• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

MoSurveyor said:
His post ...
... which I interpret to mean get away without "health insurance". That doesn't mean that group never has heath problems, it means if they're healthy (i.e., young people with no major conditions) they don't buy insurance. Whether they end up being "freeloaders" or not is a matter of statistics. Statistically, some of those people will get seriously ill, have accidents, and/or develop a major medical condition like diabetes or high blood pressure and be unable to pay for treatment out-of-pocket.
Click to expand...

If a healthy person can "get away without" something, I don't see how this means anything other than they don't need it, especially when it's put in contrast with someone who's sick and does need it. If they don't need it, it's because they don't have anything they need paid for, and if they have nothing they need paid for, then they're not "freeloading" in any sense.

That sentence does not say "get away without it" in the sense that they're "freeloaders."
 
AdamT said:
He knows that. He's being intentionally obtuse (and dishonest), which is another of his endearing qualities.
Click to expand...

Heh. Like accusing others of your own faults.
 
AdamT said:
I know that constantly throw around idiotic accusations that you can never ever back up, which is a lovely quality to have.
Click to expand...

Except that I've pointed out your weaseling, equivocations, and strawmen on many occasions, and you know I have, so there you go again, I guess.
 
Harshaw said:
If a healthy person can "get away without" something, I don't see how this means anything other than they don't need it, especially when it's put in contrast with someone who's sick and does need it. If they don't need it, it's because they don't have anything they need paid for, and if they have nothing they need paid for, then they're not "freeloading" in any sense.

That sentence does not say "get away without it" in the sense that they're "freeloaders."
Click to expand...
If you're looking at it from the insurance company's side they most certainly are "getting away" - and that doesn't mean not getting sick or injured, it means not paying an insurance premium. Whether they end up as freeloaders or not is a matter of statistics.
 
Harshaw said:
Why would I need to look at it from that side?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter which side you are looking from. Which side was the poster speaking from when they posted it? They used a term that is uncommon anywhere except the insurance industry, so it is at least possible the rest of their post was from that perspective as well.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
His post ...
... which I interpret to mean get away without "health insurance". That doesn't mean that group never has heath problems, it means if they're healthy (i.e., young people with no major conditions) they don't buy insurance. Whether they end up being "freeloaders" or not is a matter of statistics. Statistically, some of those people will get seriously ill, have accidents, and/or develop a major medical condition like diabetes or high blood pressure and be unable to pay for treatment out-of-pocket.
Click to expand...

anti-selection, or as that poster called it "adverse selection", simply means that people that are sick and need insurance are the ones most likely to purchase insurance. Those that do not have a condition and will not need it, are the least likely to purchase. So, IMO, Harshaw is correct.
 
AdamT said:
I would say that the CBO report is probably the best source for what the CBO report said:



As far as reducing health care costs for those presently insured -- no one has ever claimed that AHCA would do that. What it will do is lower deficits by reducing the growth in health care spending. It should also make insurance more affordable for lower income working people, the self employed, and anyone with a preexisting condition.
Click to expand...
Perhaps your quote is dated.

The one term flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama and members of his regime are liars. The CBO takes direction from the Congress. The Democratically controlled Congress were a den of liars. They were politically defeated in 2010. And now I must believe that you fall into the same category. You are clearly an apologist for the president. I do not know why, nor do I care to know. I know with certainty who you are now.
 
xpiher said:
The same arguments have been made before and in those instances the supreme court made their ruling so narrow that out could not be applied to law as a whole. Don't be surprised if the same thing happens here. Why else would the supreme court want to here arguments on the tax aspect of the law when all parties said it want a tax?

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business
Click to expand...
I will predict to you that if this law is found to be Constitutional than a revolution is inevitable.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Umm...yes I did. By quoting the post in which I had already answered it. Here, I'll do it again....be sure to read it and you will get your answer.



There...I even bolded it for you.
Click to expand...
You are unresponsive. I tent to believe you do not understand the question. You only get one second chance. Have a nice day.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think MoSurveyor is correct, part of the answer will have to answer whether people are already part of the system or not. His point is well taken.
Click to expand...
LOL? Why wouldn't one statist agree with another? Perhaps it is time for me to go do something productive. Maybe I will go play World of Warcraft.
 
jet57 said:
Look, I don't think that you can cite one area of the bill and say that that's the only constitutional sticking point can you. You haven't read teh argument against the bill and neither would I be so presumptuous to say such a thing.

Again, I will cite teh California law requiring drivers to (forcing driversd by government decree: which I think this will all come down to: states rights) buy auto insurance: it's the very same thing.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree that the question I cited is the reason this lawsuit was accepted by the Supremes?

Why do you believe that a state law requiring that people who drive have insurance is the same as someone who exists having a federal-government directed insurance policy with federally-directed provisions?
 
MoSurveyor said:
At one time the only hospitals that would treat patients (even in ER) without proof of insurance were government funded hospitals. Then it was decided if a hospital received any government money, even reimbursement for services covered under Medicare and Medicaid, they would also be required to treat anyone asking for emergency services whether they had insurance or not. Reimbursement for those services is not guaranteed by the government. If this healthcare law is struck down should we also repeal the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone?
Click to expand...
Yes. Let's get the government completely out of the health care business. Completely.

Why do you believe someone should have his neighbors pay for something he or she wants?
 
Kal'Stang said:
No. Everyone deserves medical treatment regardless if they have insurance or not. The problem here is that you are assuming that just because someone doesn't have insurance that automatically means that they won't pay thier medical bill. The other problem here is that you are assuming that the few that don't pay their medical bill (according to the arguements that I read during the SCOTUS hearings it was about 20% of uninsured that didn't pay their bills) are what is mainly driving up the costs of healthcare. They're not. Sure they do to a degree...but minor compared to other things. Like over regulation. When doctors spend more time on filling out forms than they do taking care of patients then I'd say that there is a problem. Medical lawsuits is another big problem. Because of them doctors often perform unnecessary tests just so that they will have a less likely chance of being sued.

I'm sure that there are other things besides the over regulation and law suits that drive up the cost of healthcare. Why doesn't the government take care of those before putting all the blame on those that are uninsured? If after those are fixed then maybe, if it is still such a huge deal that it is now, we start looking to fixed the uninsured "problem"?
Click to expand...
This is unfair. You have driven me to two likes just this evening. How shall I continue to dislike you in the face of all this reasonable argumentation?
 
Harshaw said:
I have no idea why you play these games or what you get out of it, but it's pretty pathetic.

Or, perhaps it's you who simply doesn't understand what I wrote. You've never bothered to respond to it, so that's as good a theory as any.
Click to expand...
He did mention Alzheimer's disease. I am inclined to believe him.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yes. Let's get the government completely out of the health care business. Completely.

Why do you believe someone should have his neighbors pay for something he or she wants?
Click to expand...

I happen to have a great appreciation for the National Institutes of Health. Much of the research they have done and funded has contributed to the betterment of my quality of life as well as millions of others. And in turn I'm willing to bet people that have benefitted from the NIH endeavors have also contributed to your quality of life in a positive way.
 
buck said:
anti-selection, or as that poster called it "adverse selection", simply means that people that are sick and need insurance are the ones most likely to purchase insurance. Those that do not have a condition and will not need it, do not currently foresee needing it are the least likely to purchase. So, IMO, Harshaw is correct.
Click to expand...
There, I fixed it for you. No one can know what's coming next so saying the "will not need it" is just flap.



As for the final comment, what you're saying is NOT what Hawshaw is saying.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
My first inclination is to point out that you are an ignorant fool. But that would be impolite of me.

So let us agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Sure! I agree to disagree with short-sighted people all the time, so why not you, too?
 
MoSurveyor said:
How do you define "government benefits"? Personally, I don't call reimbursement by the government for services rendered as "getting government benefits".
Click to expand...

Reimbursement by the government is in a way "insurance". The hospital get paid right? Through "reimbursement"? So why is it that if they are getting paid, whether its through the government, the insurance company, or the individual, that all of a sudden its "driving the price of healthcare up" so bad that they need the government to set up this monstrosity of a bill? If they're getting paid then how is it that they can claim that they are not getting paid? Easy of course...just blame it on the individuals that don't pay and ignore that they do get paid by the government. Of course this is also not counting the fact that hospitals/collection agencies sue the crap out of those that don't pay and then they lose everything in order for it to get paid. So what? Are they getting twice the money now? The government "reimbursement" AND the law suit?

And yes, government reimbursement by the government is a form of government benefit. For the simple fact that without that reimbursement then the hospital wouldn't get paid at all unless of course they sued the person oweing them.

danarhea said:
Does Lockheed Martin get government benefits by selling Uncle Sam an F-22? Could we force Lockheed Martin to deliver 12 F-22's to Japan with no contract or guarantee of payment?
Click to expand...

The government buying an F-22 does not equal reimbursing a hospital. Horrible analogy there Dan.
 
Misterveritis said:
I can almost see you licking your chops.
Click to expand...

I can absolutely see you trying to divert attention from the fact that Reagan signed the universal health care law. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom