• 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
Catz Part Deux said:
Bob Dole outs naysayer Mitch McConnell | Midwest Voices

Jonathan Chait reminded me of it again, yesterday, though.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Do you have any link to a copy of his plan from 1994? I've tried searching and all I keep finding is links talking about how he was working to stop Clinton's health care overhaul, and nothing about his own measures.

It'd be interesting to read it and see if it actually is nearly identical or if its something that's been propogated by word of mouth without people actually checking to see if its valid.

-edit- Found a comparison chart, but no copy of the actual proposal. The comparison chart is just "yes" and "no's" with little actual nuance which makes it VERY difficult for me to say something is "nearly identical" since, as they say, the devil is often in the details. Looking at it now.
 
Last edited:
Okay, looking at that I have a few issues.

First, it says the 1994 plan requires employers to offer insurance, but doens't require them to pay the premium cost, which then makes me wonder how it works at all. is it simply that they make agreements with insurance companies to directly remove funds from employee's pay checks if they want health insurance but the business doesn't actually contribute any? This looks entirely different than the mandate in Obama's plan.

Second, it says everyone is required to purchase health insurance however gives no indication of how. Under penalty of fine, increased taxes, jail, level of coverage, etc?

The "Makes efforts for a more efficient health care system" is so nebulous that god knows what they include in that to compare all three bills.

The Obama plan penalizes anyone with a "cadillac plan", where as the 1994 one only did it for employee sponsored ones, not individual purhcased one. Additionally the chart failed to state what the price cap was on the 1994 one, leading the comparison greatly lacking.

I see nothing in the bill concerning having the government be the one whose panel oversees the type of treatment you can particularly get nor removing the ability to appeal the decision. I see nothing in the chart suggesting the 1994 bill had the government unfetted access to your bank account. I see nothing about the government subsidizing union and community activist group plans. I see nothing about having to go under the government plan if you lose coverage and there's not a comparable plan available.

In the 1994 bill I do see tort reform and I see things to ease the strain on self-insured small business owners.

To me they look similar, but far from identical, and far from something I could make such a claim of based on a chart by a third party whose word we have to take as gospel that somehow a "yes" under both makes them exactly the same.
 
Zyphlin said:
Okay, looking at that I have a few issues.

First, it says the 1994 plan requires employers to offer insurance, but doens't require them to pay the premium cost, which then makes me wonder how it works at all. is it simply that they make agreements with insurance companies to directly remove funds from employee's pay checks if they want health insurance but the business doesn't actually contribute any? This looks entirely different than the mandate in Obama's plan.

Second, it says everyone is required to purchase health insurance however gives no indication of how. Under penalty of fine, increased taxes, jail, level of coverage, etc?

The "Makes efforts for a more efficient health care system" is so nebulous that god knows what they include in that to compare all three bills.

The Obama plan penalizes anyone with a "cadillac plan", where as the 1994 one only did it for employee sponsored ones, not individual purhcased one. Additionally the chart failed to state what the price cap was on the 1994 one, leading the comparison greatly lacking.

I see nothing in the bill concerning having the government be the one whose panel oversees the type of treatment you can particularly get nor removing the ability to appeal the decision. I see nothing in the chart suggesting the 1994 bill had the government unfetted access to your bank account. I see nothing about the government subsidizing union and community activist group plans. I see nothing about having to go under the government plan if you lose coverage and there's not a comparable plan available.

In the 1994 bill I do see tort reform and I see things to ease the strain on self-insured small business owners.

To me they look similar, but far from identical, and far from something I could make such a claim of based on a chart by a third party whose word we have to take as gospel that somehow a "yes" under both makes them exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can rationally imply that the Obama plan is "more liberal" than what Dole proposed. :shrug:
 
...so, was there a specific point I made about what was present in one or the other based on what little I could find that you disagreed with or?....

"I don't see how any person could rationally imply that those two plans are identical"

See, I can make one liners as well that doesn't actually support anything I say.

I'll ask again, have you actually seen anything of the 1994 proposal or just seen one comparison chart linked off of a liberal blog site that has completely unnuanced language in comparing the two?

If you just wanted to go for a technical thing, the very fact that the 1994 bill had tort reform in it would make it more conservative then the current one, which alone makes your one liner invalid.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'll ask again, have you actually seen anything of the 1994 proposal or just seen one comparison chart linked off of a liberal blog site that has completely unnuanced language in comparing the two?
Click to expand...

You won't find it as the last Republican to have a serious healthcare reform proposal, rather than a broad set of "principles", was Richard Nixon. Many of the "principles" Bob Dole proposed are in the healthcare reform bill. Bob Dole did not get specific about any of it because it just an argument he was using at the time against the Clinton healthcare plan.

If you just wanted to go for a technical thing, the very fact that the 1994 bill had tort reform in it would make it more conservative then the current one, which alone makes your one liner invalid.
Click to expand...

Being that the vast majority of malpractice cases are litigated in the state courts, exactly what would federal tort reform accomplish?
 
reefedjib said:
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.
Click to expand...

If this is true, why do we still have private universities like Oxford, Princeton and Harvard? They are competing against cheaper government run options, but they still continue to do business.

The thing is, introducing competition really just forces the health insurance companies to have to counter the problem of adverse selection. If they want to be able to compete with the government option, they have to drop prices to a reasonable level. Considering the massive amount of profits health care companies have, they can afford to drop prices, and do what they are supposed to do: pay medical bills for people who have plans.
 
reefedjib said:
I don't believe that either, but having a public option that competes with the private sector is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe in not addressing the poor and underinsured with a competitive pool or a public option what is your solution. Private insurance in inherently invested in making the most profit possible. That why rates are based are accuary tables which translates to the people who probably least need coverage can most afford to pay high dedutibles, high premiums, etc. It's not only the poor but the underemployed. There's a larger picture here and we're not seeing it
 
Government should never offer a service to compete with the private sector; it will shift the price so the private sector cannot compete.
Click to expand...

It seems that Fed-ex and UPS is doing all right even though we have government mail. This is nothing but a right wing talking point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom