Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 135

Thread: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You can, but most don't. And working poor largely can't. Not realistically. And you can refuse care to the 500 lb smoker. Sure. Let em die is an option, but I wouldn't call it a moral one. Instead we've been straddling that line very in effectively. Much more moral and cost effective to plan to have care for all.

    I have paid attention. And my point stands. You've given a vague limiting. Outside of outlawing, there really is no valid compliant you've listed yet.

    You're cutting he point too fine. They don't receive adequate care. Many go without vital care. Try not to deal in absolutes.
    That's why you can have a government program that contributes to the savings accounts. The government can subsidize the system.

    And its more moral to steal from me to pay for him/her? Forbidding medical underwriting raises costs on the system overall. No one is talking about letting the obese smoker die. My entire point is expect me to subsidize someone else's risk is a moral hazard. By definition. And you have yet to refute that (or even attempt to do so).

    What on earth are you talking about? My point was they are limiting FSA contributions to force people onto traditional healthcare plans. I don't see you discuss that anywhere in your post.

    You're the one who said that they weren't able to receive care. I just showed they are able to do so. Sometimes they may choose not to, but the ability is there for them even if they don't have coverage.

    Illegal immigrants seem to have gotten the memo, they receive free coverage at our hospitals all the time.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    And the democrats will argue " 2010 was about jobs, you ran on a platform of job creation, so where are the jobs?"

    The economy is still the central issue, and voting to repal somthing 37 times sounds more like obsesive compulsive disorder then a plan to fix the economy.
    Typical Democrat. If the economy recovers by 2016 it will be because of how "pro-jobs" the Democrats are. If the economy is still sluggish, (which there is absolutely no way it will be, in my opinion) they will say its because "Republicans stood against the jobs bill." Either way, the jobs bill didn't get passed like the Democrats wanted, and either way the Democrats will still claim credit for success and divert blame for failure.


    But the economy can recover and healthcare premiums can still skyrocket. And we are talking about healthcare.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It likely would not have been repealed had Romney won. The noise would just fade.
    You're right, but I would certainly hope the worst parts of it would be curtailed under a Romney administration. I see the APA as having a lot of good ideas that are laced with cyanide. Detoxify the bill, and the overall impact will be overwhelmingly positive.

  4. #74
    Educator
    CaptinSarcastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Last Seen
    07-18-16 @ 03:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,199

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    How could the Republican's derail anything? Despite 100% opposition from Republicans in the Senate the bill still passed. The bill was constructed behind closed doors and without any republican input. Obamacare is purely in the Democrats court.
    Republicans were begged to participate, the only caveat the democrats made was that there would need to be some Republican votes for the bigger changes Republicans would have wanted, the Democrats simply did not have the votes if they conceded elements to Republicans and Republicans still didn't vote for it. This was party over country and politics over nation. But the bill did include 161 amendments put forward by Republicans with many of them substantive.

    One of two things will happen because the GOP will not address any of the shortcomings of the bill, they will either benefit politically or be blamed for not doing their job. In one case, Democrats will win the House and make the needed changes, or alternatively, the GOP will win the Senate, and they may have the power to repeal the bill in total and enjoy the backlash of reinstating pre-existing condition exclusions, allowing insurance companies to throw dependents off at 21, repeal tax credits to small business for buying health insurance, reopen the Medicare "doughnut hole", and these benefits will be up an running so will have to be taken away from Americans. And if and when they do this, besides all of the people who will be angry at losing the benefits of this bill, if insurance rates don't fall, they will then own THAT.
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    I do not believe any amount of people committing suicide with firearms justifies requiring firearm sellers to preach to customers about suicide regardless if it would or wouldn't save those who commit suicide.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    Why don't Rastafarians smoke begonias?

    You applied a label to me and then accused me of failing to do something that was not relevant to the assertion I was responding to.

    I would be happy to debate the merits of the bill.

    I am disappointed with the bill because the central component of the bill is a giveaway to the health insurance industry (the old Republican idea of free market universal healthcare) and the only component that would have mitigated the risks associated with that aspect was killed in negotiations, the public option.

    Sadly, I honestly believe that if Republicans honestly engaged, we could have come up with a bill that was much better than the one we got. Instead, Republicans forced Democrats to get agreement from every single Democrat, making some aspects of the bill a bit dodgy.

    People act as if our health insurance system (or lack of a system) was anything but a total disaster before Obamacare. We did not get to the point of needing to address this issue because our system was running smoothly.

    Republicans had 16 years to address the healthcare disaster in our country and did NOTHING, not a single bill introduced, no tort reform bills, no bills to take allow selling insurance across state lines, no bills to permanently address the Doc Gap, or the Donut hole. In fact, the only significant bill was the unfunded Medicare part D bill at a cost of over $40 billion per year with no offsets whatsoever.

    On the merits, I would say that this is the best bill they could get passed, and it is has its shortcomings, which could be tweaked over time if the House would spend a moment realizing that they are not going to repeal this bill, but they could be a part of fixing it, instead they have wasted our time and money voting to repeal the same bill 37 times. Every big program in America had to be tweaked and fixed after passage, this one is no different, except that Republicans are not interested in making it better, they want it gone or they want to have as many flaws as it can have.

    One glaringly obvious mistake in Obamacare was the 1099 reporting provision, Republicans refused to vote to amend this element for a year after it was recognized as a big problem, but finally acted after their own base begged for this fix.

    What provisions of the bill would you like to debate on the merits?

    There are some provisions that I would like to see gone, some changed, some added.
    I really just get tired of hearing that talking point. Democrats acting as if the only reason anyone opposes the APA is because they hate Obama is the highest form of snobbery.

    You're right, Republicans did not pass a major reform of healthcare. To Obama's credit, in 20 years from now, not a single provision of the APA may still be in effect, but healthcare will still never be the same as it was before it. Why? Because no matter how bad the bill is, the fact is the bill forces the issue for future reforms to take place. Republicans are now on the clock to respond, and a failure to do so would largely expose the current leadership's ineptitude. People think because I'm a libertarian, I'm against any sort of government involvement at all. I'm not, I believe the government has a duty to make reforms as they are necessary, but I firmly believe that we will be more successful as a country if those reforms have a libertarian flavor to them.

    As for the merits of the bill I'll redirect you to a post I made earlier that outlined the majority of my opposition to the bill.

    Defensive medicine + tort costs only around $100B. Of course the savings wouldn't be absolutely enormous, but its an easy cost to reduce right off the bat. Patient noncompliance costs around $200B a year. That's over $300B of pure waste that can be chopped down right from the get go. Mind you If we were to reduce even have of these costs, that would lead more savings in health care costs than every doctor in America working for free for a year.

    Please tell me exactly which Republicans were pushing limits on flexible spending accounts, throwing another 30 million people on Medicaid, hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes, fixing premium costs to a % of income (rent control and price setting has NEVER worked in any sector, and it damn sure won't work in healthcare) and further restricting medical underwriting (the fact that I will be paying only 1/3rd in what someone who is old, obese, and has diabetes despite using less then 1/20th the amount of healthcare they use is complete bull****, through and through)?

    Yeah, Republicans had the idea of an individual mandate as well as health care exchanges to shop for insurance. By itself, these may have been good ideas. But when you combine an individual mandate with restricting underwriting? That is a radical shifting of costs onto the relatively healthy for the benefit of the extremely unhealthy. When you combine these two policies together, it turns the individual mandate into a completely different animal. So saying it was a "Republican idea" is downright dishonest when you know for a fact that no Republican would support the healthcare law in its present form. Some of healthcare is about life choices, and I am staunchly against any program that attempts to punish those who make all the right choices for the benefit of those who do not.

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptinSarcastic View Post
    Republicans were begged to participate, the only caveat the democrats made was that there would need to be some Republican votes for the bigger changes Republicans would have wanted, the Democrats simply did not have the votes if they conceded elements to Republicans and Republicans still didn't vote for it. This was party over country and politics over nation. But the bill did include 161 amendments put forward by Republicans with many of them substantive.

    One of two things will happen because the GOP will not address any of the shortcomings of the bill, they will either benefit politically or be blamed for not doing their job. In one case, Democrats will win the House and make the needed changes, or alternatively, the GOP will win the Senate, and they may have the power to repeal the bill in total and enjoy the backlash of reinstating pre-existing condition exclusions, allowing insurance companies to throw dependents off at 21, repeal tax credits to small business for buying health insurance, reopen the Medicare "doughnut hole", and these benefits will be up an running so will have to be taken away from Americans. And if and when they do this, besides all of the people who will be angry at losing the benefits of this bill, if insurance rates don't fall, they will then own THAT.
    How do you expect Republicans to participate when the majority of the bill, expanding Medicaid and hundreds of billions in new taxes, is fundamentally against what the party believes in? Taking one or two ideas from Republicans doesn't make it a bipartisan bill. It reminds me of the fiscal cliff debate. Romney wanted to limit deductions to bring down overall tax rates. Obama wanted to limit deductions to raise taxes, then tried to spin it as a "Republican issue."

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't speak for most liberals. But it is possible you ignore what they their response really is because you put too much emphasis on what you THINK is in the bill. But I would have to study your responses more to know for sure.
    No, I put emphasis on what is in the bill. Do you deny anything I said is in the bill is actually in the bill?

  8. #78
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by wbcoleman View Post
    One can keep saying this until the cows come in, but the reality is that the scheme got one Republican vote in the House and zero in the Senate. The ideas obviously weren't TOO Republican!

    But isn't this really beside the point? The Democrats were banking on the notion that it was OK to pass the scheme in the face of clear cut public opposition because they assumed that the opposition would dissipate. But it hasn't, and it won't.
    Yes they were...Republicans just are the party of NO. They won't vote for their own ideas or even for another Republican if it has anything to do with Obama.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #79
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by ReformCollege View Post
    How do you expect Republicans to participate when the majority of the bill, expanding Medicaid and hundreds of billions in new taxes, is fundamentally against what the party believes in? Taking one or two ideas from Republicans doesn't make it a bipartisan bill. It reminds me of the fiscal cliff debate. Romney wanted to limit deductions to bring down overall tax rates. Obama wanted to limit deductions to raise taxes, then tried to spin it as a "Republican issue."

    Absolutely against what the Republicans stand for. They want a 60% Military Offense budget and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then those crooked banksters need lots of help and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then there's the tax cuts for the 1% and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. 'Bout sums it up. It's time to get back to serious death and destruction and the co-joined profits from war and business joining at the hip. Screw a bunch of healthcare, don't ya' think?

  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: Snowe: President thought opposition to health law would eventually fade away

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Absolutely against what the Republicans stand for. They want a 60% Military Offense budget and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then those crooked banksters need lots of help and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. Then there's the tax cuts for the 1% and they gonna get it. Screw a bunch of healthcare. 'Bout sums it up. It's time to get back to serious death and destruction and the co-joined profits from war and business jpoining at the hip. Screw a bunch of healthcare, don't ya' think?
    I know plenty of conservatives who were staunchly against the bailout of both banks and the auto industry. I know plenty of libertarians who want to cut the military budget. And the tax cuts weren't solely for the rich, they were actually for everyone.

    But don't let that get in the way of your partisan absolutes.

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •