• 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!

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

American said:
I think there is more to this story than the one article says. There is more to it than just requiring individuals to buy insurance, and I doubt what's in the new law resembles what the GOP would have passed.
Click to expand...

But many have singled out the mandate as an objection.
 
American said:
I think there is more to this story than the one article says. There is more to it than just requiring individuals to buy insurance, and I doubt what's in the new law resembles what the GOP would have passed. You don't just come here saying it was a GOP idea for two decades, on top of the fact that this just comes out after over a year of debate on this, and say "oh the GOP wanted this". No, the timing of this is suspicious and no doubt intended to help the Dems in November.
Click to expand...

Probably not exactly like, but that doesn't matter. The objection to the mandate is not because of anything else in the bill, but because of it alone. The cry is for no mandate all under any circumstance. There is really no way explain this outside of disingenuous partisanship.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

In order for this to even be remotely relevant, you need to demonstrate something a little better than a difference of opinion across a 20 year spread.

And whether Republicans agree or disagree with it today or 2 decades ago, it's still a bad idea.
 
jallman said:
In order for this to even be remotely relevant, you need to demonstrate something a little better than a difference of opinion across a 20 year spread.

And whether Republicans agree or disagree with it today or 2 decades ago, it's still a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Actually, without the public option, it is the only viable way to do away with insurance companies banning folks with pre-existing conditions. It's not as effective as a universal payer, but it is the only option left to prevent people from being denied insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

And no matter when it was, it was a republican idea.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, without the public option, it is the only viable way to do away with insurance companies banning folks with pre-existing conditions. It's not as effective as a universal payer, but it is the only option left to prevent people from being denied insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

And no matter when it was, it was a republican idea.
Click to expand...
I see it is impossible for you to understand what "Liabilities" are. How the hell else can insurance companies assess risk??
 
Bassman said:
I see it is impossible for you to understand what "Liabilities" are. How the hell else can insurance companies assess risk??
Click to expand...

I understand it completely. Having everyone insured midigates risk. And btw, if everyone is insured, there is less likelihood that someone with a pre-existing condition will be seeking a provider. They will already be insured.

Are you sure you understand how this works? ;):doh
 
Boo Radley said:
I understand it completely. Having everyone insured midigates risk. And btw, if everyone is insured, there is less likelihood that someone with a pre-existing condition will be seeking a provider. They will already be insured.

Are you sure you understand how this works? ;):doh
Click to expand...
Then let them pay through the nose and pay higher premiums than those of lower risk.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, without the public option, it is the only viable way to do away with insurance companies banning folks with pre-existing conditions. It's not as effective as a universal payer, but it is the only option left to prevent people from being denied insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

And no matter when it was, it was a republican idea.
Click to expand...

I don't care who's idea it is. I know one thing: I don't like it and the Republicans are opposing it NOW so they have my support right NOW.
 
Bassman said:
Then let them pay through the nose and pay higher premiums than those of lower risk.
Click to expand...

Those with lower risk may one day become higher risk. Perhaps you don't understand the idea behind insurance. It is to make sure you're covered when things get worse.
 
jallman said:
I don't care who's idea it is. I know one thing: I don't like it and the Republicans are opposing it NOW so they have my support right NOW.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your right. I won't demand that you like it. But, it is a solution to the problem, and the only when left that will actually address the problem of keeping those who need insurance insured.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, that's your right. I won't demand that you like it. But, it is a solution to the problem, and the only when left that will actually address the problem of keeping those who need insurance insured.
Click to expand...

I don't personally care about the insurance of others, either. I care about my medical treatment that I provide rather efficiently to my partner and myself through insurance that suits my needs. I have no interest in being herded into an insurance plan of the government's choice when mine already suits me just fine.

What others do is fine for them. I don't want to be part of their solution and I do not require them to be part of mine.
 
jallman said:
I don't personally care about the insurance of others, either. I care about my medical treatment that I provide rather efficiently to my partner and myself through insurance that suits my needs. I have no interest in being herded into an insurance plan of the government's choice when mine already suits me just fine.

What others do is fine for them. I don't want to be part of their solution and I do not require them to be part of mine.
Click to expand...

Again, that's your right. But very little that has passed should effect you if you are insured right now.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, that's your right. But very little that has passed should effect you if you are insured right now.
Click to expand...

Until I decide one day that I want to change my insurance plan. And then it's gonna be sorting through what nanny government wants me to have instead of just picking a plan based on what I need and want.

All so ghetto babies can have insurance, too.:roll:
 
jallman said:
Until I decide one day that I want to change my insurance plan. And then it's gonna be sorting through what nanny government wants me to have instead of just picking a plan based on what I need and want.

All so ghetto babies can have insurance, too.:roll:
Click to expand...

I doubt that. There is no nanny government. That's kool aid stuff. Nearly all industry have standards they have to adhere to. This is no different.

Your last statement is a tad distrubing. Do you have problems with the poor?
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, that's your right. But very little that has passed should effect you if you are insured right now.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the operative term. it is the intent of the Left to completely kill of the private insurance industry, just like the private student loan industry. Just so we all could have the piss poor quality of government run healthcare.
 
Boo Radley said:
I doubt that. There is no nanny government. That's kool aid stuff. Nearly all industry have standards they have to adhere to. This is no different.

Your last statement is a tad distrubing. Do you have problems with the poor?
Click to expand...

No, I was being sarcastic, for the most part.

I don't have problems with the poor. But I do view being poor as no excuse to leverage the government for goods and services you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

And yes, it is nanny government. I don't like the mandate, which it by it's nature is nanny government, and the restrictions it will place on choice. I don't like the idea of the government being involved at all, actually. I just think this is going to turn into another big, bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved and it's gonna be a sink hole of money we don't have. I don't, for one minute, believe that you can expand a program like this and have it still be budget neutral.
 
jallman said:
No, I was being sarcastic, for the most part.

I don't have problems with the poor. But I do view being poor as no excuse to leverage the government for goods and services you wouldn't otherwise be able to afford.

And yes, it is nanny government. I don't like the mandate, which it by it's nature is nanny government, and the restrictions it will place on choice. I don't like the idea of the government being involved at all, actually. I just think this is going to turn into another big, bureaucratic nightmare for everyone involved and it's gonna be a sink hole of money we don't have. I don't, for one minute, believe that you can expand a program like this and have it still be budget neutral.
Click to expand...

There are more than a few mandates in our lives. From having to have auto insurance to drive, to food having to be inspected, to emissions regulations to signing up for selective service. This is really no different than those things.

We have a problem. You are right now today paying for people who are uninsured. You are paying in terms of higher premiums which have raised consistently for years, and for less service. You pay in prices for services (like a $16.04 bandaid at your hospital). You pay by seeing business lose in competition to companies in foreign countries who have a universal insurer and don't have it linked to their employers. You cannot really pay more than you are now. You just don't see the cost. Not as up front as you should. If you did, you'd be mad as hell and not so inclined to think this was a huge change for the worse.
 
Boo Radley said:
There are more than a few mandates in our lives. From having to have auto insurance to drive, to food having to be inspected, to emissions regulations to signing up for selective service. This is really no different than those things.

We have a problem. You are right now today paying for people who are uninsured. You are paying in terms of higher premiums which have raised consistently for years, and for less service. You pay in prices for services (like a $16.04 bandaid at your hospital). You pay by seeing business lose in competition to companies in foreign countries who have a universal insurer and don't have it linked to their employers. You cannot really pay more than you are now. You just don't see the cost. Not as up front as you should. If you did, you'd be mad as hell and not so inclined to think this was a huge change for the worse.
Click to expand...
Nor are you seeing how this will bankrupt the country in terms of yet more entitlement spending.
 
Bassman said:
Nor are you seeing how this will bankrupt the country in terms of yet more entitlement spending.
Click to expand...

It's bankrupting us now. that's what's missing in your interpretation. Not to mention helping in the loss of business in this country.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's bankrupting us now. that's what's missing in your interpretation. Not to mention helping in the loss of business in this country.
Click to expand...
For the economically challenged!!! the formula for a thriving private sector is simple: Cut spending across the board, lower taxes, and eliminate onerous business regulations.
 
Bassman said:
For the economically challenged!!! the formula for a thriving private sector is simple: Cut spending across the board, lower taxes, and eliminate onerous business regulations.
Click to expand...

Deregulation contributed to a lot of the problems we have now. Regulations often serve a real purpose. Think about that tainted peanut butter we ran into a while back, not to mention the entire housing, banking Wallstreet matter.
 
Boo Radley said:
Deregulation contributed to a lot of the problems we have now. Regulations often serve a real purpose. Think about that tainted peanut butter we ran into a while back, not to mention the entire housing, banking Wallstreet matter.
Click to expand...
New York State is a shining example of a private sector economy choked off by high taxes and onerous regulations. do you really want that for the entire country??
 
Boo Radley said:
There are more than a few mandates in our lives. From having to have auto insurance to drive,
Click to expand...

But you are not required to drive.

to food having to be inspected,
Click to expand...

Hardly any of the food I ate growing up was inspected unless it was by my family when we harvested or killed it.

to emissions regulations
Click to expand...

Again, no one requires you to drive.

to signing up for selective service.
Click to expand...

Don't much care for that one either but that's beside the point.

This is really no different than those things.
Click to expand...

It most certainly is different than those things. It is a mandate that you buy a private industry product for simply breathing in the US.

We have a problem.
Click to expand...

We don't have a problem. Ghetto babies without insurance might have a problem, but I don't have that problem.

You are right now today paying for people who are uninsured. You are paying in terms of higher premiums which have raised consistently for years, and for less service. You pay in prices for services (like a $16.04 bandaid at your hospital). You pay by seeing business lose in competition to companies in foreign countries who have a universal insurer and don't have it linked to their employers. You cannot really pay more than you are now. You just don't see the cost. Not as up front as you should. If you did, you'd be mad as hell and not so inclined to think this was a huge change for the worse.
Click to expand...

I am comfortable and even happy with the service for cost ratio I experience now. What I am angry about is how I am about to be responsible for others and their care.
 
Bassman said:
New York State is a shining example of a private sector economy choked off by high taxes and onerous regulations. do you really want that for the entire country??
Click to expand...

If you say so. I don't live there. That said, you may well be reading it wrong. For the nation, we will need to both cut spending and raise taxes to reduce the debt. Until we do that, no significant progress will be made on the deficit.

If we successfully get a handle on our health care problem, and I don't believe we have yet, we can see a real reduction on the cost of health care in this country, which will in turn reduce the debt. More work is needed to reach that point, but there is no chance of that if we don't move forward.
 
jallman said:
Hardly any of the food I ate growing up was inspected unless it was by my family when we harvested or killed it.
Click to expand...

And food poisoning was rampant back then.

Again, no one requires you to drive.
Click to expand...

Nobody requires you to live either, or be healthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom