• 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!

Nelson says he'll support healthcare bill

Subsidies for the poor to help with insurance,
So higher taxes to fund another handout.
not allowing pre-existing condition exceptions(which I think is a significant gain),
So we all get taxed more, and all of our insurances go up to cover the increased risk in the pool, whereas some companies may have covered the p.e.c.s without any government interference, great.
a clearinghouse for easing getting insurance from a nonprofit insurance company among other things.
So we shrink the consumer pool to private companies, further straining the risk/premium pool and allow unfair publicly funded competition, this is called a monopoly in the private sector.
I am far from an expert on the topic, and am ambivalent about the bills so far. I think some things being done are good, some are not so good, and some things not done should be(some tort reform for example).
In their own words:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk"]YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]

Sorry for the double post, the url was misbehaving.
 
So they can't just add UHC later when they feel the public has accepted the fallout from this? Is that what you want to go on record as saying? Also, what specifically will this bill reform? Second request.
Redress is so drunk on UHCoolaid that he/she/it can't imagine conniving Democrats proposing that later. Redress is liberal, so he/she/it is blind to socialism.
 
So higher taxes to fund another handout. So we all get taxed more, and all of our insurances go up to cover the increased risk in the pool, whereas some companies may have covered the p.e.c.s without any government interference, great. So we shrink the consumer pool to private companies, further straining the risk/premium pool and allow unfair publicly funded competition, this is called a monopoly in the private sector. In their own words:

YouTube- SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

Sorry for the double post, the url was misbehaving.
You obviously doctored these videos or had Fox do it. :mrgreen:
 
This answer depends on what version of the bill you are talking about. Subsidies for the poor to help with insurance, not allowing pre-existing condition exceptions(which I think is a significant gain), a clearinghouse for easing getting insurance from a nonprofit insurance company among other things. I am far from an expert on the topic, and am ambivalent about the bills so far. I think some things being done are good, some are not so good, and some things not done should be(some tort reform for example).
The first true statement from you I've heard. Where is redress and what have you done with him/her/it?
 
Redress is so drunk on UHCoolaid that he/she/it can't imagine conniving Democrats proposing that later. Redress is liberal, so he/she/it is blind to socialism.

Bull****. You do not even know my position on UHC, but at least I have one that I can articulate beyond one line. Get back to me when you actually have something to add with content.
 
Bull****. You do not even know my position on UHC, but at least I have one that I can articulate beyond one line. Get back to me when you actually have something to add with content.

Tell us so that there can be no mistaking, misquoting, or incorrect assessments of what you think.
 
I always assume you are wrong, so don't pay much attention. What do you want my opinion on specifically? Speak up or let it go.
Hehehehehehehehe :lol:
 
congratulations, president obama

you own it, it better work

you force individuals to go out and buy insurance for themselves in the name of universal coverage

10 years of taxes vs 6 years of benefits

half a T cuts to medicare and medicaid, all while hugely expanding the latter, the ghetto of health care, while dumping 200B of burden on the already bankrupt states

half a T in cuts to m and m for which you are politically responsible, which aint never gonna happen nohow, exploding our already drastic debt and precipitating fiscal collapse

a quarter tril DOC FIX, also off budget, also catastrophic deficit-wise

the process, secretive, closed, fractious, hyper partisan, the bribes---a big part of why polls on the issue are so putrid, in the LOW thirties

if ANYTHING goes wrong---premiums, costs, deficits, care---you'll be unanimously blamed cuzza the comprehensive intrusiveness of this legislation and the ramrod partisan tactics impelling its passage

the class act---the young and healthy are scheduled to pay almost as much as the older and ill, with unsustainably upside-down consequences

the entire senior class, politically, is mortified---i've never seen anthing like it

seniors run this country---they have all the money, they vote, they know what's going on

especially in off-years, seniors dominate

and just wait til the youth vote learns what's in store for them in this bill

once more, mr president, congrats

and good luck
 
Last edited:
Bull****. You do not even know my position on UHC, but at least I have one that I can articulate beyond one line. Get back to me when you actually have something to add with content.
Yeah why don't you for once in your life, or might it actually bind you to a belief system? Then we can pound you daily on it. Or you can choose not to like usual and skate around here saying "I never said that" or "I never implied that" or "Show me where I said that".
 
Last edited:
Alright, well there's this new theory I've been working on.

It's called Nannyism, and the Democrat party is keen on it.

Not really any more creative. Again, the same silliness we've heard for a hundred years or more. What is so difficult with saying I disagree with policy and explaining exactly why without going done the hyperbolic demogogory? Now, this would be something new, refreshing, deserving of debate. ;)
 
Not really any more creative. Again, the same silliness we've heard for a hundred years or more. What is so difficult with saying I disagree with policy and explaining exactly why without going done the hyperbolic demogogory? Now, this would be something new, refreshing, deserving of debate. ;)

demogogory? or demagoguery?




I disagree with Democrat policies because they're inherently evil and make baby Jesus cry! :lol:
 
demogogory? or demagoguery?




I disagree with Democrat policies because they're inherently evil and make baby Jesus cry! :lol:


What were you saying about trolling? What do you smell now? :roll:
 
What were you saying about trolling? What do you smell now? :roll:

Just checking ;)


In general I disagree with the scope of Democrat policies. I'm more of a less bureaucracy, more effectively written regulation kind of guy. Democrats want to increase the physical size of government to increase its efficiency and to assist the citizens. This is their socialist lean, creeping in on things that the Citizens can, and often choose not, to do for themselves. However, almost all politicians nowadays, regardless of lean, are for bigger government as it serves to keep them in control and their pockets fat.


Better?
 
Last edited:
Yes, better.

Government's role in establishing standards, ensuring fair competition, even in shaping the market particularly in the health industry allows capitalism to function.

This bill advances society's interest in universal health care even as it supports America's free enterprise-based health care system.
 
Yes, better.

Government's role in establishing standards, ensuring fair competition, even in shaping the market particularly in the health industry allows capitalism to function.

This bill advances society's interest in universal health care even as it supports America's free enterprise-based health care system.

How so? Though I suppose 2000 pages offers a lot places to hide support for free enterprise. :D
 
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.

The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.
 
All partisan blow or exaggerated media hype. As someone that is married to an educator, and has substituted at several public school systems, our public school system is perfectly capable of doing a good job of education. However for that to happen three things have to happen:

1. The student needs to want to learn.

2. The parents need to care and get involved in their child's education to motivate the child.

3. The politicians need to get out of the hair of the educators and allow the educators to do their job and stop coming up with under or unfunded mandates or ridiculous requirements. My wife spends an inordinate amount of time just dealing with the bull**** the politicians come up with vs. actual teaching time. She spends at least 15 hours a day at school just to get e
532
verything done because of that crap.

BTW to put all this on a one political party is so silly it's almost laughable. So Bush's NCLB flop was a democrat thing? Please. :roll:

We need to focus on basics, not pandering, no bullsh*t classes, not pushing through rodents that can't read or write to the level they should.

We need to bust apart the powerful teacher's union, and have them compete. If you go to skool an' kain't teach a lick, then learnz fast or go bag groceries. Kids shouldn't have to pay for the incompetence of a unionized system. Kill the teachers unions, kill them now, and kill them dead.

It isn't complicated... but it requires a few things... teach the basics, kill the unions, pay teachers per performance. Y'know, like in the real world.

.
 
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.

The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.

On the topic of keeping overhead costs low, what do you think about getting rid of HMOs? Tort reform?
 
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.

a laudable accomplishment, congrats

but was it really necessary to FORCE 20 million americans to buy something they can't afford in the first place to achieve it?

do we really have to cut m and m half a T to get pre existing conditions?

couldn't we have achieved that fine reform without putting 200B of mandates upon already bankrupt states?

must we really account 10 years of taxes vs 6 of outlays to achieve deficit neutrality?

etc?

etc?
 
Just checking ;)


In general I disagree with the scope of Democrat policies. I'm more of a less bureaucracy, more effectively written regulation kind of guy. Democrats want to increase the physical size of government to increase its efficiency and to assist the citizens. This is their socialist lean, creeping in on things that the Citizens can, and often choose not, to do for themselves. However, almost all politicians nowadays, regardless of lean, are for bigger government as it serves to keep them in control and their pockets fat.


Better?

Yes. Much better. I see government more as a tool we the people can use. After all, we have the power to fire everyone elected (and they can fire the others). Government isn't doing it for us, it is us tackling large problems through the government, much as we do through churches, charities, organizations, and any number of ways in which people work together to solve problems. As long as we can fire, vote out, and change direction when things don't meet our satisfaction, it is less socialistic, and more the people working to solve problems.

Can our leaders abuse this? Abuse our trust and make money off of us? Sure they can. As can our employers, employees, church leaders, charities, organizations, and any number of things we invest in and work through. And we have someone control in all those things, including government (though not unlimited and absolute or complete control).

And I agree all parties and political animals are equally likely to disappoint and abuse.
 
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.

The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.

I agree with this.
 
a laudable accomplishment, congrats

but was it really necessary to FORCE 20 million americans to buy something they can't afford in the first place to achieve it?

do we really have to cut m and m half a T to get pre existing conditions?

couldn't we have achieved that fine reform without putting 200B of mandates upon already bankrupt states?

must we really account 10 years of taxes vs 6 of outlays to achieve deficit neutrality?

etc?

etc?

Which is why the public option was actually necessary. They way insurance works best is to have a large pool, and it has to include healthy people paying. Without this, benefits are less and the need to ration is greater.
 
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.

The competition should be about keeping overhead costs low and delivering the best service; not how clever these insurance companies can be in denying benefits to the unfortunate people who have bought their products and have the temerity to submit claims.

Though I agree with this, there are many more an inscrutable ways that insurance companies deny coverage. Strict regulations need to be put in place to prevent these things.
 
I'll even give you one better. For the ones that were able to recover, insurance or lack thereof also had nothing to do with it.

But who pays for it? That's right, the rest of us through higher premiums.
 
Back
Top Bottom