• 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

jallman said:
But you are not required to drive.
Click to expand...

Not the point and a meaningless distinction. the fact is, if I want to drive, there is a mandate.

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...

Not sure how old you are, but before inspections many people suffered from unhealthy practices. You can look that up if you are so inclined. With deregulation recently we saw tainted peanut butter.

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

Also same as above.


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

yes it is. ;)

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.
Click to expand...

Not quite. It is protection for the rest of us who do in fact pay for you if you're wrong about your future. Again, we're paying for people right now, before reform.


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

Yes, you do. You're paying for them right now.

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.
Click to expand...

You are now. Again, right now you are paying for them and have been long before this reform.
 
misterman said:
And food poisoning was rampant back then.
Click to expand...

Source? Because we never suffered food poisoning.

Nobody requires you to live either, or be healthy.
Click to expand...

You have a right to life. That is an unfettered right to live...not a right to live with insurance, not a right to live with medical access, not a right to live as long as you purchase a private sector product.

And no, there is no requirement that you be healthy. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

By our very natures, we require ourselves to live so I don't know what point you thought you were making. I doubt you even know yourself.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not the point and a meaningless distinction. the fact is, if I want to drive, there is a mandate.
Click to expand...

It's a fundamental distinction. You have a right to live. You don't have a right to drive. That right to live is unimpeded by government controls on that right. This mandate requires you to buy a private sector product just to exert your right to live.

That is unConstitutional. Period.


You are not required to drive so there is no requirement to have auto insurance.

You are required to live and have a right to do so. A restriction on that right is not acceptable.
 
jallman said:
Source? Because we never suffered food poisoning.
Click to expand...

Not you, but lots of people back then.

You didn't think our great state of health just appeared out of thin air, did you? No, the government imposed food safety regulations, along with measures to prevent epidemic diseases, etc. Food used to kill people more often.

And no, there is no requirement that you be healthy. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Click to expand...

Okay then.

By our very natures, we require ourselves to live so I don't know what point you thought you were making. I doubt you even know yourself.
Click to expand...

It was a good point though, doncha think?
 
jallman said:
How far "back then" do you think I lived? I'm only 33. ROFL
Click to expand...

But it sounds like you go back a century the closer you get to your home town.:mrgreen:

Seriously, I was referring to food harvested and processed before inspection was introduced. Inspection has made things much safer.
 
jallman said:
It's a fundamental distinction. You have a right to live. You don't have a right to drive. That right to live is unimpeded by government controls on that right. This mandate requires you to buy a private sector product just to exert your right to live.

That is unConstitutional. Period.


You are not required to drive so there is no requirement to have auto insurance.

You are required to live and have a right to do so. A restriction on that right is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

No, it's meaningless. With a car, if you don't drive, you can't have an auto accident. With health care, you don't have the same control. Because of that, the implementation is different, but the premise is the same.

BTW, the unconstitutional issue is not settled, and certainly not certain. In fact, the smart money is on the frivolous lawsuits failing.
 
BWG said:
Oh no, absolutley not. The Republicans will forever be known as being unanimously opposed to this historic legislation.
Click to expand...

well yeah. that's kind of what they're banking on for November and 2012.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's meaningless. With a car, if you don't drive, you can't have an auto accident. With health care, you don't have the same control. Because of that, the implementation is different, but the premise is the same.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't. in once case you are regulating an economic activity. in another, you are regulating mere existence. you cannot mandate someone purchase a private product just for being alive.

BTW, the unconstitutional issue is not settled, and certainly not certain. In fact, the smart money is on the frivolous lawsuits failing.
Click to expand...

smart money is betting against recent precedent? smart money is stupid.
 
megaprogman said:
Yet pretty much every first world (and many third world) country has that or a similar system, that tends to be very popular, is more cost efficient, and often similar or better outcomes than what we have.

If the system as a whole appears to work (as evidence by a vast amount of data from other countries) the individual details don't matter so much to me. Sure regulations can often be stupid, but as a whole, this sort of thing appears to be a huge success.
Click to expand...

Indeed, even in Costa Rica with a single payer system, where the average income is 1/10 what it is in the US, they have a higher rated health care system than the US.
 
cpwill said:
no, it isn't. in once case you are regulating an economic activity. in another, you are regulating mere existence. you cannot mandate someone purchase a private product just for being alive.
Click to expand...

Not really true. It is an activity to walk into a hospital and get service. People who are uninsured do in fact walk into an ER and get service. And we pay for it. The law, just like the law for uninsured motorists, is designed to protect the rest of us from paying for their lack of responsibility. So, you are in fact misreading the situation.

smart money is betting against recent precedent? smart money is stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually, as best I can find, the precedence favors the law standing. I linked some of that for you some place earlier. So, yes, you are betting against precedence and that isn't smart. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really true. It is an activity to walk into a hospital and get service. People who are uninsured do in fact walk into an ER and get service. And we pay for it. The law, just like the law for uninsured motorists, is designed to protect the rest of us from paying for their lack of responsibility. So, you are in fact misreading the situation.



Actually, as best I can find, the precedence favors the law standing. I linked some of that for you some place earlier. So, yes, you are betting against precedence and that isn't smart. ;)
Click to expand...


Yet you continue to ignore what has been posted on another thread, there is a current lack of doctors and infrastructure to support this healthcare bill and has resulted in insured using the ER's in record numbers because they cannot get into a doctor's office. Nothing in this POS legislation solves the infrastructure problem but instead overburdens the system further by adding another 30 million to the roles.

You seem to believe that healthcare is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want me to pay for your health insurance, send me a bill personally, not created forced payment by the other taxpayers for your inability to accept personal responsibility.

Not sure where you got your education but apparently your education system taught you a different role of the Federal Govt. than mine. Your entire argument seems to be overuse of the ER's by the uninsured but as I posted the rise in ER usage is by the insured, not the uninsured. That simply destroys your opinion.
 
Conservative said:
Yet you continue to ignore what has been posted on another thread, there is a current lack of doctors and infrastructure to support this healthcare bill and has resulted in insured using the ER's in record numbers because they cannot get into a doctor's office. Nothing in this POS legislation solves the infrastructure problem but instead overburdens the system further by adding another 30 million to the roles.

You seem to believe that healthcare is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you want me to pay for your health insurance, send me a bill personally, not created forced payment by the other taxpayers for your inability to accept personal responsibility.

Not sure where you got your education but apparently your education system taught you a different role of the Federal Govt. than mine. Your entire argument seems to be overuse of the ER's by the uninsured but as I posted the rise in ER usage is by the insured, not the uninsured. That simply destroys your opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't now nor have I ignored it. It simply isn't the problem you make it out to be. It is a small problem to which there will be adjustments made.

Nor have I ever said it was a right. I don't think of it that way. Again, I think of it as solving a problem. We're treating people right now, paying for them right now, and it is costing all of us right now. The solution to do nothing, which is what this not passing and republican control amounts to, solves nothing. It isn't even a first step.
 
disneydude said:
The topic isn't about whether you personally agree that the healthcare bill is right or wrong. Its about whether the GOP is genuine in their opposition or whether their actions demonstrate otherwise.
There are plenty of other topics to express your personal like or dislike of the healthcare bill.
Click to expand...

I think we all know the deal. No matter WHAT the Prez proposes, the GOP will oppose as a matter of pride and principle. Good, bad, it doesn't matter.
They are, without a doubt, the party of NO!

Their constituancy does not approve of this "black, muslim, Kenyan." :roll: To cooperate with him on ANYTHING, could cost them their job. Not a nutsack in the whole bunch. Much like the dems, when Gore lost to Bush, they are very unhappy with the election results. They aren't handling democracy with much grace, that's for sure.

It tickles me pink to hear them say "The American people don't want it." Truth is, SOME American's don't want it. Some do. We make our wants and desires known in the voting booth. That's a tough pill to swallow for some folks.

Bring up the fact that 70'ish% of American's believe the Iraqi war was an unnecessary mistake and then see how they feel about what "American's want" then. You'll get, "Sometimes the president has to make decisions and he can't make them based on polls." But, for some reason, that courtesy isn't allowed to Obama. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
I don't now nor have I ignored it. It simply isn't the problem you make it out to be. It is a small problem to which there will be adjustments made.

Nor have I ever said it was a right. I don't think of it that way. Again, I think of it as solving a problem. We're treating people right now, paying for them right now, and it is costing all of us right now. The solution to do nothing, which is what this not passing and republican control amounts to, solves nothing. It isn't even a first step.
Click to expand...

by your definition it is a small problem because you don't want to address it so you ignore it. Adjustments should have been made prior to passing this POS.

How does this bill address the shortage of doctors and the fact that illegals are using the Emergency room along with the insured? The solution is to solve the doctor shortage, hospital shortages, and the illegal immigration problem, not pass a POS legislation that only increases the debt and does nothing to improve the quality of care or reduce the costs.

Yours is the same argument just a different day as you continue to ignore the problem but have no problem putting that bandaid on it.
 
Captain America said:
I think we all know the deal. No matter WHAT the Prez proposes, the GOP will oppose as a matter of pride and principle. Good, bad, it doesn't matter.
They are, without a doubt, the party of NO!

Their constituancy does not approve of this "black, muslim, Kenyan." :roll: To cooperate with him on ANYTHING, could cost them their job. Not a nutsack in the whole bunch. Much like the dems, when Gore lost to Bush, they are very unhappy with the election results. They aren't handling democracy with much grace, that's for sure.

It tickles me pink to hear them say "The American people don't want it." Truth is, SOME American's don't want it. Some do. We make our wants and desires known in the voting booth. That's a tough pill to swallow for some folks.
Click to expand...


Yes, unfortunately are are millions in this country that want it because they believe healthcare insurance is a right, not a personal responsibility. these are the same people that have a different opinion as to the role of govt. than I was taught.

Your argument that hte GOP is the party of "NO" is liberal spin perpetuated by the inability of the GOP to get any press on their legislation. Paul Ryan eloquently presented the GOP legislation but that was ignored by the media or buried in the back pages of the paper.

There is a solution to the healthcare problem but this bill doesn't solve it. There is a shortage of doctors and all this bill does is put greater burden on the ER's and the current system. It does nothing to improve quality or lower costs.
 
Wish I had your crystal ball. I'd be at the casino instead of here. :rofl

Perhaps your right. Hey, I'm human too. I understand your frustration.

It irks me to no end that some dumbasses out there, spitting and cussing, screaming at the tea parties, or some whacko from Phelp's church has a vote that equals mine. But hey, that's America. What cha gonna do?
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
by your definition it is a small problem because you don't want to address it so you ignore it. Adjustments should have been made prior to passing this POS.

How does this bill address the shortage of doctors and the fact that illegals are using the Emergency room along with the insured? The solution is to solve the doctor shortage, hospital shortages, and the illegal immigration problem, not pass a POS legislation that only increases the debt and does nothing to improve the quality of care or reduce the costs.

Yours is the same argument just a different day as you continue to ignore the problem but have no problem putting that bandaid on it.
Click to expand...

No, it's a small problem because it is a small problem. And the problem is addressed in the bill. More can be done, but there was some incentive added to encourage more doctors, especially more general practitioners. I linked something on that for you.

Again, illegals are another problem, falling under another area to be dealt with. However, neither party has shown any real desire to deal with that problem. I repeat, no party has shown any desire to deal with illegal immigration.
 
Captain America said:
Wish I had your crystal ball. I'd be at the casino instead of here. :rofl

Perhaps your right. Hey, I'm human too. I understand your frustration.

It irks me to no end that some dumbasses out there, spitting and cussing, screaming at the tea parties, or some whacko from Phelp's church has a vote that equals mine. But hey, that's America. What cha gonna do?
Click to expand...

I don't need a crystal ball to review actual history which shows results of the Federal Govt. social engineering.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it's a small problem because it is a small problem. And the problem is addressed in the bill. More can be done, but there was some incentive added to encourage more doctors, especially more general practitioners. I linked something on that for you.

Again, illegals are another problem, falling under another area to be dealt with. However, neither party has shown any real desire to deal with that problem. I repeat, no party has shown any desire to deal with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

How do you know it is a small problem, cite your source? Costs have not been addressed in this bill, only perceived corporate profits. Nothing in this bill lowers the cost of healthcare which will continue to rise.
 
Conservative said:
How do you know it is a small problem, cite your source? Costs have not been addressed in this bill, only perceived corporate profits. Nothing in this bill lowers the cost of healthcare which will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

I know because people are being seen and there is nothing to suggest they won't continue to be. No more people will get sick now than in the past. Like the doctor said in the link I gave you, he expected some more business, but that he was going to have a net gain to the good overall.

As for lowering the costs, you only seeing the part you want to see. It is quite possible that with more people insured, less using the ER and other services without a payer, that there will be less need to mark up prices and pass the cost on to you and your provider. That could possibly reduce costs in the long run.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know because people are being seen and there is nothing to suggest they won't continue to be. No more people will get sick now than in the past. Like the doctor said in the link I gave you, he expected some more business, but that he was going to have a net gain to the good overall.

As for lowering the costs, you only seeing the part you want to see. It is quite possible that with more people insured, less using the ER and other services without a payer, that there will be less need to mark up prices and pass the cost on to you and your provider. That could possibly reduce costs in the long run.
Click to expand...


Possibly? Quite possible? Try thinking for a change. Why are the insured using the ER's now? We currently have the children's healthcare program, Medicare and Medicaid, and now another entitlement program. So adding another entitlement program possibly could lower healthcare costs? Why are you ignoring the history of govt. social engineering?
 
Boo Radley said:
I know because people are being seen and there is nothing to suggest they won't continue to be. No more people will get sick now than in the past. Like the doctor said in the link I gave you, he expected some more business, but that he was going to have a net gain to the good overall.

As for lowering the costs, you only seeing the part you want to see. It is quite possible that with more people insured, less using the ER and other services without a payer, that there will be less need to mark up prices and pass the cost on to you and your provider. That could possibly reduce costs in the long run.
Click to expand...

And if, by chance, that DOES happen, you can bet they will find a way to give the GOP credit for it. :rofl
 
Conservative said:
Possibly? Quite possible? Try thinking for a change. Why are the insured using the ER's now? We currently have the children's healthcare program, Medicare and Medicaid, and now another entitlement program. So adding another entitlement program possibly could lower healthcare costs? Why are you ignoring the history of govt. social engineering?
Click to expand...

People without insurance aren't seen at doctors offices because they won't see you without ability to pay. And many fall in a place where they don't have insurance but don't qualify for assistance. So, there isn't any new entitlement program here. There is no public option. All that was done was open up medicaid to take more people and required everyone to have insurance. And a few more regulations. But no public option; no single payer.

And again, no one is ignoring anything. Merely pointing out your factual errors. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom