• 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!

Stephen Lynch calls health care vote plan ‘disingenuous’

Deuce said:
If you keep calling it socialist, maybe it will actually change reality.

A mandate to purchase health insurance from private companies is just nowhere near socialism, NP. I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

The constitution doesn't say murder is illegal either, you don't seem to understand how that document works. Kinda disappointing, given your military service.
Click to expand...

no one said it was but it is unconstitutional......You can't force the American people to buy Obama Care.......they don't want it............
 
Navy Pride said:
no one said it was but it is unconstitutional......You can't force the American people to buy Obama Care.......they don't want it............
Click to expand...

No one said it was socialist?

You said it. Like 9000 times.

It isn't unconstitutional.
 
Deuce said:
No one said it was socialist?

You said it. Like 9000 times.

It isn't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Make it 9001 because that is what it is.....it coverage from cradle to grave........

When are you lefties going to realize the American people don't want the federal government in everything we do?
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Make it 9001 because that is what it is.....it coverage from cradle to grave........

When are you lefties going to realize the American people don't want the federal government in everything we do?
Click to expand...

Buying something from a private company isn't socialism. You don't get to decide what words mean!

edit: and before you say it, no, being forced to buy something from a private company isn't socialism either.
 
Deuce said:
Buying something from a private company isn't socialism. You don't get to decide what words mean!

edit: and before you say it, no, being forced to buy something from a private company isn't socialism either.
Click to expand...

Anyone that does not have health insurance will be forced to buy it or be fined........I am really shocked that you loving Obama Care so much does not know that....Why do you think 37 states are already administering lawsuits against the government?

I don't care who the private company is the government is administering the program and that is flat wrong.....
 
Navy Pride said:
Anyone that does not have health insurance will be forced to buy it or be fined........I am really shocked that you loving Obama Care so much does not know that....Why do you think 37 states are already administering lawsuits against the government?

I don't care who the private company is the government is administering the program and that is flat wrong.....
Click to expand...

That still doesn't make it socialism. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that word means.

Put in another way:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY"]YouTube- Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong[/ame]
 
Navy Pride said:
Anyone that does not have health insurance will be forced to buy it or be fined........I am really shocked that you loving Obama Care so much does not know that....Why do you think 37 states are already administering lawsuits against the government?

I don't care who the private company is the government is administering the program and that is flat wrong.....
Click to expand...

Navy it's more similar to fascism.
Saying they are acting like economic fascists would be more correct.
 
Deuce said:
You shouldn't have too much trouble finding this information, if you look at non-right-wing sources. I'll dig up that article I read when I get a chance later.
Click to expand...





I'll await your "later" prior to engagement in hyperbolic shennenigans. ;)
 
Originally Posted by Deuce
You shouldn't have too much trouble finding this information, if you look at non-right-wing sources. I'll dig up that article I read when I get a chance later.
Click to expand...





We won't hold our breath..............:rofl
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Daily Kos. Media Matters. Keith Olbermann.
Click to expand...

As well as the parliamentarians of both houses. As far as it being constitutional, the Constitution specifically says that each house of Congress sets its own rules.

Still, deem and pass is a bad rule, but was used more than 100 times by Newt Gingrich, when Republicans controlled the House during the Clinton administration. Deem and pass was also used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts. And therein is where the problem lies. You just cant use something for years, and then say it is against the rules when the other party does it, without causing people to come down with a physical malady known as death by laughter.

In the end, all I can do is give kudos to Lynch, who had the guts to rise above politics, and show some honesty.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I'll await your "later" prior to engagement in hyperbolic shennenigans. ;)
Click to expand...

Navy Pride said:
We won't hold our breath..............:rofl
Click to expand...

I suppose you guys didn't read the link I already posted. What's the point of debate if you're just going to ignore what people write?

By the way, in a "Deem and Pass" vote, there's still a vote.

Found a better article.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/17/ornstein

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). [Naturally, Gingrich can now be seen everywhere on cable television complaining about such mischief.] There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
Click to expand...

Harry Guerrilla said:
Navy it's more similar to fascism.
Saying they are acting like economic fascists would be more correct.
Click to expand...

It's "similar" to economic fascism in the same way that ice cubes are similar to a glacier.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I suppose you guys didn't read the link I already posted. What's the point of debate if you're just going to ignore what people write?

By the way, in a "Deem and Pass" vote, there's still a vote.

Found a better article.
The impeccable bipartisan pedigree of "deem and pass" - Joe Conason - Salon.com





It's "similar" to economic fascism in the same way that ice cubes are similar to a glacier.
Click to expand...

Are you still denying there are no cuts in Medicare in Obama Care? I did make one mistake, it was not 500,000,000 it was 500,000,000,000 billion.........
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If ice cubes and glaciers = state direction of private industry, then your absolutely right. ;)
Click to expand...

And conservatives favor total anarchy, because they favor smaller government. They want to see our government become like those in central africa.
 
Deuce said:
And conservatives favor total anarchy, because they favor smaller government. They want to see our government become like those in central africa.
Click to expand...

If that's what you consider "total anarchy" then yes. Realistic people would see it as more freedom and more independence, whereas you see it as "total anarchy". It's your fear that without nanny Government to wipe your arse for you, you'd have to do something for yourself - or at least that's my perception. Lots of dependent types are like that.

A little hard work shouldn't scare you.
 
Ockham said:
If that's what you consider "total anarchy" then yes. Realistic people would see it as more freedom and more independence, whereas you see it as "total anarchy". It's your fear that without nanny Government to wipe your arse for you, you'd have to do something for yourself - or at least that's my perception. Lots of dependent types are like that.

A little hard work shouldn't scare you.
Click to expand...

No, I mean conservatives literally support complete and total disbanding of the United States government in every single way and letting the entire nation fend for themselves. Because they favor smaller government.

In exactly the same way that liberals support total government control of every aspect of our lives because we think health care is an essential service that should be strictly regulated.
 
Deuce said:
No, I mean conservatives literally support complete and total disbanding of the United States government in every single way and letting the entire nation fend for themselves. Because they favor smaller government.

In exactly the same way that liberals support total government control of every aspect of our lives because we think health care is an essential service that should be strictly regulated.
Click to expand...

From watching how they've acted, and that is the only measure, since Reagan the Repubs have talked about small gov't on the campaign trail but, once they get in office they do everything they can to expand it. It's not liberals, or Dems, who insist on sticking their noses in every aspect of our personal lives.

You're right that the Dems belief in Health Care Reform is more about them trying to help their fellow, less fortunate man, woman and child. So many on the right claim to be "Christians" yet, their going against Christ's teachings, on how to treat their fellow man, only shines a light on their continued hypocrisy. Repubs only concern in this Health Care Reform, and most issues, is to protect their net worth and their rich friends' bottom line.

As Mitch McConnell has been exposed, they have had no interest in helping Obama in any of his plans to change things. They do not take their responsibilities to the American people as seriously as we expect them to. And I expect them to take a hit this November as a result.
 
ADK_Forever said:
From watching how they've acted, and that is the only measure, since Reagan the Repubs have talked about small gov't on the campaign trail but, once they get in office they do everything they can to expand it. It's not liberals, or Dems, who insist on sticking their noses in every aspect of our personal lives.

You're right that the Dems belief in Health Care Reform is more about them trying to help their fellow, less fortunate man, woman and child. So many on the right claim to be "Christians" yet, their going against Christ's teachings, on how to treat their fellow man, only shines a light on their continued hypocrisy. Repubs only concern in this Health Care Reform, and most issues, is to protect their net worth and their rich friends' bottom line.

As Mitch McConnell has been exposed, they have had no interest in helping Obama in any of his plans to change things. They do not take their responsibilities to the American people as seriously as we expect them to. And I expect them to take a hit this November as a result.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that everyone opposed to this health care bill is only concerned with personal wealth and income?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Do you believe that everyone opposed to this health care bill is only concerned with personal wealth and income?
Click to expand...

For the most part, yes. There are other issues that certainly could use more attention. I guess the right word would be "selfish" for most who oppose this bill.
 
ADK_Forever said:
For the most part, yes. There are other issues that certainly could use more attention. I guess the right word would be "selfish" for most who oppose this bill.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the opposition very well.

Filter out the bull crap on tv and hear what the people who study it say.
There is a whole lot more to it than money.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think you understand the opposition very well.

Filter out the bull crap on tv and hear what the people who study it say.
There is a whole lot more to it than money.
Click to expand...

"Ignorant," then. They could get the same health care for less money AND provide health care to the poor at the same time. Every other industrialized nation has managed to do it.

(edit: I'm referring to single-payer, not this bill)
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think you understand the opposition very well.

Filter out the bull crap on tv and hear what the people who study it say.
There is a whole lot more to it than money.
Click to expand...

Like I said, "selfish" pretty much covers Repubs opposition to this.
 
Deuce said:
"Ignorant," then. They could get the same health care for less money AND provide health care to the poor at the same time. Every other industrialized nation has managed to do it.

(edit: I'm referring to single-payer, not this bill)
Click to expand...

I think this has been pointed out a lot.

The issue with single payer is differences between national populous make up.
We can't compare, across the board, different countries using unadjusted statistical data.

Life expectancy, infant survival rates, cost per person, etc are different for a multitude of reasons.

Our demographics, diet, cultural lifestyle are completely different from Europe and Asian countries with UHC.

The one single thing that no one is addressing is health behavior of individuals.
Until you figure out how to get people to eat better, exercise, not do drugs etc, you will not be able to implement a successful, centralized UHC program or any other government health program for that matter.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think this has been pointed out a lot.

The issue with single payer is differences between national populous make up.
We can't compare, across the board, different countries using unadjusted statistical data.

Life expectancy, infant survival rates, cost per person, etc are different for a multitude of reasons.

Our demographics, diet, cultural lifestyle are completely different from Europe and Asian countries with UHC.

The one single thing that no one is addressing is health behavior of individuals.
Until you figure out how to get people to eat better, exercise, not do drugs etc, you will not be able to implement a successful, centralized UHC program or any other government health program for that matter.
Click to expand...

With dozens of countries and literal mountains of data to support the proposition that UHC leads to better outcome, you can't just handwave all of it away with "you can't compare the two systems!"

The Aussies have obesity rates comparable to our own, and have a vastly lower population density which leads to higher infrastructure costs. The Canadians are basically our dorkier cousins. The French smoke like chimneys. The Irish will drink you under the table. Yes, they're all different, but thousands of sets of data just can't be dismissed like that. Our health problems aren't unique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom