op-ed, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance” — and again in 2008: “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond).”
Romney himself pointed this out in a debate, saying, “Actually Newt, we got the idea of the individual mandate from you…and the Heritage Foundation.” “I absolutely did work with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare,” Gingrich conceded.
CHT also works with business groups that may benefit from the mandate. As Lee Fang has reported, CHT serves approximately 94 health industry corporations and lobby groups, including health insurance (BlueCross BlueShield Association, WellPoint, AHIP, UnitedHealth), health IT (L-3 Enterprise, Microsoft, IBM), and pharmaceutical companies — with each paying up to $200,000 annually.

Newt Gingrich And The Individual Mandate | ThinkProgress
 
Many are. It's up to them or should be.
 
Conservative said:
My argument is that ACA is going to do to private insurance what UPS has already don't to the spouses of their employees.
Click to expand...
So you still are not going to explain this bit of nonsense?

UPS?

"already don't to"???
 
Republicans have offered an alternative, the left doesn't want it because it doesn't grow government. The Republican's position is to carry on the government but the left won't accept it without its beloved take over of private health care systems.


iguanaman said:
And the Republican position is to deny millions coverage so they can gloat about how much better they are than "them".
Click to expand...
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You don't have to buy insurance....you can continue to be irresponsible.

You are making a stance for the "right" to be irresponsible.....that is fine with me.
Click to expand...

ItAin'tFree said:
That's not necessarily being "irresponsible". At all.
Click to expand...
Gimmesometruth said:
Living without health insurance...is not irresponsible.

Parents are very comfortable with that concept.
Click to expand...
ItAin'tFree said:
Many are. It's up to them or should be.
Click to expand...
It should be a right to be irresponsible.

Wow......that is an interesting concept.....so many levels of denial.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No dear, not "1988"....


Over at Mother Jones, David Corn discovers that like the Newt Gingrich of three years ago, the former speaker’s for-profit think tank, the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), also promotes the individual health insurance mandate:

Gingrich first backed the concept in 1993, “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he said on Meet the Press. He supported the idea in 2007 — writing in a Des Moines Register op-ed, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance” — and again in 2008: “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond).”
Romney himself pointed this out in a debate, saying, “Actually Newt, we got the idea of the individual mandate from you…and the Heritage Foundation.” “I absolutely did work with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare,” Gingrich conceded.
CHT also works with business groups that may benefit from the mandate. As Lee Fang has reported, CHT serves approximately 94 health industry corporations and lobby groups, including health insurance (BlueCross BlueShield Association, WellPoint, AHIP, UnitedHealth), health IT (L-3 Enterprise, Microsoft, IBM), and pharmaceutical companies — with each paying up to $200,000 annually.

Newt Gingrich And The Individual Mandate | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

LOL. I have made mistakes in my life, like everyone. Nowadays I can't believe that back in the 80's I actually did vote for a couple of democrats. That was a bad idea on my part. But I won't repeat that bad idea ever again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No dear, not "1988"....


Over at Mother Jones, David Corn discovers that like the Newt Gingrich of three years ago, the former speaker’s for-profit think tank, the Center for Health Transformation (CHT), also promotes the individual health insurance mandate:

Gingrich first backed the concept in 1993, “I am for people, individuals — exactly like automobile insurance — individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance,” he said on Meet the Press. He supported the idea in 2007 — writing in a Des Moines Register op-ed, “Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance” — and again in 2008: “Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond).”
Romney himself pointed this out in a debate, saying, “Actually Newt, we got the idea of the individual mandate from you…and the Heritage Foundation.” “I absolutely did work with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare,” Gingrich conceded.
CHT also works with business groups that may benefit from the mandate. As Lee Fang has reported, CHT serves approximately 94 health industry corporations and lobby groups, including health insurance (BlueCross BlueShield Association, WellPoint, AHIP, UnitedHealth), health IT (L-3 Enterprise, Microsoft, IBM), and pharmaceutical companies — with each paying up to $200,000 annually.

Newt Gingrich And The Individual Mandate | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

Jesus you progressives are a totalitarian bunch aren't you?.....:doh
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It should be a right to be irresponsible.

Wow......that is an interesting concept.....so many levels of denial.
Click to expand...

"It should be a right to be irresponsible". Well, those are your words.

The facts won't back it up.
 
j-mac said:
Jesus you progressives are a totalitarian bunch aren't you?.....:doh
Click to expand...
Yes yes..mandates on individual financial responsibility (car insurance, health insurance).....is totalitarian.

What hippie response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom