• 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 do you think about the health care bill that just passed?

What do you think about the health care legislation that just got passed?

  • Total voters
    46
Progressive_Libertarian24

Progressive_Libertarian24

Banned
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
25
Reaction score
2
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Though I don't think this can be looked at as "real" reform, I do believe that they did the right thing in expanding coverage to 30 million more Americans and stopped insurance companies from denying those with pre-existing conditions. There's still a lot of work that needs to be done for us to have our current issues with the health care system solved once and for all. I still hope and believe we'll get there one day, But right now we are still far from that.
 
None of those fit with my feeling on it. I think it did too much now, instead of phasing in things. However, I thin we need to move further than what we got eventually.
 
The bill was much better with the public option as opposed to the requirement to purchase insurance or be fined. Had the bluedogs and the Republicans not fought to keep the public option out, the bill would have been more "liberal" and a better bill.
 
This about sums it up for me. The way it was done, i.e., the bill stopped dead when Scott Brown was elected, then the rampant bribes, payoffs, etc., the whole Slaughter Rule debacle that was threatened, then the actual vote. It's good parts are few - such as pre-existing conditions are added - uninsured are added, children are added. Nice, but doesn't address the impetus of the problem: Cost Control. We pay 948 billion and save 120 billion in 10 years. How's that math work? And we all know it's going to be 2x or maybe 3x that amount when it's all said and done. Premiums may go up, doctors may become fewer, medicare patients will be dropped...costs will continue to rise.

The arguement then is: "Well, we'll fix it". When has Congress fixed anything successfully? They never have. So the hope that it will be fixed is a long shot. No, there's not much here that I can say I like - and the mandate is the chocolate syrup on a pile of turds. They FORCE you to buy insurance or fine you through the IRS, then jail you.

Dunno what this country is we live in, but it sure as hell doesn't resemble America.
 
disneydude said:
The bill was much better with the public option as opposed to the requirement to purchase insurance or be fined. Had the bluedogs and the Republicans not fought to keep the public option out, the bill would have been more "liberal" and a better bill.
Click to expand...

I agree, Either the Robust Public Option or Medicare Buy in would have made this a very good bill because we would have a choice between public or private insurance. I thought at the time it was a very centrist position and should have gained more support by the public but I guess that just wasn't the case.
 
Redress said:
None of those fit with my feeling on it. I think it did too much now, instead of phasing in things. However, I thin we need to move further than what we got eventually.
Click to expand...
not a lot happens NOW.....most of it is very incrementally phased in.
 
Ockham said:
This about sums it up for me. The way it was done, i.e., the bill stopped dead when Scott Brown was elected, then the rampant bribes, payoffs, etc., the whole Slaughter Rule debacle that was threatened, then the actual vote. It's good parts are few - such as pre-existing conditions are added - uninsured are added, children are added. Nice, but doesn't address the impetus of the problem: Cost Control. We pay 948 billion and save 120 billion in 10 years. How's that math work? And we all know it's going to be 2x or maybe 3x that amount when it's all said and done. Premiums may go up, doctors may become fewer, medicare patients will be dropped...costs will continue to rise.
Click to expand...

You're right on the money issue, I don't think this will lower the deficit as much as the CBO is predicting right now.

Ockham said:
The arguement then is: "Well, we'll fix it". When has Congress fixed anything successfully? They never have. So the hope that it will be fixed is a long shot. No, there's not much here that I can say I like - and the mandate is the chocolate syrup on a pile of turds. They FORCE you to buy insurance or fine you through the IRS, then jail you.
Click to expand...

I didn't agree with the mandates either but that was put in there because without it there's no way this would work because if the insurance companies are going to be required to cover pre-existing conditions then that alone is going to drive costs up which will then push healthy folks away from signing up and then it won't be affordable for anyone. I think this provision was put in there to short curcuit that, But I still thought it was a bad idea.

Ockham said:
Dunno what this country is we live in, but it sure as hell doesn't resemble America.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Some of you act as if you believe the democrat talking points on this issue. Obama has lied consistently in his campaign and since being in office. He's a lawyer. He manipulates words to accomplish an end and for no other reason. The democrats enmasse voiced that Iraq without a doubt had weapons of mass destruction and then called GWB and the Republicans liars for saying it. This bill is designed to progress to single payer government run healthcare which is his/their goal.

He can say that premiums won't increase but that's only because taxes and copays and related costs will. But, bottom line, he's taking $1/2TRILLION from those on medicare who have earned and paid for that coverage all their lives and giving it to people who either don't need coverage or don't deserve it due to lack of citizen status. This will directly effect retired military. That's a more perfect definition of what Obama means when he voices unwavering respect for the military.
 
disneydude said:
The bill was much better with the public option as opposed to the requirement to purchase insurance or be fined. Had the bluedogs and the Republicans not fought to keep the public option out, the bill would have been more "liberal" and a better bill.
Click to expand...

Big problem with that public option. It wasn't restricted to the poor, the old and the sick. It was viral and threatened the private sector. Y'all ****ed up doing that.
 
reefedjib said:
Big problem with that public option. It wasn't restricted to the poor, the old and the sick. It was viral and threatened the private sector. Y'all ****ed up doing that.
Click to expand...

The public option was a public insurance option. You can't have insurance that is simply restricted to the poor and sick. Thats not insurance, its simply welfare. If that is the goal, just extend Medicaid to cover all the poor and the sick.
 
LowRevs said:
This bill is designed to progress to single payer government run healthcare which is his/their goal.
Click to expand...

That's right, hopefully we will eventually catch up with the rest of the industrialized world.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The public option was a public insurance option. You can't have insurance that is simply restricted to the poor and sick. Thats not insurance, its simply welfare. If that is the goal, just extend Medicaid to cover all the poor and the sick.
Click to expand...

You can't have a public insurance plan that competes with the private sector.
 
reefedjib said:
You can't have a public insurance plan that competes with the private sector.
Click to expand...

We have public colleges that compete with private colleges and provide an affordable alternative for millions.

Same principle with the public option for health care.
 
reefedjib said:
You can't have a public insurance plan that competes with the private sector.
Click to expand...

Why?

1. If the private sector is competitive, then why could it not compete on price and services with a public insurance plan. Especially considering that the public insurance plan would have been barred from subsidizing coverage for all but the sick and poor.

2. If the public sector plan out competed the private sector plans, what would be the problem? It would out compete by offering a product that consumers wanted more, thus everyone is happy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why?

1. If the private sector is competitive, then why could it not compete on price and services with a public insurance plan. Especially considering that the public insurance plan would have been barred from subsidizing coverage for all but the sick and poor.

2. If the public sector plan out competed the private sector plans, what would be the problem? It would out compete by offering a product that consumers wanted more, thus everyone is happy.
Click to expand...

It's viral. The public plan will always be able to do better than the private sector because it is backed by the unlimited purse of the government. It will suck members from the private plans into the public rolls and destroy the private sector. This is the whole point of the public option.
 
reefedjib said:
It's viral. The public plan will always be able to do better than the private sector because it is backed by the unlimited purse of the government. It will suck members from the private plans into the public rolls and destroy the private sector. This is the whole point of the public option.
Click to expand...

The point you are missing is that the proposals for it were legally barred from subsidizing insurance for anyone other than the poor.
 
What do you think about the health care legislation that just got passed?
Click to expand...

I think it's long overdue.
A lot of people who have spent their lives uninsured will now have to play "catch up" and hope for the best.

The next generation will be healthier, having had the benefit of access to routine medical care and screenings.
 
reefedjib said:
It's viral. The public plan will always be able to do better than the private sector because it is backed by the unlimited purse of the government. It will suck members from the private plans into the public rolls and destroy the private sector. This is the whole point of the public option.
Click to expand...

So if the government can do better than the private sector in this area, why not have a public option? Don't you want people to have better health coverage? I don't believe leaving millions without coverage or with poor coverage simply for the sake of the market and the private sector.

Also, people who can afford it will always choose private insurance, that's what happens in other countries with public health care.
 
Progressive_Libertarian24 said:
Though I don't think this can be looked at as "real" reform, I do believe that they did the right thing in expanding coverage to 30 million more Americans and stopped insurance companies from denying those with pre-existing conditions. There's still a lot of work that needs to be done for us to have our current issues with the health care system solved once and for all. I still hope and believe we'll get there one day, But right now we are still far from that.
Click to expand...

I personally feel that this is great. Now all we need to do is to stop banks from denying loans to the 30 million lower income people so they can buy houses...
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The point you are missing is that the proposals for it were legally barred from subsidizing insurance for anyone other than the poor.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't subsidizing the poor, it's offering coverage to the average person. The stated objective was to create competition for the private market which means they will be offerring a lower rate backed by the purse of the government. Private insurance can't compete with that.

Government should never offer a service to compete with the private sector; it will shift the price so the private sector cannot compete. Socialism.
 
Pal said:
So if the government can do better than the private sector in this area, why not have a public option? Don't you want people to have better health coverage? I don't believe leaving millions without coverage or with poor coverage simply for the sake of the market and the private sector.

Also, people who can afford it will always choose private insurance, that's what happens in other countries with public health care.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that either, but having a public option that competes with the private sector is not the way to go.
 
I consider it virtually identitical to the plan proposed by Bob Dole in 1994. I'm a huge fan of Bob Dole, but then, who isn't? He's a real conservative.
 
Gotta ask Catz, what blog did you get that suddenly realization out of. You're the third person in the past day that has used essentially the exact same phrase and argument, which I hadn't heard ONCE in the months leading up to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom