• 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

The conservative movement offered a ton of solutions that would work well.
1) Tort reform; giving more recourse against frivolous lawsuits- not in the bill
2) Allowing interstate competition among health insurance companies; would have extended more options to consumers, forcing better individual providers to improve. - not in the bill
3) Not conservative politicians, rather conservatives in economic, financial, and the health industry; Remove med-school cap on admissions, thus improving supply of doctors within only a few years.- not in the bill
4) More accountability. not correctly applied in the bill.
5) Removal of pre-existing conditions. - in the bill, but not done in a way that is economically viable.

How do you ensure everyone is covered?
 
The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
And that right there was the point of the exercise. Democrats buying votes with my money.

I guess a stopped clock is right every once in a while after all ...
 
I am not materialistic. I still believe in love for my fellow man.:)

That seems off. We have this:

- Your right to live materialistically or not materialistically.
- Your right to man-love, or not to man-love

vs.

- Forcing some people to pay for other people.
- Forcing everyone to purchase a specific good/service

Because you seem to be commenting on the first two, which hopefully everyone here supports...while ignoring the actual argument, which is the last two.

What I WANT to see, is people using FORCE to enforce my liberty to live materialistcally or not, to man-love or not, to provide charity or not, to purchase goods and services or not.

See the difference?
 
Last edited:
He did.

Hilarycare.

Hillarycare became the law of the land?? I must have missed that.

USA-1 said:
He tried.....

LIberalAvenger said:
But Harry and Louise scared everybody

He tried??? Why didn't he get it passed?? He had almost as large a majority in the Senate as Obama has now and a larger majority in the House.

It's easy... the American people were against it, just like they are against this one. The only difference is that the Dems were smart enough to drop it then and they still got their asses handed to them in the next election.

The Dems in charge today are not as smart as George Mitchell and Tom Foley were back then.
 
Three, I think the Republicans should have a positive alternative to replace the bill if they are going to campaign on rolling back this POS.

Got'cha covered..... HR3400! :mrgreen:
 
I am not materialistic. I still believe in love for my fellow man.:)

Then maybe you should do all those wonderfully charitable things without being coerced to by the government.
 
Well, that's debatable. It depends who the goose is. It's a basic chicken or egg question when it comes to, so called, wealth.
No, it's not really debatable at all. If someone steals from me and gives it to you, that's not me being generous. That's me being stolen from and you accepting stolen property.
 
You can't without it costing an ass ton of money.
The is no silver bullet, single payer will not work here.

Immediately it's not possible, but after prices deflate due to a more natural market everyone can afford it.

So single payer is where the government manages the health care system and everyone pays taxes for it to the government, right? Everyone is covered under single payer by being a part of the gov't plan. I don't like that.

When prices drop as the industry is deregulated, it will be more affordable but not everyone will be able to afford it. So everyone is not covered.

Specifically,

the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.

Everyone pays for the poor and the elderly through taxes. Nobody pays for the sick.

I have had in mind that we cover everyone, but not with single payer. Most people go private. Peoples taxes go up to cover the sick, who are really uninsurable. We have a single government/co-op healthcare unit that insures or treats the poor, the old, and the sick. Cancel Medicaid and Medicare. Do it at the state level.

Like Zyph points out, my proposal means **** since we have this turd on Obama's desk. Of course, the turd doesn't cover everyone either. I was just trying to get a feel for how conservatives would cover everyone.
 
Got'cha covered..... HR3400! :mrgreen:

Thanks. I found it. It doesn't seem compelling for helping the poor, the old and the sick, unless the association plans can cover it.
 
Specifically,

the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
Poor is relative, what is poor to one person, is not to another.
I don't think that 90% of anyone called "poor" are actually poor.
I hate the term with a passion.

Those who truly can't afford medical care are those with inborn disabilities, disabilities from injury, similar things like that.
I have absolutely no problem with covering people under a UHC structure limited to those conditions.

It would have to be strict though.
Obesity and the health affects of it are not a disability.
Type 2 diabetes can be controlled by diet, it is not a disability.
Minor "disabilities" should not be covered.

We have to many supposed disabled people, that really aren't disabled.

the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.

The elderly can afford it, they just don't want to.
They are the most cash flush group of people in the U.S.
Most of their expenses come from end of life care.

That is why the "death panel" comments weren't entirely false.
You want to control elder care costs, do things to cut end of life care.

the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.

Depends on what you define as sick.
 
Correct, but you later touch on the point I'm making. If someone is so stupidly saying "there's no deaht panels" in there meaning, LITERALLY, there's nothing that says "Death Panel" in teh bill then they're correct...but that's a stupid point.

If they mean "there's no death panels in the Bill", ie "there are no panels that oversee the rationing of health care that is a more restrictive process than is currently present with insurance companies and places what level of treatment you get in the hands of government beuracrats with no method of appealing" which is what "Death Panels" were the hyper rhetoric term for, then they need to somehow prove that the very words already posted about in this thread somehow don't actually exist and we're all imagining it when we see them there.

Also, on the topic of "death panels", there was so much more to that than just the language of the bill. The assertions concerning death panels had a lot more to do with who was advising the formation of rationing panels, etc, and what had been stated in the past by those people.

For example, health policy advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has touted, "some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” He goes on to advocate basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

[ame="http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions"]Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions[/ame]

AKA...death panels.
 
Last edited:
So single payer is where the government manages the health care system and everyone pays taxes for it to the government, right? Everyone is covered under single payer by being a part of the gov't plan. I don't like that.

When prices drop as the industry is deregulated, it will be more affordable but not everyone will be able to afford it. So everyone is not covered.

Specifically,

the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.

Everyone pays for the poor and the elderly through taxes. Nobody pays for the sick.

I have had in mind that we cover everyone, but not with single payer. Most people go private. Peoples taxes go up to cover the sick, who are really uninsurable. We have a single government/co-op healthcare unit that insures or treats the poor, the old, and the sick. Cancel Medicaid and Medicare. Do it at the state level.

Like Zyph points out, my proposal means **** since we have this turd on Obama's desk. Of course, the turd doesn't cover everyone either. I was just trying to get a feel for how conservatives would cover everyone.
Captain Courtesy had a really good plan that had conservative and liberal ideas in it, bout time he reposts it. The answer is there is no easy fix, but if we look at the actual causes we can make things affordable, not saying it will cover everyone, but there was a time when people could afford healthcare out of their own pockets, I'd like to see that plus having affordable insurance to protect against catastrophic loss. The only way to do that is to look through years of problems and fix the root causes.
 
The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay;
Third, it builds on the strength and diversity of our existing public and private systems of health financing and harmonizes them into an overall system;

Fourth, it uses public funds only where needed and requires no new Federal taxes;

Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the Federal Government.

Sixth, it encourages more effective use of our health care resources;

And finally, it is organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work--consumer, provider, insurer, State governments and the Federal Government.

Pray tell...which of those components provides for the bribes of government officials, the bribes for Stupaks airports, the bribe for the votes of senators from Nebraska and Louisiana, the payment to the labor unions (and the exemption of the Union 'cadillac' insurance plans), etc.

That people are GLEEFUL about allowing the federal government...that same federal government that has spent us 13.5 trillion into debt...that has created an exemption allowing that to go to 15 trillion by the end of the year, and that has already added 1.5 trillion EACH YEAR above and beyond what they take in in taxes...welll...it says a LOT about the people that SUPPORT the bill. The bill...which...bfore it became law was already sent BACK to senate for a 'fix'...

too much fun...
 
That seems off. We have this:

- Your right to live materialistically or not materialistically.
- Your right to man-love, or not to man-love

vs.

- Forcing some people to pay for other people.
- Forcing everyone to purchase a specific good/service

Because you seem to be commenting on the first two, which hopefully everyone here supports...while ignoring the actual argument, which is the last two.

What I WANT to see, is people using FORCE to enforce my liberty to live materialistcally or not, to man-love or not, to provide charity or not, to purchase goods and services or not.

See the difference?

Life is unfair but your argument is oversimplified. We could talk about social darwinism vs socialism all day. Life is nothing more than organized chaos, anyway.

There are more ways to distribute wealth equally than extreme capitalism or even extreme socialism.

Speaking of force consider this. If I owe rent and I don't pay it and refuse to move then eventually I will be forced out by the sheriff with a gun. I never had any kids but I have been forced to pay for other people's children's education. I do not complain about this because of my ideology, which is kinda socialistic. It's who I am and who you are.
 
Life is unfair but your argument is oversimplified. We could talk about social darwinism vs socialism all day. Life is nothing more than organized chaos, anyway.

There are more ways to distribute wealth equally than extreme capitalism or even extreme socialism.

Speaking of force consider this. If I owe rent and I don't pay it and refuse to move then eventually I will be forced out by the sheriff with a gun. I never had any kids but I have been forced to pay for other people's children's education. I do not complain about this because of my ideology, which is kinda socialistic. It's who I am and who you are.

I never use the fire department or the police. But tax dollars still go to them. By most conservative logic if i support social service like firefighters and policemen i am a socialist?
 
I never use the fire department or the police. But tax dollars still go to them. By most conservative logic if i support social service like firefighters and policemen i am a socialist?

No because firefighters and policemen are part and parcel with public safety and maintaining order. They are agents of the state. They are not an industry with the means of production being owned by the state.

People should really understand what socialism is before they start playing "gotcha games" with concepts they don't understand.
 
No because firefighters and policemen are part and parcel with public safety and maintaining order. They are agents of the state. They are not an industry with the means of production being owned by the state.

People should really understand what socialism is before they start playing "gotcha games" with concepts they don't understand.

I know exactly what socialism is. So you agree with me?
 
the poor can't afford it - do we keep Medicaid?
Poor is relative, what is poor to one person, is not to another.
I don't think that 90% of anyone called "poor" are actually poor.
I hate the term with a passion.

I don't know how you should define it but I wouldn't say that 90% of the poor really aren't poor. This is especially true with all of the long term job losses in this recession. We have to cover the poor - the uninsured with no savings, because they lived paycheck to paycheck.


the elderly can't afford it - they get sick a lot and their premiums would kick their ass. We promised them Medicare.
The elderly can afford it, they just don't want to.
They are the most cash flush group of people in the U.S.
Most of their expenses come from end of life care.

That is why the "death panel" comments weren't entirely false.
You want to control elder care costs, do things to cut end of life care.

Actually, many elderly can afford it, you are correct. There are many elderly who would be considered poor, that would need covering. Plus the fact that their care needs are so great they could be considered sick - high incidence of health care utilization.

We also promised them Medicare.

the sick can't afford it - even if ins companies had to accept those with pre-existing conditions, their premiums would be very high.
Depends on what you define as sick.

Those who truly can't afford medical care are those with inborn disabilities, disabilities from injury, similar things like that.
I have absolutely no problem with covering people under a UHC structure limited to those conditions.

It would have to be strict though.
Obesity and the health affects of it are not a disability.
Type 2 diabetes can be controlled by diet, it is not a disability.
Minor "disabilities" should not be covered.

We have to many supposed disabled people, that really aren't disabled.

We have a disagreement. People with Diabetes should absolutely be covered. Type 1s are not obese - they cannot process sugar at all and risk hyperglycemia without Insulin and hypoglycemia with Insulin - both deadly. Type 2 has high IR, thought to perhaps be caused by obesity or thought to actually cause obesity. I am Type 2. I cannot control my Diabetes by diet and exercise alone. I take 90 units of Insulin a day, which is a lot. I am still not well controlled. I will lose my eyesight, have severe pain in my legs prior to amputation, possibly have renal failure and other Neuropathy effects. I take $900 or medications a month. I got rejected for pre-existing conditions several times. I am sick. Luckily I have a job and group coverage. Without, I would be screwed....was screwed.

I do not like your overly restrictive definition of what counts for sick.
 
No because firefighters and policemen are part and parcel with public safety and maintaining order. They are agents of the state. They are not an industry with the means of production being owned by the state.

People should really understand what socialism is before they start playing "gotcha games" with concepts they don't understand.
You ever notice the extremists almost always throw out blanket, empty, and cookie cutter arguments? I'd like to see some actual thought on a debate site. If I want mantra I'll go laugh at a rally.
 
I know exactly what socialism is. So you agree with me?

No, I do not. And if you think a public safety force is "socialism" then you have no idea what socialism actually is.
 
Captain Courtesy had a really good plan that had conservative and liberal ideas in it, bout time he reposts it. The answer is there is no easy fix, but if we look at the actual causes we can make things affordable, not saying it will cover everyone, but there was a time when people could afford healthcare out of their own pockets, I'd like to see that plus having affordable insurance to protect against catastrophic loss. The only way to do that is to look through years of problems and fix the root causes.

Yeah, that's who wrote it and he has a public option. That works for me. I was confused over how he intends to pay for it, though.

Here it is: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/68642-health-care-bill-has-passed-71.html#post1058635538
 
Back
Top Bottom