Page 39 of 57 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 570

Thread: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

  1. #381
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    1. Interesting how those who always oppose the views and opinion of one side are quick to support polling data when it supports their views but aren't so supportive of polls when the data goes against their perspective. Fact of the matter is the public option was favored by the majority of Americans. Some just either didn't like the way the health care reform bill was (eventually) structured or didn't like many of the provision that eventually went into the final bill. But the public option was always a good idea per the people across the board and many are still upset that it wasn't included in the final bill.

    2. As I've stated in this threads concerning this nation's "doctor/nurse shortage," we've had a shortage in quality doctors and nurses in the country for years. Nothing new here. That additional portion of the health care reform bill that deals with education specifically addresses making funds available to train college students in the medical profession. As in years past, it's going to take time to amass this new "army" of doctors (and nurses) to meet shortages, but in time the number of trained medical professionals will increase. Part of this medical/illness balancing act is prevention and wellness. To that, if this country can get its people to be healthier, the strain on doctor's visit will naturally decrease. That doesn't mean the country stops trying to train and hire people in the medical profession. It just means that you keep trying to reduce that patient/doctor ratio. (For details on future projections on patient/doctor ratio, see post #94 of this thread.

    Again, I understand the concern, but I don't think the problem will be as grave in the long-term as some are making it out to be. Our system of health care has always found ways to deal with situations where treatment, services and emergecy care are concerned. I'm sure they'll meet this challenge just as well. If not...well, I guess those who disagree can move to Costa Rica with Rush Limbaugh. (Just kidding... )
    I put no faith in polls at all, but I do put faith in history. Please tell me why you support the public option and give me an example of where the govt. has done any social program well, within budget, and solved a problem?

    What govt. does is social engineer and create dependence. Right now almost 50% of the people pay no Federal Income Taxes yet consume most of the services in this country. Those people are dependent on the govt. Offering the public option hurts private industry and thus innovation and creativity.

    There is a great divide in this country today, people like you who refuse to except history and others who understand the reality of liberalism.

  2. #382
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I put no faith in polls at all, but I do put faith in history. Please tell me why you support the public option and give me an example of where the govt. has done any social program well, within budget, and solved a problem?
    Some pretty high standards. Can you name a private industry that has totally solved a social problem?

    Medicare, social security, disability, unemployment. All of these do exactly what they're supposed to do: provide a safety net for a particular social problem. They help a lot of people and every citizen has access to these programs when they need them. "Solving" a problem like these is a blatant attempt to deflect the issue with an impossible "goal." Solve the problem? What, the existence of old people? On-the-job injuries that take people out of work? You can't solve problems like that. You really need to stop repeating standard conservative talking points (you're doing it word for word) because they're getting old.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #383
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA but mostly in my head
    Last Seen
    06-02-10 @ 06:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    161

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I put no faith in polls at all, but I do put faith in history. Please tell me why you support the public option and give me an example of where the govt. has done any social program well, within budget, and solved a problem?

    What govt. does is social engineer and create dependence. Right now almost 50% of the people pay no Federal Income Taxes yet consume most of the services in this country. Those people are dependent on the govt. Offering the public option hurts private industry and thus innovation and creativity.

    There is a great divide in this country today, people like you who refuse to except history and others who understand the reality of liberalism.
    Government social programs dont work not only because of government but because people only expresses points when they become aware of them. Its not a Coincidence that the fact you just stated is annouced in your arguement at the same time media and government points it out. The numbers were already there.

  4. #384
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtprocess View Post
    Government social programs dont work not only because of government but because people only expresses points when they become aware of them. Its not a Coincidence that the fact you just stated is annouced in your arguement at the same time media and government points it out. The numbers were already there.
    At least he backed off the way the GOP originally put it: 50% of the population "pays no taxes" which is blatantly false.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #385
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Some pretty high standards. Can you name a private industry that has totally solved a social problem?

    Medicare, social security, disability, unemployment. All of these do exactly what they're supposed to do: provide a safety net for a particular social problem. They help a lot of people and every citizen has access to these programs when they need them. "Solving" a problem like these is a blatant attempt to deflect the issue with an impossible "goal." Solve the problem? What, the existence of old people? On-the-job injuries that take people out of work? You can't solve problems like that. You really need to stop repeating standard conservative talking points (you're doing it word for word) because they're getting old.
    All of those cost more than intended and havesn't solved any problems. SS was never intended to be paid out as the life expectancy was 62 with retirement benefits at 65. Medicare started out as a mulit million dollar program that now costs billions. you have to do better than that. Problem is you don't understand those programs because you don't feel the pinch of the payments. You will when the value of your dollars drop.

    It is tax dollars that fund the govt. whereas private dollars fund private business. If you don't like what a private company is doing, don't buy from them.

    It isn't the private sector or the public sector's job to solve a personal social problem. Where did you go to school?

  6. #386
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    At least he backed off the way the GOP originally put it: 50% of the population "pays no taxes" which is blatantly false.
    You think it is right for 50% of the people not to pay any income taxes? It is bogus to call SS a retirement fund on one hand but a tax on another. Typical liberal bs. People are force to pay into the SS fund with a guarantee they will get something out when they retire. Where is that guarantee with income taxes?

    It is the liberal argument that SS is a tax when it is really a "contribution" to ones retirement account.
    Last edited by Conservative; 04-24-10 at 02:33 PM.

  7. #387
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Nothing is certain, which is why we have courts. They'll decide this. But you can't claim with certainty that isn't constitutional when the courts have allowed such things before. The fine is money, and money would help pay for some of it. How many do you think can actually opt out?
    If I can jump in. Many healthy, younger people will find it is cheaper to go without insurance and pay the fine than to buy insurance. Since insurance companies will not be able to disallow people with a pre-existing condition, why buy it before you need it.

    No one can know what the future will bring, but it is possible that for a certain segment of the population the rate of insured may go down.

    The worst thing that this HC bill does is to freeze any of the real fixes we nneded to make. Since the bill is not really operational for about 4 years, no one can really tell what was fixed and what still needs fixing.

  8. #388
    Professor
    Marilyn Monroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    03-06-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,137

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    At least he backed off the way the GOP originally put it: 50% of the population "pays no taxes" which is blatantly false.
    They pay, they just get it back through the Earned Income Credit. There's got to be all sorts of fraud going on with that one, but the govt. can't say that, it's not PC.

    Try collecting Social Security Disability, and see what happens. Do some research. It's all online. I'll give you a hint. Even the truly disabled have a hard time getting it. It takes at least two years after application. Usually a claimant has to hire an attorney. How do you live for two years without income?

    Try getting welfare. Again, not easy, unless you're already in the system.

    Go to Europe. They say the cancer patients don't have to wait for care. Ha, ha, ha.

    Avoiding goverment intervention is the better way to go.

    What happens when more people are collecting than working? Go after the rich? They'll be long gone.

    Go after Michael Jordan, Barbra Streisand. They'll all be living in Switzerland.
    "It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens." Woody Allen.

  9. #389
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I put no faith in polls at all, but I do put faith in history. Please tell me why you support the public option and give me an example of where the govt. has done any social program well, within budget, and solved a problem?

    What govt. does is social engineer and create dependence. Right now almost 50% of the people pay no Federal Income Taxes yet consume most of the services in this country. Those people are dependent on the govt. Offering the public option hurts private industry and thus innovation and creativity.

    There is a great divide in this country today, people like you who refuse to except history and others who understand the reality of liberalism.
    I'll tell you straight...

    I don't believe any social program has been run efficiently throughout this country's 200+ year history. But that DOES NOT obsolve our government from doing everything it can to provide aid to its people by any means it deems necessarily by the electorate to look after and promote the general welfare of the country as a whole.

    Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, EPA, VA, DEA, FDA, Dept of Humans Services (DHS), etc, etc. All of this agencies/programs were designed to promote the general welfare of the people, to provide a means whereby those who have been economically, financially or in some way socially disadvantaged to give them a means to lift themselves up and have a fair shake at having a decent quality of life. Now, the overall authority with some of these programs remain at the federal level while others have been delegated and/or shared by the states. I think those who are in opposition of some of the more commonly known social programs, i.e., welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, VA, forget that these programs have a shared responsibility between the federal government and the states. It's not just the fed that run these programs inefficiently. It's also the fault of the states. But what's at the root of this inefficiency?

    MONEY!

    No state wants to take full responsibility for these social programs because they know if they do their government subsidy will stop!

    No state wants to run these social programs more efficiently and, thus, eliminate the co-dependency status of their residences because they know if the financial kickback they receive from the fed will cease!

    The irony here is the states have yet to realize that the more of their residences they can off of these social programs and, thus, become independent the more economically solvent the state can be. Put people to work earning a living for themselves bring more tax revenue to that state. Unfornately, what we have is 50 nanny states. Personally, I like the idea of "work-fare" because it empowers the people who depend on it to get a leg up in society. Unfortunately, not one state that has enacted workfare run their programs as efficiently as their laws were designed to do. Nonetheless, that does NOT obsolve the federal government from doing everything it can to provide for the general welfare of its people. So, inefficient as some or most social programs may be, I think they serve a very important purpose. It's really up to the states moreso than the federal government to make these programs work more efficiently because that power has been delegated to them despite the federal government setting the standards.

    Now, as to the public option, I was for it because it would have promoted openeness across the board in personal health insurance. If the program would have been passed as originally intended, statelines would have been open and the people could have obtained their health insurance from any state in the union no matter where they lived, no matter what job they migrated to, no matter what type of health insurance package they purchased and no matter how that insurance was provided to them - employer-based, individually acquired, via high risk pools, co-ops or state-based health insurance exchange. The health insurance industry would have been an open playing field, but the industry as a whole would have remained intact and been far more viable, IMO, because it would have promoted greater competition. For me personally, I liked the idea that if I changed jobs or moved from one state to the next be in a neighboring state or clear across country I could retain my health insurance if I were satisfied with what I had. As things stand now, no one can do that. So, if I lived in CA but moved to Maine, I couldn't keep my current health insurance UNLESS my relocation was at the request of my present employer. Otherwise, we're all screwed in that regard.

    Now, granted, not alot of us will ever have to deal with that problem, but it was nice to think that should I move from one state to the next I could keep my health insurance plan under the public option as originally designed. Or if I wanted to migrate from my employer-based insurance plan and find one I thought was better at a reduced cost out-of-state I could do that, too. For the insurance company that felt they were losing customers, I say tough! You argue captialism...I say they should provide a better, more economical product! That's their problem, not mine. IMO, it would have been captialism at it's finest...the insurance company that provided the worst policies go under while those companies that provide better at a fair price remain afloat. It's what Conservatives wanted, right? The certainly would have had it with the public option or been forced to adjust their practises and better compete in the marketplace.

    You can't have it both ways.

  10. #390
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,488

    Re: New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - Yahoo! News

    Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

    The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
    ....Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

    Any argument that the tactics of the GOP are anything other than political posturing simply to oppose anything that Obama proposes is disengenuous.


    They were for it before they were against it.
    So, let me guess: when Obamacare goes tits up, the Libs are going to blame it on the Republicans?

    When the deadbeat class starts protesting in the streets because they aren't getting their free healthcare, the Libs are going to blame it on them mean 'ole Republicans?

    Glad we got that straight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 39 of 57 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... 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
  •