• 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!

Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

They are funded in all states, one way or another. Keep that in mind. Those who pay always pay for those who don't. One way or another. But, if you mandate that those who can affrd insurance have insurance, those people pay and not the tax payer. And if you monitor, by paying for those who can't pay, the costs of those who can't pay, you are likley to pay less than just letting the hospital run up the price unmonitored, never knowing if you're paying what it cost them, or more.

The states have the right to do that, the Federal Govt. doesn't. The provision of Obamacare that requires the insurance mandate will be ruled Unconstitutional IMO and that kills the program.
 
The states have the right to do that, the Federal Govt. doesn't. The provision of Obamacare that requires the insurance mandate will be ruled Unconstitutional IMO and that kills the program.

If it is ruled unconstitutional, and it just might be, that would eventually kill the program. Premiums will begin to increase even faster than they have been in the past few years, and the average person won't be able to afford them. Already, employers are paying from 8 to 12 grand a year for premiums. How much higher can they go before something is done that will actually control costs?
 
If it is ruled unconstitutional, and it just might be, that would eventually kill the program. Premiums will begin to increase even faster than they have been in the past few years, and the average person won't be able to afford them. Already, employers are paying from 8 to 12 grand a year for premiums. How much higher can they go before something is done that will actually control costs?

What isn't being done is an analysis of what makes up those costs because in the last report I saw insurance companies are at the bottom in terms of profit margins. Until costs are analysized and the only focus is on premium costs nothing good is going to come out of this.
 
The states have the right to do that, the Federal Govt. doesn't. The provision of Obamacare that requires the insurance mandate will be ruled Unconstitutional IMO and that kills the program.

The courts will settle that, so we don't have to debate that too much. But, you're not really addressing what I said.
 
The courts will settle that, so we don't have to debate that too much. But, you're not really addressing what I said.

After months of exchanges on this you know where I stand and I know where you stand. Nothing is going to change your mind or mine. I have history and actual govt. data on my side. You have typical liberal projections on yours. I will stick to my own opinions on the subject which include Healthcare being a personal responsibility that is better addressed at the state and local level.
 
in the Lopez case, the Clinton administration made the argument that every single possible action that Congress could ever take that wasn't explicitly forbidden it in the Constitution was permissible under the Commerce Clause. that's hardly irrelevant.

First - they lost. So if that was their position, it is now irrelevant.
Second, do you have record of that position argued before the Court? I cannot find it. Here is what I did find in the summary on Wikipedia

The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.
The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[10]
 
After months of exchanges on this you know where I stand and I know where you stand. Nothing is going to change your mind or mine. I have history and actual govt. data on my side. You have typical liberal projections on yours. I will stick to my own opinions on the subject which include Healthcare being a personal responsibility that is better addressed at the state and local level.

That's just it, you don't have that on your side. You take information and try to make it say something it doesn't. We've been through that before as well.
 
That's just it, you don't have that on your side. You take information and try to make it say something it doesn't. We've been through that before as well.

I have all the information I need, history of the Federal Govt. on social spending, healthcare being a personal responsibility, the Founders vision of this country, the Constitution which prevents the govt. from forcing any citizen to buy anything, the results of the MA program.
 
I have all the information I need, history of the Federal Govt. on social spending, healthcare being a personal responsibility, the Founders vision of this country, the Constitution which prevents the govt. from forcing any citizen to buy anything, the results of the MA program.

That you need? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the information you have is being accurately assessed or understood by you. :coffeepap
 
That you need? Maybe. But that doesn't mean the information you have is being accurately assessed or understood by you. :coffeepap

Right, in your world actual results don't matter because opinion trumps data and history.
 
Never said such. But you don't use your data correctly. :coffeepap

LOL, you mean I don't distort data with my personal opinions? Talk about distortion, when you post data comparing the U.S. healthcare costs vs. the world you ignore how that data is collected and what goes into that data. You further ignore the economies that generated that data and the massive govt. involvement in the world healthcare numbers thus taxpayer expense in those countries vs. here. Further you ignore that we have 50 sovereign states that our Founders believed were responsible to the people more than the Federal Govt. Keep denying history and actual data and call that distortion.
 
Last edited:
Good luck getting an answer to that one!

half an hour and no reply, although I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that Joe could be comprising a salient, cogent, and well thought out dissertation on how conservatives "distort", and "misuse" data supplied by governmental agencies.....:think: :lol: what was I thinking......:lol:


j-mac
 
Last edited:
half an hour and no reply, although I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say that Joe could be comprising a salient, cogent, and well thought out dissertation on how conservatives "distort", and "misuse" data supplied by governmental agencies.....:think: :lol: what was I thinking......:lol:


j-mac

Right and I cannot wait for the latest Krugman and Dion quotes passed off as factual and supportive of the massive govt. expansion. I am sure that Boo means well but like most liberals he confuses opinions with facts and ignores history, logic, and common sense. I wouldn't give two cents for Krugman and Dions Opinions as they relate to the economy of this country and especially on healthcare. Liberals always have opinions but never are held accountable when proven wrong. By the time they are proven wrong they are on some other issue and ignores what they predicted prior.
 
What is he not using correctly, and please be specific on the how's, and why's....


j-mac

It means, as I have pointed out to him constantly, that the information doesn't say what he says it says, and it doesn't anser the question he thinks it answers. Often I have pointed out the limitations of his data, with no response in return. And pointed to other data that show more clearly that historically no coallation was able to be shown.

And do remember, someone may not be sitting around waitng for your question. Someonetimes a time passes before somoene sees your question. So, be patient. :coffeepap
 
It means, as I have pointed out to him constantly, that the information doesn't say what he says it says, and it doesn't anser the question he thinks it answers.

You are not answering the question Joe. I asked for specifics and get back generalities from you. Can you answer the question specifically? Or, are you willing to admit that you just threw that out there in desperation?

Often I have pointed out the limitations of his data, with no response in return.

Another claim with nothing to back up what you say. Point to it.

And pointed to other data that show more clearly that historically no coallation was able to be shown.

So you have better data than governmental non partisan entities, is that right? How's that?

And do remember, someone may not be sitting around waitng for your question. Someonetimes a time passes before somoene sees your question. So, be patient.

Never said you were, or that you should...But, when you throw out accusations, and generalized statements like you did there, you surely checked the responses. And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on writing something that would take some time to answer.....


j-mac
 
You are not answering the question Joe. I asked for specifics and get back generalities from you. Can you answer the question specifically? Or, are you willing to admit that you just threw that out there in desperation?

J, Conservative knows the specifics. We've been discussing them for sometime now. I know you've seen him post his stats, and seen others answer him. I don't intend to redo all of that now. As he never once answered them then, there's no reason to suspect he'll answer them now. I'm just reminding him that a rebuttal was given him, to whihc he never ever responded.


Another claim with nothing to back up what you say. Point to it.

Again, he knows. And this is between us.

So you have better data than governmental non partisan entities, is that right? How's that?

As I told him, it was never the data. No one disputed the data. Only his interpretation of the data. In his case, as he didn't use something silly like the American Non-Thinker, it was not a source issue. It is important to know what you're jumping into before you jump in. :coffeepap


Never said you were, or that you should...But, when you throw out accusations, and generalized statements like you did there, you surely checked the responses. And here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on writing something that would take some time to answer.....

You might first, learn what the accusation is, review the histroy, and you know, look before you leap. ;)
 
J, Conservative knows the specifics. We've been discussing them for sometime now. I know you've seen him post his stats, and seen others answer him. I don't intend to redo all of that now. As he never once answered them then, there's no reason to suspect he'll answer them now. I'm just reminding him that a rebuttal was given him, to whihc he never ever responded.

Again, he knows. And this is between us.

As I told him, it was never the data. No one disputed the data. Only his interpretation of the data. In his case, as he didn't use something silly like the American Non-Thinker, it was not a source issue. It is important to know what you're jumping into before you jump in. :coffeepap


You might first, learn what the accusation is, review the histroy, and you know, look before you leap. ;)

Interesting that you claim that I know yet haven't offered specifics, what is it specifically about the MA program that I have distorted? What is it about the CBO assumptions that are accurate? What is it about historical data on Medicare and SS that is wrong and distorted? What is it about the comparison between the U.S. with 309 million people and other foreign countries with much less freedom and much less population that makes for a valid comparison in costs? What is it about the Constitution and our Founders vision for a small Central Govt. that is distorted?

I anxiously await what it is that you have provided that refutes any of that information?
 
Interesting that you claim that I know yet haven't offered specifics, what is it specifically about the MA program that I have distorted? What is it about the CBO assumptions that are accurate? What is it about historical data on Medicare and SS that is wrong and distorted? What is it about the comparison between the U.S. with 309 million people and other foreign countries with much less freedom and much less population that makes for a valid comparison in costs? What is it about the Constitution and our Founders vision for a small Central Govt. that is distorted?

I anxiously await what it is that you have provided that refutes any of that information?

We've gone over that as well. No one claims that what the CBO reports is the gospel or infaliable. Nor does anyone argue that the CBO answers any more than what was put before them. And remember, I offered you more than the CBO. Numbers don't speak for themselves, they ahve to be explained. Again, we've been through this.
 
We've gone over that as well. No one claims that what the CBO reports is the gospel or infaliable. Nor does anyone argue that the CBO answers any more than what was put before them. And remember, I offered you more than the CBO. Numbers don't speak for themselves, they ahve to be explained. Again, we've been through this.

Thanks for the non answer and failure to support your position. All you have ever posted is healthcare costs by nation vs. the U.S. and some individual state numbers and ranking, none mean a thing and as has been proven the govt. history of solving social problems is terrible and extremely costly.
 
Thanks for the non answer and failure to support your position. All you have ever posted is healthcare costs by nation vs. the U.S. and some individual state numbers and ranking, none mean a thing and as has been proven the govt. history of solving social problems is terrible and extremely costly.

Don't be silly. You have always gotten a complete answer. You got one above as well. And what numbers mean has to be explained, and I have offered explinations. To which, you switched the subject. ;)
 
Don't be silly. You have always gotten a complete answer. You got one above as well. And what numbers mean has to be explained, and I have offered explinations. To which, you switched the subject. ;)

you are delusional and seem to be the only one that thinks they gave specifics and defended them properly.
 
Back
Top Bottom