• 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!

What'll We Do About the Town Hall Screamers? Part 2: The More Things Change...:

again, they oppose, republicans oppose, yet offer nothing as a solution. nothing. as i mentioned earlier, i'm happy to discuss legitimate reasons for opposition.
You DO know that the Republicans arent holding up the bill(s), right?

and btw, i will always defend my vote for obama.
Some people -do- drink a lot of kool-aid.
 
Arrest them for disorderly conduct. And then when they don't get comply fast enough when being arrested, we taz them, bro.
 
Arrest them for disorderly conduct. And then when they don't get comply fast enough when being arrested, we taz them, bro.

Perfect recipe for 500 irate citizens sticking that tazer up some cops ass. These people have a right to free speech and assembly... this is still a semi-free country.
 
No one was screaming about health care, until this POS bill was written.

Yes, you and the other partisan screamers have been so articulate about why you oppose it...:roll:

"the systematic dismantling of our country"... talk about going full retard.
 
Read this carefully and think about what it says... if you were an insurance company, do you think you could stay in business if you couldn't ever enroll anyone new after this bill goes into effect?.
Well, I read it carefully. :mrgreen: I agree, they wouldn't stay in business under those conditions, but you also failed to post the provision in it's full context.

The provision establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange. Individual health insurance plans that do not meet the "grandfather" conditions would still be available for purchase, but only through the Exchange, and subject to those regulations.

By not including the wording related to the "Health Insurance Exchange" the section you quoted could be perceived as something other than what was intended to mean. The Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.

Section (c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage

19
(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan

(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED- Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.
Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

To fully understand Section 101 all of the subsections of the entire section need to be included.
 
Perfect recipe for 500 irate citizens sticking that tazer up some cops ass. These people have a right to free speech and assembly... this is still a semi-free country.
I was being a bit sarcastic. Everyone is allowed free speech and to assemble but there are RULES and LIMITATIONSfor when, where, and how you assemble and speak. If you enter a town hall meeting then start swearing, cussing, screaming and yelling then its justified that your free speech is curtailed. Free speech has limits. E.G., yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
 
LOL... no one is going to go for this... they probably aren't old enough to have heard it before.

Oh, I figure they know the recipe, but don't think boiling their environmentalist friends is funny, that, and if they admitted to knowing the recipe, they'd have to confess that Messiah-Care is the worst idea since the Sixteenth Amendment, and they like the Sixteenth Amendment.
 
Yes, you and the other partisan screamers have been so articulate about why you oppose it...:roll:

"the systematic dismantling of our country"... talk about going full retard.

Yes. I've been perfectly clear about why I oppose it.

It violates the Constitution.

It won't work.

It will cost so much the word "fortune" is meaningless.

It will affect my life and my family negatively.

It won't work.

And it violated the Constitution.

Did I mention the fact that the people promoting don't have a shred of credibility?

Would you buy a used Clunker from a Congressman?
 
Oh.

So you're confessing that nationalization of an industry will deny people the fullest access to that industry.

No, if you can find the honesty to apply your new found knowledge to your demand that doctors be nationalized, we can begin to teach you your errors.
Where is the breaking news that we are about to nationalize doctors?

Why don't you get behind breaking the physician's union (the AMA) which has advised states to limit the number of doctors trained ea year and limited the number allowed to immigrate to the U.S., thus guaranteeing high physician incomes and denying people fullest access to that industry??
 
Yes. I've been perfectly clear about why I oppose it.

It violates the Constitution.

It won't work.

It will cost so much the word "fortune" is meaningless.

It will affect my life and my family negatively.

It won't work.

And it violated the Constitution.

Did I mention the fact that the people promoting don't have a shred of credibility?

Would you buy a used Clunker from a Congressman?

Your argument amounts to this: "I got my life boat the rest of you can drown".
 
Your argument amounts to this: "I got my life boat the rest of you can drown".
Its not my responsibility to make sure you have a life jacket.
Want to survive? Learn to swim.
 
Its not my responsibility to make sure you have a life jacket.
Want to survive? Learn to swim.

You pay for all of your H.Care out of pocket, right?

Unless, you pay out of pocket for your health care, you are depending on others to pay the tab for your care if you become seriously ill. That is how insurance works. Want to opt out of the 'burden' of paying for those less fortunate? Drop your insurance.

As long as you pay taxes you are providing a life boat for teachers, policeman, fireman, town managers, elected officials, etc etc etc.. If you work for a corporation then your nanny employer is probably providing your life boat and receiving a tax benefit I must help pay for. If you are a fat b*st*rd, like most Americans, my insurance costs definitely reflect your bad habits.

The creepy spectacle of school teachers and the elderly shouting hysterically that gov't had better not touch THEIR H.C.- Pathetic. People are certainly protective of their piece of gov't funded welfare.

As for me, I just want the corrupt insurance industry to offer a plan that covers emergencies only. I will receive non emergency care outside of this country. Of course, no such policy exists because the industries prefer to hold Americans hostage to U.S. H.C. industry mafia.
 
You pay for all of your H.Care out of pocket, right?

Unless, you pay out of pocket for your health care, you are depending on others to pay the tab for your care if you become seriously ill. That is how insurance works.

They're providing a service for which you freely contracted, and an obligation which they freely accepted. Your implication is that you'd be living off the backs of the insurance companies, as in, they're giving you something for nothing. That's not how it works.
 
I see nothing wrong with people regardless of how informed or misinformed from not wanting something. I feel the pro-health care groups would have a much better argument if they were not trying to impose it onto everyone. HR 3200 does just that. They remove the choice from all those not wanting any part of it.

Personally I dont care if the bill was superb I would not want it. Why? Because I do not feel it is the governments job to take care of the people and its over stepping its self. I feel its the governments job to insure all have equal opportunity and its up to us to do with that what we will. Now a reform bill that leaves the private sector to make its own choices I would be fine with.

and those with pre-exisiting illnesses will continue to be refused coverage by insurance companies....leaving the taxpayer to pay their bills, or we just let them die....
 
Its not my responsibility to make sure you have a life jacket.
Want to survive? Learn to swim.

a very christian attitude, to be sure....
I think the right is afraid that healthcare reform will work, and the left will get all the credit, and then the right has one more hurdle to overcome in getting back into power....
 
Last edited:
They're providing a service for which you freely contracted, and an obligation which they freely accepted. Your implication is that you'd be living off the backs of the insurance companies, as in, they're giving you something for nothing. That's not how it works.

No. I am saying that all insurance operates on the basis of shared, dispersed risk. In every system, other than self-pay, healthy people eventually subsidize unhealthy people. Furthermore, our system shifts the cost of care all over the place in a completely haphazard fashion.

Someone like "Goobieman" who, god forbid, does not want to be found paying for anyone else's care, must be a self-pay consumer, right?
 
a very christian attitude, to be sure....
I think the right is afraid that healthcare reform will work, and the left will get all the credit, and then the right has one more hurdle to overcome in getting back into power....
Why else would they be against a provision in this proposal that they themselves have supported in the very recent past?

Why else be against a proposal to have another choice as to who will be the carrier of your health insurance?

Why else create a strawman of a government run health care system (Canada...England), when that is not being proposed?
 
No. I am saying that all insurance operates on the basis of shared, dispersed risk. In every system, other than self-pay, healthy people eventually subsidize unhealthy people. Furthermore, our system shifts the cost of care all over the place in a completely haphazard fashion.

Someone like "Goobieman" who, god forbid, does not want to be found paying for anyone else's care, must be a self-pay consumer, right?

I'm pretty sure that the difference for him is that he has complete choice over the matter.
 
Why else would they be against a provision in this proposal that they themselves have supported in the very recent past?

Why else be against a proposal to have another choice as to who will be the carrier of your health insurance?

Why else create a strawman of a government run health care system (Canada...England), when that is not being proposed?

Good grief.

:doh

How many times are people going to say that the only reason anyone could possibly be opposed to this bill is because they're stupid or evil?

Really. Enough. It's ridiculous, unthinking, and frankly, disgusting.
 
I'm pretty sure that the difference for him is that he has complete choice over the matter.
No one has "complete choice" unless they are in the 'self-pay' column and even then, they had better be well -heeled. Let us say, he cannot pay for his own care. We, his fellow citizens, can 'choose' to let him die. Right?
 
No one has "complete choice" unless they are in the 'self-pay' column and even then, they had better be well -heeled. Let us say, he cannot pay for his own care. We, his fellow citizens, can 'choose' to let him die. Right?

He has complete choice as to whether or not he wants to enter a risk pool. That's a fact, like it or not.

And yes, fellow citizens can make that choice.
 
No one has "complete choice" unless they are in the 'self-pay' column and even then, they had better be well -heeled. Let us say, he cannot pay for his own care. We, his fellow citizens, can 'choose' to let him die. Right?

In many cases, I can agree with that. I know quite a few people who have filed bankruptcy, and all but one of them didn't have health insurance, by choice. One guy quit a job with benefits for him and his family to take one without benefits, one where he didn't have to work the evening shift so much.
He could have purchased a catastrophic health care policyfor a reasonable amount, but instead he chose to have the internet, cable TV, a collection of DVD's, a cell phone for him, another for his wife, and another for the oldest child. Ever see a grown man addicted to texting?
He lost his new job when his employer filed bankruptcy. I wonder who is paying for all his toys now.
 
Last edited:
Good grief.

:doh

How many times are people going to say that the only reason anyone could possibly be opposed to this bill is because they're stupid or evil?

Really. Enough. It's ridiculous, unthinking, and frankly, disgusting.

Well, kind of not too difficult to draw that conclusion considering the intellectual emptiness of most of the arguments. Factor the craven hypocrisy of people screaming about Socialism, when they themselves demand no cuts be made to their Medicare (you know that Socialist program for 65 and over). Or should we consider the depraved dishonesty from the likes of Grassley, Palin, and Newt and their Death Panels (you know, the ones they were formally in favor of, back when they were correctly called end of life counseling). Consider the so called deficit hawks who cry about the cost, while dishonestly ignoring what the impact of rising healthcare costs and Medicare growth.

Stupidity is arguing against paying for the healthcare of others...while we are already paying! Stupidity is thinking we can stay the course, and still be competitive in the global economy with a 17% GDP expenditure on healthcare. Stupidity is thinking we have such a great healthcare system, when every study shows we do not. Stupidity is using intellectually dishonest claims about our cancer survival rates, while completely ignoring the ironic "Socialist" investment government makes in cancer research. Stupidity is the sheer number of so called anti-Socialist Republicans who want to defeat "Socialist" healthcare, when they themselves do not have the honesty to support ending all our other wonderful Socialist programs. Stupidity is thinking we have a great system, when we are paying thousands of dollars more per person; that translates into higher out of pocket costs, lower wages, and increasing need for businesses to no longer offer healthcare. Stupidity is when NGO healthcare groups have to set up operations in U.S. cities, the same work they do in THIRD WORLD NATIONS (Yes folks, we join Haiti, Afghanistan, and others).

So no, it may not be the only reason that people are opposing HCR is because they are stupid and evil, but god damn if honest opposition is damn hard to find. The reality than any child could see is that opposition so far is primarily for partisan and special interests. Boo hoo the insurance companies might actually have to get a little more honest, I really could not give a bleep. They are one industry that seeks to drag down our whole economy. Where have the honest and thoughtful opponents been? Could it be that the Republicans just want a Waterloo moment, could it be that they care more about winning elections than the good of the nation? Well, I think the past 8 years have said enough.

In 2003 the Republicans in charge of both House and Senate, as well as the Presidency pushed out a Medicare bill without one single thought to how it was to be paid for. This bill alone will end up costing about close to the exact same as the current HCR proposals. Think about it, why was there no Republicans crying then for deficits and costs and so on? Where are these champions of deficits crying about a war in Iraq that will cost us in the end $3-5 trillion more than what was sold to us the public?

Most importantly, think for a second, what does it say about the opponents argument when they have to resort to the most depraved of lies and deceit. The sheer hypocrisy of Newt, Palin, Grassley, and others is despicable. To whip up anger and fear over these Death Panels, when these same despicable humans supported them.
 
a very christian attitude, to be sure....
I think the right is afraid that healthcare reform will work, and the left will get all the credit, and then the right has one more hurdle to overcome in getting back into power....

Yeah, you go tit. We think helping people is horrible.


Nothing to do with spending 1 Trillion dollars... and when was the last time a massive government entitlement program stayed on budget? To remove peoples rights on medical care.

Nah, it's all about power, you SOOO tagged us.
 
Back
Top Bottom