• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

What you are proposing was in large part the original plan that couldn't garner enough support from blue dogs or Republicans. I agree. This makes more sense than the current bill, but thanks to the obstructionists that fought against any reform we got the watered down version rather than the original concepts.

Yes its in large part similar to the original plan...if you took primarily only the liberal ideas from CC's plan and few of the conservative ones. Which is why it coudln't get much support. Tort reform wasn't in the original to my understanding, far more regulation than what CC was suggesting was in the original, far more penalties were placed on individuals and businesses concerning insurance, across state lines to my understanding wasn't in the original, having the provider being the review board not the government wasn't in the original, the protection for hospitals not providing care to peopple who don't have insurance or can't prove that they can pay for it wasn't there, the government stating clearly it will not subsidize anyones hospital payments if they don't have insurance wasn't there, etc.

If I'm wrong on multiple of those, tell me, I'd be happy to hear it. I will admit I did not read hundreds upon hundreds of pages each time a new one was put out.

So yeah, it was "close to" what was in the original...save for all the things CC put in there to make it bipartisan and attractive to both sides, thus why it failed to get anyone other than liberals on board with it.

The fact you think that's "close" to what the original one was though shows exactly what the current congressional and presidential Democrats view point is on what "bipartisan" is apparently.
 
Actually, there was a Supreme Court decision in 1937, that upheld the right of the Government to force people to pay Social Security taxes, that is applicable here. Doesn't make it right, though, but it does make it legal.

Social security taxes don't equal requiring citizens to buy anything from a private company. The government can require you to pay taxes and penalties, but can't require you purchase anything you don't want to from a private source.

The first lawsuits will likely be filed this afternoon.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thread bans are happening. I suggest people stick to the topic

What is a thread ban? I was moderator at a forum for a while before the admin had to pull the plug on it and I never heard of a thread ban. I've heard of banning someone either for a set period of time or forever, but I'm not familiar with a thread ban. Is that banning one member from one thread?
 
What is a thread ban? I was moderator at a forum for a while before the admin had to pull the plug on it and I never heard of a thread ban. I've heard of banning someone either for a set period of time or forever, but I'm not familiar with a thread ban. Is that banning one member from one thread?

Yes..........;)
 
What is a thread ban? I was moderator at a forum for a while before the admin had to pull the plug on it and I never heard of a thread ban. I've heard of banning someone either for a set period of time or forever, but I'm not familiar with a thread ban. Is that banning one member from one thread?

A thread ban here is something you probably know as being kicked.
 
Anyone care to cite th epower of Congress that allows Congress to require that the people buy insurance simply because they live and breathe?
The Eleventy-Seventh Amendment. It is only visible to statists.
 
paying social security taxes is not exactly the same thing as forcing joe america to go out and buy aetna
 
That is total BS. I have worked for a hundred year old, multi-billion dollar company for thirty years. My company, like every successful company, adjust workforce levels to maximize profits. Demand and productivity determine levels, not tax rates.
You are totally clueless. Your company will not last long if you set your risk according to tax rates.

Oh, lord.

It's not just taxes. It's the implications of the taxes. Higher taxes make for a much tighter economy for EVERYONE, not just your company. It reduces cash flow across the board, which in turn, impacts demand and all the Economics 101 stuff you mentioned.

THAT, in turn, impacts risk and margin, which leads to reductions in costs, which leads to reductions in staff, etc.

I know you liberals hate Reaganomics, but they are as true as the day is long.
 
own up

YOU KNEW this bill contemplates the expansion of medicare and medicaid by 31 million

YOU KNEW both m's are already facing very shaky futures, indeed, bleed red by 2017

YOU KNEW this bill CUTS the funding of both m's MASSIVELY, by half a tril

YOU KNEW the president CLAIMED he could pay for 2/3 of his expansions by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse

own it, the bill is YOURS

and YOU will be held accountable for it every second of every day between now and forever

get used to it

POLITICS IS PERSISTENT
 
You do realize you just quoted Wikipedia. :spin:

I fail to see how that is spin. Wikipedia is a pretty good place of general information on a subject. Also, I find it funny that you criticize some one on using Wikipedia, when you started a thread using Conservapedia.
 
own up

YOU KNEW this bill contemplates the expansion of medicare and medicaid by 31 million

YOU KNEW both m's are already facing very shaky futures, indeed, bleed red by 2017

YOU KNEW this bill CUTS the funding of both m's MASSIVELY, by half a tril

YOU KNEW the president CLAIMED he could pay for 2/3 of his expansions by rooting out waste, fraud and abuse

own it, the bill is YOURS

and YOU will be held accountable for it every second of every day between now and forever

get used to it

POLITICS IS PERSISTENT

Jeez, prof. Enough already. Give it a rest. We already know, 1000 times over, where you stand. Why don't you post something substantive? Let me give you an example:

MC.No.Spin and I don't get along. In fact, he and I can't stand each other. But he has my respect as a member here. Why? Read his post against Obama's health care plan. No screeching. No weird formatting. No stale and overused talking points. He gets right to the meat of the matter, and eloquently posts why he is against Obamacare. Why can't you just do the same?

You know, debate is not about seeing who can get a rise out of someone else. Debate is also not about the endless parroting of mindless talking points, over and over again. Neither is debate about the use of formatting because you believe that your argument will stand out if it is formatted differently. It is about taking a stand on a political point, and giving rational arguments defending your point of view, as well as rational arguments attacking your opponent's point of view. I see none of that in what you have posted so far in this thread.

There are two ways to debate:

1) By presenting rational arguments for and against political positions.

2) Trolling.

You, sir, are trolling.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand about the conservative position is how they propose we offer healthcare to all, both those who can afford and get (no pre-existing conditions) private insurance - group or individual, and those who cannot afford healthcare insurance - the poor, the elderly without wealth, and the sick, those with pre-existing conditions. Perhaps they think that if you cannot afford it that you just won't get it. That is heartless. Please explain.
 
Better take a look at the rules Brandon, technically your in violation now. :2wave:

I am not sure that he is, but if so, then I am the one who is in violation for derailing the thread, and you have my apology.
 
So, after about 400 pages of this beast, I am so disgusted I don't even want to continue reading it.
 
So, after about 400 pages of this beast, I am so disgusted I don't even want to continue reading it.

Take it easy on your blood pressure, Jall, and pray/hope/meditate that the constitutional challenges will be upheld and November kills all the bad stuff in this Alinsky legislation.
 
LOL What was the final straw?

That actually came early on with the unfettered access to individual bank accounts. That just really bothers me on so many levels.

The real final blow was the way investment income is now going to be taxed and the taxing of "cadillac" plans. If the requirement is to have insurance, and one goes out to get really good insurance, having that insurance taxed is pretty much paying the fine for not having insurance even though you have it.

This whole bill just doesn't do anything it is intended to do.
 
That actually came early on with the unfettered access to individual bank accounts. That just really bothers me on so many levels.

The real final blow was the way investment income is now going to be taxed and the taxing of "cadillac" plans. If the requirement is to have insurance, and one goes out to get really good insurance, having that insurance taxed is pretty much paying the fine for not having insurance even though you have it.

This whole bill just doesn't do anything it is intended to do.

I heard that, too. Oh, goody, the government has access to our checking accounts now!!
 
I heard that, too. Oh, goody, the government has access to our checking accounts now!!

Ostensibly for moving electronic funds but all this is going to do is blow open wide their ability to simply take funds for fines, taxes, etc while they are in dispute and then take their sweet time returning them if they are in error.
 
own up

what are YOU about?

the CONTROLLING of COSTS?

or the EXPANSION of COVERAGE?

be careful...

you can't answer BOTH

NOT if you DON'T want to sound as STUPID as our president

LOL!

party on, progressives

REPRESENT!
 
Back
Top Bottom