• 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!

Health care law's unpopularity reaches new highs

Unitedwestand13 said:
its not like the health care system was a paragon of excellence before reform. you can't undo medicare because it is a debt. not a financial debt but a debt to society.

how will you explain to the people promised the benefits of medicare that taking away the program and throwing the entire health care system to the wolfs known as the free market would benifit them?
Click to expand...

So you want to take money that would go to Medicare and use it for Obama care and leave the seniors out in the cold? (No wolfs need apply. :2razz:)
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
medical equipment is expensive. medical bills are expensive. malpractice insurance is expensive for doctors and they give mutiple tests to prevent being sold and the medical bills of those tests is expensive. insurance is expensive. all of this exists and that is the result of the free market.
Click to expand...

The bold part I have a problem with. Observe:


medical equipment is expensive --- If medical equipment were made by the Federal Government it would probably be 20 years behind and likely for twice as much for a modern piece of equipment. Keep in mind that all medical equipment that is used in the USA does go through FDA for approval and some of that is in proving the safety and utility of said equipment. Perhaps the costs could go down if the process is streamlined somewhat.

medical bills is expensive --- This is due in part due to insurance offered by employers which distorts how the free market would respond. The employer offered healthcare insurance is due to tax policies that did not count insurance as income and was a way to offer employees as a way to avoid higher income tax brackets back then and thus is not indicative of a free market.


malpractice insurance is expensive for doctors and they give mutiple tests to prevent being sold [sic (sued)] --- It should be noted that tort actions are government involvement and is not part of the free market. It should be noted that Obama was against limiting tort liability.


AND the medical bills of those tests is expensive (the previous) --- A better term would be unessasary if it was just to avoid a tort litigation.


insurance is expensive --- Government at the State level was heavily involved in it before Obamacare so that should be expected. Np free market there.




people grow old, and people are more susceptable to sickness if they are elderly. easy pickings for the insurance industry
Click to expand...


You got that backward old people cost more and are a burden to the insurance industry and Obama care's death panels would address the issue.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
And republicans hated Obama's plan so
much, they choose Romney as the candidate, the single candidate whose system was most like Obama's. :lamo
Click to expand...

The distinction between the two was apparent.

Romney would have left it up to the States.

A decision that would have adhered to the Constitution.

Obama's intent was never about providing health care to the needy by the way, or repairing "the broken " system we had.

Which is exceddingly OBVIOUS seeing how ObamaCare has made things much much worse.
 
Fenton said:
The distinction between the two was apparent.

Romney would have left it up to the States.

A decision that would have adhered to the Constitution.

Obama's intent was never about providing health care to the needy by the way, or repairing "the broken " system we had.

Which is exceddingly OBVIOUS seeing how ObamaCare has made things much much worse.
Click to expand...

Tell yourself what you must, but Romney would have changed little. All that would have changed would be republican hyperbole. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Boo Radley said:
I they the they refers quite specifically to congress on the whole. This doesn't seem to be too difficult or shocking. You may find a person or three who didn't, but that is meaningless. I convinced most knew exactly what they were voting for.
Click to expand...

"Congress on the whole" is not specific. In order to be specicific you have to be specific. In other words you need to name names,This you cannot do. You may be 'convinced" yet you offer no evidence, only your beliefs.

And while you use a nice sound bite for Kerry, it is also a dishonest one.
Click to expand...

No, another belief of yours that is in error.
Any honest person who read what he said before his vote on Iraq knows he stated clearly before voting he would oppose action taken outside of the UN. Partisans are all too often dishonest with these things and rely on sound bites over actual content.
Click to expand...

Then he should have voted No before he voted Yes.
 
Boo Radley said:
Tell yourself what you must, but Romney would have changed little. All that would have changed would be republican hyperbole. :lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Really? Another 'belief' of yours?

All Leftists have are their beliefs, and reality seldom intrudes.
 
Boo Radley said:
And republicans hated Obama's plan so much, they choose Romney as the candidate, the single candidate whose system was most like Obama's. :lamo
Click to expand...

Are you making the claim that Romney would have implemented a federal healthcare system similar to Obamacare had he been elected? What evidence do you have of this?
 
Grant said:
"Congress on the whole" is not specific. In order to be specicific you have to be specific. In other words you need to name names,This you cannot do. You may be 'convinced" yet you offer no evidence, only your beliefs.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's just silly. You really want hundreds if names?

No, another belief of yours that is in error.
Click to expand...

No, read his speech. The facts are the facts.

Then he should have voted No before he voted Yes.
Click to expand...

Everyone should have voted no, but lets not pretend he didn't do exactly what he sad he'd do.
 
Grant said:
Really? Another 'belief' of yours?

All Leftists have are their beliefs, and reality seldom intrudes.
Click to expand...

No, it's pretty clear for all to see.

You're trying to argue with stereotypes again? It's really sad when epode do that. :lamo
 
Grant said:
Are you making the claim that Romney would have implemented a federal healthcare system similar to Obamacare had he been elected? What evidence do you have of this?
Click to expand...

No. I claim he wouldn't have stopped the current reform. No one has implemented a federal healthcare system. Try to focus on reality and not the hyperbolic misinformation.
 
Grant said:
Are you making the claim that Romney would have implemented a federal healthcare system similar to Obamacare had he been elected? What evidence do you have of this?
Click to expand...

I don't think Romney would have been able to do anything about it if he were president. Obama-care was already voted on BEFORE he ran as a presidential nominee. Him being president on that alone would not have been able to change anything.

Now if you want to go on the hypothesis of Romney being president and the GOP having control of the House and Senate that is another story. But Romney being president alone would not have changed ANYTHING in regards to Obamacare with everything else being like it is now.
 
There's nothing wrong w/trying to implement universal health care. But such an insurance system, esp. if it entails mandatory coverage, needs to be accountable the doctors and patients that will fall under the provisions of that system. With obamacare, that isn't possible. No where in the law is there any mechanism for insurance co. coverage requirements to be enforced.

The federal gummint certainly can't enforce obamacare, because the federal gummint is controlled (via lobby) by the same insurance cos. that fall under its provisions. The only way for it to be enforced is for patients and doctors to be able to sue insurance cos. for malicious denials and then have the legal fees paid for in cases of victory. And obamacare doesn't allow that.

Therefore, for all practical purposes, obamacare is nothing more than an unregulated, taxpayer-subsidized oligopoly of insurance providers. And as every student in First Year economics knows, oligopolies are always bad for the consumers.
 
solletica said:
Their lawyers did.



Yes, the insurance cos. passed the bill after their lawyers read it.
Click to expand...

Um, do you even know what you are talking about? We are talking about Congress, the Representatives and Senators did not read this bill.
 
Boo Radley said:
Tell yourself what you must, but Romney would have changed little. All that
would have changed would be republican hyperbole. :lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

Delusional ramblings and hypothetical constructs are not condusive to a objective debate over the issues.

You, who support a corrupt ideology we are all now witnessing the failure of can't possibly be taken seriously anymore.

Youv'e lost your credibillity.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Um, do you even know what you are talking about? We are talking about Congress, the Representatives and Senators did not read this bill.
Click to expand...

Correct.. No one in Congress read the full bill. Seldom do they read any bill.

In the US, the responsibility to read bills falls to the sponsors of the pols who will vote for the bill, and in this case, that's the insurance cos. themselves. Once a sponsor's legal dept. determines that a bill meets it's objectives, the sponsor orders it's pols to vote for the bill. And that's what happened to obamacare. If the insurance co. legal depts. were unhappy with the bill, they would've ordered their reps in Congress to vote it down.
 
Fenton said:
Delusional ramblings and hypothetical constructs are not condusive to a objective debate over the issues.
Click to expand...

Nope, Boo is 100% correct. romney would've done nothing different. At best, romney would've only ordered tweaks to obamacare to make it more favorable to the insurance oligopoly.
 
solletica said:
Correct.. No one in Congress read the full bill. Seldom do they read any bill.

In the US, the responsibility to read bills falls to the sponsors of the pols who will vote for the bill, and in this case, that's the insurance cos. themselves. Once a sponsor's legal dept. determines that a bill meets it's objectives, the sponsor orders it's pols to vote for the bill. And that's what happened to obamacare. If the insurance co. legal depts. were unhappy with the bill, they would've ordered their reps in Congress to vote it down.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect, the responsibility falls on those passing the bill. Take a civics class please. That being said, you clearly don't understand how govnerment is intended to work and only know the crazy mess we have today.

We are talking about Congress though, not insurance companies, we didn't elect insurance companies. The point is, they stuffed tons of stuff in this bill that is going to hurt, not help, Americans, and Congress blindly accepted it.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
That is incorrect, the responsibility falls on those passing the bill. Take a civics class please. That being said, you clearly don't understand how govnerment is intended to work and only know the crazy mess we have today.
Click to expand...

It may have been intended to work that way, but that's not how it currently works. They way it currently works, political sponsors, not Congress, read all major bills

davidtaylorjr said:
We are talking about Congress though, not insurance companies, we didn't elect insurance companies. The point is, they stuffed tons of stuff in this bill that is going to hurt, not help, Americans, and Congress blindly accepted it.
Click to expand...

True, but Congress largely works for insurance cos., not Americans, so they did what they always do--vote in their sponsors' favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom