• 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!

Obama pulls plug on part of health overhaul law

Boo Radley said:
No word games. There is no death panel. It is dishonest to call anything being discussed in reform as a death panel. You misrepresented Obama's words. That's a fact. I'm sorry, but the dishonesty here is not on my part.
Click to expand...
Ok, Let's be honest. When BO was talking to the woman during the HC debate and said maybe the best thing for her aging mom is for someone to tell her to take a blue pill and go home and die, who used to have that authority in the federal government? Answer.......NOBODY, now we have the Death Panel in BOCare that will have that authority. It will be called "death by rationing". Go ask the men in the UK, who have a 50% probability of dying from prostate cancer, how well rationing works for them......in this country the death rate from prostate cancer it a fraction of the UK experience where government mandated rationing is widespread.
 
Fifteen unelected bureaucrats who decide what healthcare modalities Americans will live or die with, aka IPAB, is a death panel.
 
1Perry said:
Death panels are a fact Obama or not.
Click to expand...

No, they are not. but you're confusing two things. He quoted Obama and did so inaccurately.

But, not being able to pay for something is not equal to a death panel. No one sits down and says we need to kill granny. No one says due to age or illness, we need to be rid of this person. Be it insurance or government, there are simply what we will pay for and what we won't. You're free, of course, to pay for it yourself. But no one is deciding who lives and who dies.
 
Actually, the government deciding what it will and won't pay for, under Obamacare, will affect your ability to get that care, period. There won't be a cash only system under Obamacare.
 
Reg said:
Actually, the government deciding what it will and won't pay for, under Obamacare, will affect your ability to get that care, period. There won't be a cash only system under Obamacare.
Click to expand...

A cash only system would really effect it -- negatively. But no one said there would be no effect. In fact, for many, it would increase the likelihood of receiving care.
 
No, expensive live saving procedures will be priced and taxed out of the market.

You'll have to settle for the same crap every other American gets.

But you'll be equal!
 
Reg said:
No, expensive live saving procedures will be priced and taxed out of the market.

You'll have to settle for the same crap every other American gets.

But you'll be equal!
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. In fact, under a UHC they spend less, not more.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they are not. but you're confusing two things. He quoted Obama and did so inaccurately.
Click to expand...

You mistakenly think I care what Obama has to say here.

But, not being able to pay for something is not equal to a death panel. No one sits down and says we need to kill granny. No one says due to age or illness, we need to be rid of this person. Be it insurance or government, there are simply what we will pay for and what we won't. You're free, of course, to pay for it yourself. But no one is deciding who lives and who dies.
Click to expand...

In all reality they are. Really, is your arguement here that not having insurance to pick up our health needs is no big deal, just pay for it yourself?
 
1Perry said:
You mistakenly think I care what Obama has to say here.
Click to expand...

I have no such thought. You reply to a comment I made to someone else who misquoted Obama. You don't reply, we don't talk about it.


In all reality they are. Really, is your arguement here that not having insurance to pick up our health needs is no big deal, just pay for it yourself?
Click to expand...

No, not even in reality. They do not sit down and decide who is going to die. Our insurance companies don't and our government doesn't.

And no, that is my argument. My argument is all things have cost prohibations. Something being cost prohibative is not equal to a death panel. When we sit at the kitchen table and say we can't afford it, it's not a death panel. When insurance companies say we can't cover everything, it is not a death panel. And neither is it when the government does it. no one is sitting down and saying let this person die.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure what you mean. In fact, under a UHC they spend less, not more.
Click to expand...

Every American will get the same crap health care. Expensive life saving procedures will be taxed or regulated out of existence.

It's the way you want it, right?
 
Reg said:
Every American will get the same crap health care. Expensive life saving procedures will be taxed or regulated out of existence.

It's the way you want it, right?
Click to expand...

That's simply not ture. Not only can we have a two tiered system in which you can buy your own insurance, but we certainly would in this country. I suggest you investigate UHC more, espeically the variety of options available with a single payer system, which includes a two teired system.
 
The objective of Obamacare is to shove private practice over a cliff. That is already happening.
 
Reg said:
The objective of Obamacare is to shove private practice over a cliff. That is already happening.
Click to expand...

Hardly. That's merely your mistaken belief. Sorry. Obama has worked too closely with insurance companies for anyone to actually believe what you're saying.
 
No, Obamacare declares war on private, for profit practices.
 
Antiderivative said:
Considering that Obamacare was nothing, but a re-hashed Republican bill from the early 90's, it was doomed to fail.
Click to expand...

I know a blog said it one time and thus a bunch of other liberal sources picked up on it and repeat it over and over again but it doesn't make it true. It may help if you actually took time to...I don't know...be objective and research the claim a bit rather than just making such idiotic statements ignorant of reality. You GROSSLY misrepresent the bill, making it akin to saying that the War in Iraq was just a rehash of a Democratic proposal because Leiberman supported it.

Zyphlin said:
Sure thing, where to begin.

First, lets be open and honest. The BS about it being the "essentially" the same basically came from people parroting articles that referenced the Kaiser Health News comparison chart. So lets look at that chart.

To begin with, the chart is essentially summarizes and bullet points. Notions like "reduce medicare spending" and "create more efficiency" are INCREDIBLY vauge with KHN giving ZERO extra information concerning the difference there. To simply suggest that both plans wanting to create more efficiency in health care equals having the same plan of reform is ridiculous. You could point to two different plans by Democrats and Republicans concerning say Welfare Reform, saying both want to reform it, and have entirely different things. So the notion right off of using a bullet point chart as "evidence" of the similarities is flawed in and of itself.

But even looking at that list you still have differences. Such as the current law mandating that businesses help pay for premiums for some employees where as the 1993 plan not requiring it. The 1993 plan had malpractice reform, a big thing for republicans, this one didn't. 1993's didn't make 26 year olds children "dependents". 1993 took steps to equalize the taxes for those that are self employed. This plan bans lifetime spending caps, 1993's doesnt. And those are just some of the ones they vaguely note. That's not getting into the fact that they cover HUGE swatches of things with a simple "yes" that to TRULY get a feel for if its similar or not one would need to read both bills in full.

Then lets go deeper. The current bill has a large medicare expansion that could potentially end up covering more people through its expansion, due to the amount of uninsured that would fall under the 133 percent poverty line, than through any other provision. This is a rather substantial thing in and of itself, and is something completely missing from the 1993 bill. The current Bill puts greater taxes on very expensive plans where as 1993 had a tax cap. Again, another large issue for Republicans.

Then you have the misrepresentation by people through implication that somehow this shows that Republicans are moving to the right or becoming more extreme, acting as if this was a majorly touted and supported plan by Republicans. In reality, it was a plan that rapidly lost support. The CBO wasn't scoring things as quickly or continually as it does not, so it took longer for the cost of things to truly come out. However once you did even big named proponents of the bill, such as Bob Dole, quickly moved away from it due to the cost of attempting that much coverage being unfeasable. The attempts at "moderating" and "bipartisanship" put too much bloat into the bill for the cost to be reasonable and it killed support by republicans in the long run. Not to mention it was just one of a number of health care proposals supported by republicans, such as the Packwood Dole one, none of which truly gained exceeding, long lasting party support as more information and facts came out about it.

Now, with all that in mind, there's the notion of history. Republicans pushing for health care plans when the entire government is filled with Democrats generally aren't going to work. If they push what they want, obviously it won't get passed. If they push a compromised or moderate bill, such as the 1993 bill, then it is still in their minds a negative for the country due to the expense of the matter and thus something that quickly lost support. So if you're not going to be able to pass what you want, and you aren't happy and can't fully support a compromised bill which in the end will cause it not to pass as well, in the future which are you going to do? Again compromise on your principles for something that's unlikely to pass if you do it and put your vote behind something you think is going to be broken, or realize that either way you're ideas aren't going to really get done or that what you think will hurt the country will happen so you may as well put forth a proposal you actually feel is GOOD and fits your principles.

Could you show me how they are "essentially" the same Bill besides taking VERY broad categories and statements and simply saying both touched on those things in some way shape or form and thus are similar?
Click to expand...

Also note that it was one bill of many. You had Cooper-Grady, you had Rowland-Bilirackis, you had Packwood-Dole, and then you had the Chafee plan. The Chafee plan got the most support initially, but that support quickly fizzled the more people looked into it. Mind you it was the Chafee plan, the guy who went from Republican to Independent. Attempting to present it as you do as some kind of defacto Republican stance in the 90's because one bill happened to go that route is akin to trying to suggest that Democrats endorsed and are fully in favor of the War on Terror and the Iraq War because Joe Lieberman was behind it.

The 90's bill had some similarities to Obamacare. However, it also had a number of differences, had rapidly dwindling support, was one of multiple bills, was done at a time where the political atmosphere on both sides and the context of the situation regarding balance of power was a bit different.
 
The notion of cost containment is a myth unless private, for profit practice is destroyed.
 
Reg said:
The notion of cost containment is a myth unless private, for profit practice is destroyed.
Click to expand...

Not true. But you seem to be arguing we should destroy private, for profit practice. I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom