• 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!

AP NewsBreak: A twist in Obama's health care law

I think as usual …. the liberal fraction in here in their haste to support any government hand out .. . fails to see the point.

If a couple of age to get Medicaid, has an income of $64,000 per year, should be able to afford insurance without government help. Chances are good that their kids are grown and on their own, their house is paid for. That $64,000 income should well be able to afford their own insurance.

I never supported making people pay for their own insurance to begin with. Our health care system would be so much more efficient if, at the very least, we had a public health insurance option.

I'm not sure where liberals will stop with their living off of other people, but lets take into consideration that the average income in the US is around or under $50,000 a year, now you are expecting those people earning $50,000 a year to pay for retired people health care while they are earning $64,000 a year ???

I'd be thrilled if everyone paid for everyone's health insurance. Or perhaps a two-tiered public/private health insurance system.
 
I never supported making people pay for their own insurance to begin with. Our health care system would be so much more efficient if, at the very least, we had a public health insurance option.



I'd be thrilled if everyone paid for everyone's health insurance. Or perhaps a two-tiered public/private health insurance system.


Thats your opinion, mine just happens to differ from yours, because I don't see a single clear cut example of anything our government does that is more efficient then something done by the private sector.
 
A Doctor is free to walk out of the ER time they want to. If they CHOOSE to stay they must treat all comers regardless of ability to pay. This winds up being on your bill. So unless you are willing to turn people away from the ER you do not have a point.
You just don't posess the capacity to effecitvely address it, as evidenced by your fouth failure to do so.

Why do you support involuntary servitude?
 
Awesome. Here's hoping that they find even more "glitches" that cover even more people so that they don't have to worry about losing their life savings due to catastrophic or even not-so-catastrophic health issues.

You'll be glad to cough up half of your life's savings to pay for it. Yes?
 
You just don't posess the capacity to effecitvely address it, as evidenced by your fouth failure to do so.

Why do you support involuntary servitude?


There is no involuntary servitude.
 
I never supported making people pay for their own insurance to begin with. Our health care system would be so much more efficient if, at the very least, we had a public health insurance option.



I'd be thrilled if everyone paid for everyone's health insurance. Or perhaps a two-tiered public/private health insurance system.


That would be great if everyone paid income taxes, buuuut...
 
There is no involuntary servitude.
Sure there is. People are forced to provide goods and services to those that did not earn them.
Thus, involuntary servitude.
I ask again: Why do you support involuntary servitude?
 
Sure there is. People are forced to provide goods and services to those that did not earn them.
Thus, involuntary servitude.
I ask again: Why do you support involuntary servitude?


Are you willing to turn people away from the ERs?

And Doctors 1) know what they are getting into and 2) can leave at any time they want to.

there is no involuntary servitude.
 
Right, but we CAN afford trillions of dollars in unnecessary wars? C'mon... change that old broken record.

How about the fact that these "future generations" are likely to lose what little inheritance that their parents can pass on as estates are eaten up to pay off medical bills? Of course, that only really affects lower and middle class so who gives a flying ****, amiright?

If you pay attention, most GOP are calling to find a withdrawl plan from the useless wars.
 
We all pay for **** we don't want. That's an inherent part of being a society. If you don't like it, move to some country with less government interference like Somalia or Afghanistan.

If you want socialized health care move to a country that already has it....oh wait, most of them are trying to get rid of it.
 
Thats your opinion, mine just happens to differ from yours, because I don't see a single clear cut example of anything our government does that is more efficient then something done by the private sector.

Um, there's plenty of statistical basis for the idea that the government provides health care more efficiently than the private sector.
 
Are you willing to turn people away from the ERs?

And Doctors 1) know what they are getting into and 2) can leave at any time they want to.

there is no involuntary servitude.

So, what you're saying, is that doctors that have been doctors for decades can tell the future? That's good, I need the lotto numbers. What happens when all the doctors that are already there retire?
 
So, what you're saying, is that doctors that have been doctors for decades can tell the future? That's good, I need the lotto numbers. What happens when all the doctors that are already there retire?

Yes, clearly that's exactly what he said. "Know what they're getting into" is totally the same ****ing thing as goddamned precognition. Like, when I read weather forecasts and picture what sort of flight conditions I'll likely encounter, I'm seeing the future.
 
Yes, clearly that's exactly what he said. "Know what they're getting into" is totally the same ****ing thing as goddamned precognition. Like, when I read weather forecasts and picture what sort of flight conditions I'll likely encounter, I'm seeing the future.

The point is, if you don't mind, is that the doctors aren't going into it.
 
We cannot afford it. So you hate America and want to enslave future Generations to unsustainable debt?

What do you base this "We cannot afford it" on? So you hate Americans who need health care, but support corporations trying to deny them.
 
Yes... because I am, somehow, responsible for providing health care to these people.

Do you consider yourself responsible for taking care of our soldiers when they are in harm's way? Do you consider yourself responsible for maintaining Interstate Highways? Do you consider yourself responsible for paying for police? All these things, and more, require taxes? Are we being overtaxed? That is the question that is up for debate, and while we are at it, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

1) Is GE a welfare loafer because it paid no taxes at all in 2010, but received subsidies from the Federal government?

2) How about Morgan Stanley and other banksters, who ran their corporations into the ground, but were given money by the Federal government? Are they welfare loafers?

3) What about corporate farmers, who get paid to grow nothing?

4) How about Congress, who get free health care for life? Are they better than the rest of us? I thought they were supposed to be merely public servants.

5) And how about all those corporations who don't pay a penny of tax because their postal address is a PO box in the Cayman Islands, even though their headquarters are physically located inside the US?

Just a few examples here, which make me wonder why there is so great of an outcry against poor people, while not a whimper about the rich who pay nothing for the services they demand and receive.
 
The point is, if you don't mind, is that the doctors aren't going into it.

Really? Are you sure? Because nowhere in your post did anything remotely similar to that appear.
 
Really? Are you sure? Because nowhere in your post did anything remotely similar to that appear.

Totally sure. Now do you want to contribute to the conversation or continue making an ass of yourself?
 
Sure there is. People are forced to provide goods and services to those that did not earn them.
Think where you would be without involuntary servitude. There would have never been a Lewis & Clark expedition, America would have never been mapped, or exist. It must be freightening news that the General Welfare Clause exists, and that Americans must be forced to provide goods and services to a corporate military.

Thus, involuntary servitude.
I ask again: Why do you support involuntary servitude?

I support it because it is the American way, and always has been. Because I enjoy seeing little children with smiling faces. And I must admit I like seeing rightwingers squirm, but then that is a bonus. If we had left these fools to their own end, they would still be living in a cave and worshipping the sun.:lamo
 
Something similar to this is already in the act and has been revealed years ago:
Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the poverty level will receive subsidies on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).

Also the bill will be much easier to pay for in the long run as prices go down for healthcare and revenues go up within the next ten years.
 
What do you base this "We cannot afford it" on? So you hate Americans who need health care, but support corporations trying to deny them.

$100,000,000,000,000.00 in unfunded liabilities. (that's NOT counting Obamacare)
 
Are you willing to turn people away from the ERs?

And Doctors 1) know what they are getting into and 2) can leave at any time they want to.

there is no involuntary servitude.

So the idea is that if you knowingly go into servitude its not servitude? Is it just me or does that not make any sense.
 
Um, there's plenty of statistical basis for the idea that the government provides health care more efficiently than the private sector.

For the “idea” of the government running something efficiently …. that I might agree with … but sadly there is a vast difference between the idea of... and the reality of running something efficiently.

You are talking about the same government that has run up 14 trillion dollars of debt ? That has over 60 trillion dollars of unfunded promises in medicare and social security ? The same government that efficiently runs welfare .. or our defense spending ?? Or something as small as Amtrak that only requires we donate about a billion a year to keep it running?

I'm sorry … until our government can show they can run anything efficiently, I'm not in favor of giving them something else run, let alone something that is going to cost trillions of dollars.
 
Back
Top Bottom