• 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!

G.O.P. Newcomers Set Out to Undo Obama Victories

Albert Di Salvo said:
That's not the way it works in California. Here they show up at an ER whenever they want, and they say they can't pay. They get the treatment for free and that's the end of it.
Click to expand...

I can attest to this. Last time I was in an ER it was filled with people wearing shoes and jackets etc. that cost way more than I pay for my clothes and I know most of them didn’t have insurance.
Many were there for flu like symptoms or other minor issues. It’s pretty bad in Cali.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Welfare - it's like a drug. . .the more you give - the more they 'need' - the more they 'need' - the less successful you will be at weening them off. . . enact the 12 step program.
Click to expand...
You must me talking about taxes and the government. At least with welfare you have a choice.



Aunt Spiker said:
Why do people *have* to have insurance?
I've know quite a few people who don't have insurance - by choice - and who still cover the cost for all of their ails without faulter.

They are the ultimate in self-sufficiency.
Click to expand...

More power to them. They are being personally responsible for themselves.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You must me talking about taxes and the government. At least with welfare you have a choice.
Click to expand...

You know - my Dad's a minister. They run a church with a social outreach program, a food pantry and a free medical clinic . . . The church pays for all these programs by donation from it's members.
They are always short by thousands every year. I've even donated.
They have had to reduce the number of people they provide food for. They've reduced the number of patients the clinic sees.

This is the extent of our current charity.

My Dad's response to people who come to him for help these days when he no longer has money to give to assist with prescriptions and other such things: "Here, I'll help you fill out the paperwork for you to go to the government and get help there."

Charity only goes so far - especially when a charity or a church's pocketbook ALSO takes a hard and unavoidable hit BECAUSE of the government's decisions which tank our country. . . the recession hit everyone - major business, banks and stores collapsed and charitable programs went with them.

At least the government can continue to borrow, can raise taxes, and can cut and reallocate it's spending to cover it's other spending. . . but churches and businesses and organizations all too often have to just close their doors when the money dries up.

That's what happens when a country suffers financially - there is no money to give around. . . and in order for families who are strapped for cash to cover the basics - they've culled back on spending (which is good) but they've also significantly culled back on charitable giving (which si bad for organizations like the Red Cross).

So - unless charitable programs are recession proof and can churn a profit to turn into charity when people stop donating - your belief in them, while nice and positive, is unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
It is not that the GOP and liberals can't agree on things that actually help the situation, but in a 2100 page bill, how many things tucked in there do you think are actually NOT about health care? I think alot.

j-mac
Click to expand...

If you really feel that strongly against the PPAC Act, maybe you should read the bill, outline those things you really don't like about it and then write your Congressman/Senator and ask that he/she strengthen the bill instead of trying to repeal it just to win political brownie points.

cholla said:
This was proposed by my rep. U.S. Congressman John Shadegg : Serving the 3rd District of Arizona

There were many alternatives before the obamacare abortion was passed,still are, many still refuse to open their eyes. Partisan blinders maybe? I am not sure how long this country can afford that game.
Click to expand...

As I said in post #8, many of the proposals made by GOP candidates were very identical to those that eventual made their way into the PPAC Act. Except for the tax credit proposed in Congressman Shadegg's bill, everything else is pretty much the same as what eventually was passed. In fact, I came across this article that highlights what Congressman Boehnor proposes should the PPAC Act be repealed; the review given illustrates that except for eliminating the individual mandate (which many promonent Republicans supported in the past) Boehnor's bill really isn't that much different from the PPAC Act. Moreover, these snippets from two of Newt Gingrich's own books speak directly to the need for the individual mandate:


Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor.

....

You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.

[...]

People who for libertarian reasons do not want to be insured should be required to post a bond so their health care costs will be covered if they have an accident or an expensive illness.
Click to expand...

Yes, the source in MediaMatters, but its source is Newt's own manuscript. How anyone among the GOP can refute this is comical!!! While it appears that Newt seems to place the mandate at the state-level rather than at the federal level, nothing in his manuscripts makes that distiction clear especially when he says people should be "required" to participate in the insurance system or be "required" to post a bond to pay for their own health care expenses. To that, I'm wondering exactly how would this "requirement" be enforced across the entire country without such being written directly into federal law?

Truth is, the GOP leadership was for the individual mandate long before they were against it. They may have had their own reasons for supporting it then that may be a little different from why Democrats wanted it, but the bottom line is many members of the GOP were for the mandate, including one of their top spokespersons, before they suddenly turned against it.
 
Last edited:
I meant to link to this article which illustrates my point better where past support by the GOP on the individual mandate is concerned. But the USAToday.com article hits home two interesting points as well: Both Nixon and GHW Bush both supported an individual mandate with their health care reform measures. Just goes to show a historical fact: Republicans were for the mandate as long as it was their idea instituted in their own way. But once it became a Democrat idea, suddenly the mandate became "unconstitutional" and the ensuing excuse for not supporting it now has been, "we didn't know then what we know know about why it was such a bad idea". Really?

A few names of those within the GOP who once supported the individual mandate (four of which are still in Congress today):

John McCain, Charles Grassley, Chris Bond, Robert Bennet, Mark Pauly, Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson and Orrin Hatch

There are doctors and lawyers among the GOP political landscape who were in Congress then and are still in Congress now, but you didn't know then what you know now concerning the concept behind an idea that was yours to begin with? Anyone who believes that garbage is just fooling themselves.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
My God, it took the Apollo project over a year, and 2100 pages to lay this current turd on us, and you want him to write a plan right this moment?

Unreasonable much?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Actually, I've come up with a pretty basic plan that has received near bipartisan support from DP members. It's not so difficult and probably a whole lot simpler to understand than anything the government can come up with.
 
Objective Voice said:
I meant to link to this article which illustrates my point better where past support by the GOP on the individual mandate is concerned. But the USAToday.com article hits home two interesting points as well: Both Nixon and GHW Bush both supported an individual mandate with their health care reform measures. Just goes to show a historical fact: Republicans were for the mandate as long as it was their idea instituted in their own way. But once it became a Democrat idea, suddenly the mandate became "unconstitutional" and the ensuing excuse for not supporting it now has been, "we didn't know then what we know know about why it was such a bad idea". Really?

A few names of those within the GOP who once supported the individual mandate (four of which are still in Congress today):

John McCain, Charles Grassley, Chris Bond, Robert Bennet, Mark Pauly, Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson and Orrin Hatch

There are doctors and lawyers among the GOP political landscape who were in Congress then and are still in Congress now, but you didn't know then what you know now concerning the concept behind an idea that was yours to begin with? Anyone who believes that garbage is just fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

And I used to be a liberal. We have a right to change our minds.

The mandate is not working in Mass. Maybe we should learn from them.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Let me just add to my previous post that I think charities would probably move in to fill the gaps for most of those that truly can’t afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

Human psychology would absolutely prevent that from being a reality. No way would charity fill in the gaps.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Let me just add to my previous post that I think charities would probably move in to fill the gaps for most of those that truly can’t afford health insurance.
Click to expand...

they don't now, so why would that change?
 
Objective Voice said:
If you really feel that strongly against the PPAC Act, maybe you should read the bill, outline those things you really don't like about it and then write your Congressman/Senator and ask that he/she strengthen the bill instead of trying to repeal it just to win political brownie points.
Click to expand...


Well gee Wally, thanks for telling me how to do it, because gosh, I wudda never figured that one out.

but really now, as a rational person, how much of that 2100 page monstrosity that Nancy Pelosi said we could only find out what was in it if we passed it, is total crap? I mean, it was passed, and if anything the opposition to it keeps rising, how do you explain that?


j-mac
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I've come up with a pretty basic plan that has received near bipartisan support from DP members. It's not so difficult and probably a whole lot simpler to understand than anything the government can come up with.
Click to expand...

The rule KISS is always a winner.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
The rule KISS is always a winner.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I would agree. It is tiered and appeases liberal, conservative, and libertarian sensibilities.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I would agree. It is tiered and appeases liberal, conservative, and libertarian sensibilities.
Click to expand...


*Sigh* I think in the end, all the people want is something they can read and understand in an evening. Not some bloated bill with legal speak throughout, that no one gets a chance to read until it is too late.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
*Sigh* I think in the end, all the people want is something they can read and understand in an evening. Not some bloated bill with legal speak throughout, that no one gets a chance to read until it is too late.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm not sure what the point of ANY bill is if it cannot be understood by the masses.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. I'm not sure what the point of ANY bill is if it cannot be understood by the masses.
Click to expand...
[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/why-read-the-bill/e9e0db05698c6d33b74fe9e0db05698c6d33b74f-421736940690?q=John+Conyers+Utube+Read+the+bill?&FORM=VIRE5[/video]

By the masses? How about being understood by the people voting on them?
This clip is unbelievable. How does that man still have a job?
 
God, please let them repeal this beast.
Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones | CNSnews.com
The rules fall under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

“That’s a lot of access to communities that will be denied,” Sandvig told CNSNews.com. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I agree. I'm not sure what the point of ANY bill is if it cannot be understood by the masses.
Click to expand...

The masses don't NEED to understand the health care bill (now, for the moment, law). They simply need to sit down, shut up, and do what the liberals say they should do. :ninja:
 
Barbbtx said:
And I used to be a liberal. We have a right to change our minds.

The mandate is not working in Mass. Maybe we should learn from them.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to change their opinions or their party affiliation. But where this about-face by the GOP on the individual mandate is concerned, I've read nothing nor heard nothing from the GOP leadership that expressly outlines why they're now against it when the mandate was their idea in the first place. Clearly, their reasons for it were fairly identical to the Democrats w/ObamaCare. So, what changed?

The Constitution? No new amendments have been added nor taken away.

Health care costs? Premium rates have been on the rise for years and still rising with or without ObamaCare being passed.

Are there more or fewer people going w/o health insurance now than before? By all statistics, more people are dropping their insurance (or being dropped) because its unaffordable. And mind you, it's not employers who are dropping them; it's the insurance companies themselves finding reasons to deny coverage.

Are there fewer people using ERs to seek medical attention? No; those numbers have also increased over the years, even moreso during this recessionary period we're still fighting our way out of.

Medicare cost decrease? Not since Medicare, Part-D was enacted w/o being funded and the "donut-hole" is still problematic for senior citizens. Moreover, with more and more seniors going onto Medicare and/or disabled receiving SSI, I don't see these costs going down significantly any time soon.

Has the government spent less to subsidize employer-sponsored health insurance premiums? By all accounts, the government is still paying a hefty price towards subsidized health care cost.

Have the individual or group markets change? I haven't seen any evidence that HSAs have risen or proven more beneficial than a regular, individual health insurance policy. So, I'd say no here as well.

Are high-risk pools less appealing to insurance markets today than they were 17-25 yrs ago? Still the same risk assessment today as they were years ago.

So, what in the GOP's view changed?

I'm still waiting for someone within the GOP leadership to provide a straight answer. I could deal with their push to repeal the health care law if they just informed the American people their true reason for no longer being for the mandate other than "it's unconstitutional". Really? So far, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on that yet. So, to say such is foolish.
 
Any legislation to repeal the Health care Act will have to be signed into law by President Obama. Guess what GOP Representatives?

It's not going to happen.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Any legislation to repeal the Health care Act will have to be signed into law by President Obama. Guess what GOP Representatives?

It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...


So I guess Obama's calls for compromise, and bipartisanship are what then? Lies....That's right outright lies by Obama. I guess in liberals minds compromise does indeed mean drop your opposition and see things my way.

j-mac
 
I thought the election was about the economy and specifically jobs. Jobs! Where's the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Rehashing past debates and past votes doesn't get the economy rolling again. Republicans are making a huge error.
 
Chappy said:
I thought the election was about the economy and specifically jobs. Jobs! Where's the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Rehashing past debates and past votes doesn't get the economy rolling again. Republicans are making a huge error.
Click to expand...


Let's see....Repubs in charge for hours now, Demo lying libtards for the past four years....Maybe you should ask them where the jobs are.


j-mac
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, I've come up with a pretty basic plan that has received near bipartisan support from DP members. It's not so difficult and probably a whole lot simpler to understand than anything the government can come up with.
Click to expand...

Do tell, or at least can you point me to a link that sums it up?


Tim-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom