• 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 majority votes in favor Health Care Bill

Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

CaptainCourtesy said:
No. If they were not responsible enough to either get health care or save money for their health costs, I have no faith in their ability to pay back the government. There will be a host of "reneging" on this agreement, and then guess who'll be fitting the bill? You and I, John Q. Taxpayer. No, if they do not want health care, then they need to be responsible to save for illness. This is no nanny state.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take, CC...the "take responsibility for yourself" angle. I'm reminded of a thread in this forum where the ramifications of "welfare states", i.e., social services programs and how poor (or arguably lazy people) get stuck on the system, never really taking responsibilty for their own welfare. Seems to me that health care could be viewed in a similar manner as clearly there will be some who won't get health care even if they could afford it simply because they don't want the government telling them what to do. And yet, they have no problem with their respective state government enacting laws that do the same thing.

I know, I know...health insurance and auto insurance...two different animals. But we'd be forced to following similar standards: get insurance or be subject to a fine or jail time; and if you have an accident, not only are you responsible for paying any out of pocket expenses associated with the repairs to your own property as well as all medical costs, but that of the victim to the accident. Granted, where health insurance is concerned, the only victim is you, but the concept is the same: get insured or face consequences.

Here's the crazy thing about this issue as I see it: most people already have health insurance. So, why worry about having to pay a fine for something that doesn't affect you? And even if you lost your job, you could always get insurance through the government. So, when you think about this rationally, the only people who'd have to worry about this fine business are those who just outright refuse to get insurance just because the government said they have to.

I understand fully it's the principle of the matter, but seriously how many of you who post here regularly really don't have health insurance now and will not get it just because (a Democraticly held) Congress says you must?
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

tjinta ibis said:
Now the Democrats need to try and remove those Dems who voted no by withdrawing funds for them from party coffers and running more progressive people against them.
Click to expand...

You mean you'd rather the feds took care of you than have to be troubled by taking responsibility for yourself.. ? Or is it that freedom is just a little too much responsibility for ya?

...never mind that answer is as obvious as your disdain for freedom and liberty!

maybe SOME people are TOO stupid..
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

ConservaBill said:
You mean you'd rather the feds took care of you than have to be troubled by taking responsibility for yourself.. ? Or is it that freedom is just a little too much responsibility for ya?

...never mind that answer is as obvious as your disdain for freedom and liberty!

maybe SOME people are TOO stupid..
Click to expand...

You are aware that having a public option is not the same as socialized medicine, right? Or have you bought that talking point as well?

You are also aware, are you not, that a majority of Doctors support the public option as well.

My guess is you probably aren't.
 
DD, can you provide any links or proof that "the majority of doctors support the public option?"

Because baseless liberal rhetoric is worthless without substantiating proof.
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

tjinta ibis said:
Honoring their oaths to refuse health care for those who can't get it?
Click to expand...
Everyone can get health care.
All they need is the $ to pay for it.
Making sure they have health care absent that $?
That's not the government's job.
 
Last edited:
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

disneydude said:
You are aware that having a public option is not the same as socialized medicine, right? Or have you bought that talking point as well?
Click to expand...
That is incorrect, the bill is structured in a way that would erode private insurance rolls, because any changes to contract would force people to take the government "option", also, the tax implications for not having government approved plans that have prison time attached for said lack of health coverage. It's not an "option" it's pretty much mandatory, that is socialized healthcare, no matter what your current democrat hands you in the way of talking points. The facts are against your claims.

You are also aware, are you not, that a majority of Doctors support the public option as well.
Click to expand...
That is complete bull****. But again, whenever you tow the party line, you risk taking a false position.
Doctors group challenges AMA Obamacare endorsementObama's Doctor Knocks ObamaCare - Forbes.comDoctors Versus The AMA - Forbes.comNew IBD Poll Disputes Media Claims Most Doctors Back ObamaCare | NewsBusters.orgDoctors Protest Obama's Plan for Health Care Reform|ABC 7 News
 
Happy post health care bill Monday, Comrades!
 
The Senate is kicking the POS out of the ballpark.
 
Last edited:
Helte/2Skelter said:
He may not, but I will. When an industry is nationalized in a capitalist political economy, who owns the means of production?
Click to expand...

As you know, it's not about ownership, it's about control. If one controls the means of production, ownership is inherent.
 
kaya'08 said:
My intent isnt to sway your opinion. Im simply adding to this argument things from a first hand account - something many Americans probably including yourself, lack. I like to address your hard questions, but as ive said, im not here to start an argument, im here to share with you my personal first hand knowledge and information. So here you have it. Enjoy. :)
Click to expand...

I understand and appreciate the discourse discussion. While we may not agree, we can still have an intelligent discussion to put forth our views. Thanks for the background and the clarifications!
 
American said:
The Senate is kicking the POS out of the ballpark.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think Nancy is setting up Harry to take the fall for this. She wants the the glory of "I did my part!"

They don't give a crap about any of this. They're just playing Russian roulette with our money, our health, and our future.
 
Erod said:
Yep, I think Nancy is setting up Harry to take the fall for this. She wants the the glory of "I did my part!"

They don't give a crap about any of this. They're just playing Russian roulette with our money, our health, and our future.[/
Click to expand...

Couldn't have put it any better myself.
 
nebraska's stiff necked ben nelson on why he will filibuster reid PREVENTING EVEN DEBATE TO BEGIN:

"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on."

(so could i)

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/subw...on-abortion-amendment-health/story?id=9045075

(these guys, stiff neck ben and jiltin joe, mean what they say, unlike progressives who posture to "improve" their piece, fully intending to support whatever monstrosity emerges)

(when a leftie declares she will kill leadership's bill, know that she is merely leveraging, bluffing; when a mod/con careens cannon shots, know such assertions are serious; ask pelosi and stupak)

what part of 40 + 2 don't you understand?

evan bayh (indiana) is next
 
also, start paying attention to the sources for these stories---abc, the ny times, the post, the hill...

that is, this aint fox and breitbart talkin
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

294-smile-wave-thumbs-up.gif


tjinta ibis said:
Now the Democrats need to try and remove those Dems who voted no by withdrawing funds for them from party coffers and running more progressive people against them.
Click to expand...
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

American said:
I think the Democratic and Communist Parties should merge.
Click to expand...

Haven't they? Can you point out any actual points where their platforms differ?:devil:
 
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911120022

Right-wing websites including the Fox Nation have highlighted a question asked of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a November 9 press conference in Seattle by a local reporter who said, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?"

In fact, the penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
 
Last edited:
Whip Comes Down said:
Right-wing blogs run with reporter's false question on jail time under health bill | Media Matters for America

Right-wing websites including the Fox Nation have highlighted a question asked of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a November 9 press conference in Seattle by a local reporter who said, "Do you think it's fair to send people to jail for not buying health insurance?"

In fact, the penalty under the House health care reform bill for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, not jail time.
Click to expand...
First off, you are complaining about a partisan source by using a leftwing partisan source, so, your hypocracy aside.....the language is IN THE BILL to include fines and/or jail time, to be enforced possibly by the I.R.S. under U.S. tax code for failing to maintain government accepted insurance coverage, in addition, Pelosi was interviewed about it and they have her in her own words defending the jail provision.
 
LaMidRighter said:
First off, you are complaining about a partisan source
Click to expand...
I'm complaining that source lied, bro.

...the language is IN THE BILL to include fines and/or jail time, to be enforced possibly by the I.R.S. under U.S. tax code for failing to maintain government accepted insurance coverage
Click to expand...
Show us the language, bro.

Pelosi was interviewed about it and they have her in her own words defending the jail provision.
Click to expand...
There is no provision in the bill that imposes jail time on a person who fails to obtain health insurance. The penalty provided for in the bill is a tax.
 
Whip Comes Down said:
I'm complaining that source lied, bro.

Show us the language, bro.

There is no provision in the bill that imposes jail time on a person who fails to obtain health insurance. The penalty provided for in the bill is a tax.
Click to expand...

You REALLY need to read the whole thread before posting. The penalty for not paying that tax is up to $250,000 and up to 5 years in jail.

This bill amends many existing laws including the tax codes.
 
1 Easy Target said:
The penalty for not paying that tax is up to $250,000 and up to 5 years in jail.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's the penalty for a person who "willfully" fails to pay the tax.

Your assignment is find out what the term "willful failure" means, how hard it is to prove and how uncommon it is for a person to be prosecuted for it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom