• 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!

House Bill Defunds Health Care

No, one of the most important aspects of insurance. Buying insurance AFTER something has happened isn't insurance.
I was under the illusion that the ACA made insurance companies accept everyone
which is another means of destroying the industry and getting everyone into single payer ;)
 
and being denied medical insurance simply for having a preexisting condition, something that is up to the insurance company to define, is what exactly? a sign of flawless freemarket principles?
Oh stop with the sappy emotionalism for a minute and think about what you're asking, seriously.

Tell me where that argument fit when government-run health care made its first appearance on the political stage? It didn't exist. In fact, it won't exist for decades - that argument is just one of the latest excuses marched forth as "cause" for... for giving the federal government power over 1/6th of this nation's economy.

People are SO AFRAID of what might happen, they're ready to pee their pants at the very thought of not having insurance should they ever need it. Well, fine - I agree in principle that if we have the ability to curtail reasonable fears about "what might happen if" that we do so. Fair enough?

But answer me this - what makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do that? What? Or, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________?
 
and being denied medical insurance simply for having a preexisting condition, something that is up to the insurance company to define, is what exactly? a sign of flawless freemarket principles?

If necessary. Why should I have to pay more because you smoke? Why should I have to pay a lot more because you smoked yourself to lung cancer? Why aren't you paying for my cable and internet and newspaper since I also have a right to be informed? Why was it necessary to muck up the whole system when those with pre-existing conditions could have been made eligible for existing government run plans without totally disrupting the market?
 
Oh stop with the sappy emotionalism for a minute and think about what you're asking, seriously.

Tell me where that argument fit when government-run health care made its first appearance on the political stage? It didn't exist. In fact, it won't exist for decades - that argument is just one of the latest excuses marched forth as "cause" for... for giving the federal government power over 1/6th of this nation's economy.

People are SO AFRAID of what might happen, they're ready to pee their pants at the very thought of not having insurance should they ever need it. Well, fine - I agree in principle that if we have the ability to curtail reasonable fears about "what might happen if" that we do so. Fair enough?

But answer me this - what makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do that? What? Or, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________?

because the free market has not been doing a great job of keeping health care affordable. people should not go bankrupt trying to afford healthcare or be denied life saving treatment because their current coverage cannot afford it.
 
because the free market has not been doing a great job of keeping health care affordable. people should not go bankrupt trying to afford healthcare or be denied life saving treatment because their current coverage cannot afford it.

Personal bankruptcy is not that big of a deal. You're making it sound as if it is the end of the world...
 
If necessary. Why should I have to pay more because you smoke? Why should I have to pay a lot more because you smoked yourself to lung cancer? Why aren't you paying for my cable and internet and newspaper since I also have a right to be informed? Why was it necessary to muck up the whole system when those with pre-existing conditions could have been made eligible for existing government run plans without totally disrupting the market?

just for the record, i don't smoke, and i will never smoke.

and what about the people who cannot qualify for the existing government programs but cannnot afford the high costs of private insurance.
 
just for the record, i don't smoke, and i will never smoke.

and what about the people who cannot qualify for the existing government programs but cannnot afford the high costs of private insurance.

Doctors will generally provide huge discounts for cash paying patients...
 
The 90's don't seem to ring a bell do they?

Goodness, maybe we should have a shut down. Apparently Republicans forgot that they were blamed for the last one and that it was incredibly unpopular.

Easy to lay blame with a lapdog media not challenging the then President Clinton on his statements. Not as easy now that the big three networks are not so big now.
 
How can someone with no money afford decent food, housing, or anything.

You keep changing your argument. Should I be responsible for providing food and housing as well as health care for those who are to ignorant to make the decisions necessary to do so on their own?
 
Congress is trying to pass a bill to defund a law they passed, and if the law they passed isn't defunded by Congress, then Congress will decide to temporarily suspend the government they are responsible (while they themselves are still getting paid) for from work, and likely not pay the bills Congress accumulated.


Take partisanship out of it for just a second and take a moment to think how utterly ridiculous this situation is.

I'll agree it is ridiculous. But the fact is the health care law is, by it's design, going to put 1/6 of the economy under government control, drive up the cost of health care (look what it has already done to insurance premiums), and will still not insure everybody. I think the biggest mistake so far was passing it in the first place under extreme pressure and without reading it. I think if the idiots in Congress had read it first we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

I keep hearing that this is a partisan issue, but I don't quite see it that way. The Democrats may be following their party on this, but there is much divide in the Republican side, and it is likely to play big in the 2014s. The battle seems to be between career politicians and true conservatives. I have to say the younger conservatives are more impressive than I had expected.

But I still expect in the end the health care law will stand and that it will in fact be a disaster for our health care system, job market, and the income level of a large portion of the population. Look at how many people are losing full time hours so that employers can avoid the high costs of this plan. And those are only the companies that started in anticipation of the law taking full effect. It is going to get worse. I expect another round of foreclosures as income levels drop. I expect rationing of health care. But worse, this is going to crash the insurance companies so that by the time the country does realize what a mess we've created reversing course will be very difficult if not impossible. I believe that is by design as well. Earlier in the thread someone asked why the Republicans don't just let it go and fail, this is why. The consequences of destroying the insurance companies and the labor market are not things that can be easily fixed, and the government does not have a history of giving up power once it has taken it.
 
because the free market has not been doing a great job of keeping health care affordable. people should not go bankrupt trying to afford healthcare or be denied life saving treatment because their current coverage cannot afford it.
Again with the sappy emotionalism! Put a sock in it for a moment (please) and tell me now where THAT argument fit into the original push for government-run health care?

But before you answer that question - please answer my first one: What makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do this? What? Or, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________? Insert 1) pre-existing conditions. 2) Affordablility. 3) Guarantee of life-saving treatment.

Seriously, you need to answer that question. Why do you accept the government's premise that it, and it alone is capable of quelling all your fears surrounding your health care, that you (and I) MUST accept this premise??
 
Again with the sappy emotionalism! Put a sock in it for a moment (please) and tell me now where THAT argument fit into the original push for government-run health care?

But before you answer that question - please answer my first one: What makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do this? What? Or, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________? Insert 1) pre-existing conditions. 2) Affordablility. 3) Guarantee of life-saving treatment.

Seriously, you need to answer that question. Why do you accept the government's premise that it, and it alone is capable of quelling all your fears surrounding your health care, that you (and I) MUST accept this premise??

people with Pr-existing conditions were being denied coverage, Under the affordable care act insurance company's can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition.
 
people with Pr-existing conditions were being denied coverage, Under the affordable care act insurance company's can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition.
oh yes they will.
 
people with Pr-existing conditions were being denied coverage, Under the affordable care act insurance company's can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition.

Who do you think will end up paying for this?
 
ala bammy YOU will heh heh
 
people with Pr-existing conditions were being denied coverage, Under the affordable care act insurance company's can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition.
What makes you think the federal government is the proper entity to do this? What?

Or if this is easier, why MUST we accept the Democrat premise that government-run health care is the ONLY way to "fix" ____________? Insert 1) pre-existing conditions. 2) Affordablility. 3) Guarantee of life-saving treatment. 4) Whatever...
 
not if want to suffer the risks of breaking the law.
phunny thing about you folks that have never run a business
we aren't doing it to lose money or comply with some lawl
if it's unprofitable it ain't gonna happen

but rest assured the insurance companies will make a total killing before they turn out the lights
 
So you think the public is going to look at this like: We don't like this ineffective Congress because they are ineffective. Ineffective Congress could use a shutdown to make them even more ineffective. I would also like the American economy to loose billions of dollars in revenue.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

The majority of Americans do not like Obama Care and would look kindly on delaying its implementation. There was never a discussion on Obama Care since the Dem leaders did not allow the members of Congress to see the whole bill until the time to vote its passage.

And I think that it is an effective Congress that does put a wrench in the spokes of the wheel of government to prevent it from grinding on the American People. And sometimes the government has to be "shut down" so that a diffrent direction can be made than from a course of destruction.
 
Back
Top Bottom