• 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 GOP File Lawsuit Against Obama

Objective Voice said:
I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
Click to expand...

Well, I was only referring to the proposal you made, no others. But I think I got my answer.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Well, I was only referring to the proposal you made, no others. But I think I got my answer.
Click to expand...

Towit...

Objective Voice said:
Actually, the question of appropriations (funding) where the PPACA is concerned could easily be remedied if Congress acted accordingly, i.e., a) appropriate funds as outlined in the law itself or b) modify the law by removing the word "Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate" or words to that effect from the law wherever it appears. Of course, they'll do neither because that 25% of congressional membership that has brought about this lawsuit (towit, House Republicans) doesn't want to do it. They'd rather continue to use political and procedural tactics to undermine existing law just to win political points rather than fully acknowledge that by working with their Democrat colleagues they could fix the law even if it means "repeal and replace" the PPACA with something that still provides health insurance but resolves the process issues within the law. Yes, I know there have been several attempts to repeal Obamacare, but there haven't been any serious proposals (bills) to replace it with anything substantial.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
No disrespect, but based on the rationale you've outlined above, do you honestly think that the Democrats in the Senate would allow a vote and adopt a bill from the House that altered the ACA in the way you suggest and even if by some miracle they did, the President wouldn't veto it?
Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:
I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding my initial response above, I'll answer your more direct question this way: "No, the Democrats would not support repealing and replacing ObamaCare with a different health care reform bill as long as they believe doing so undermines the objectives and ultimate goal mentioned above.

I believe the reason funding authorization was given to the Sec, HHS within the health care reform law was to ensure congressional (House) opposition could not defund aspects of the law. By giving sweeping authority and virtually a blank check to the Sec, HHS, it insured the even if Congress (GOP) tried to defund the law, the Sec, HHS could still use his/her authority under the law OR unexhausted funds already appropriated for other means to carry out those provisions of the law as he/she saw fit, i.e., Cost-Sharing Reductions to Beneficiaries as outlined in section 1402 of the PPACA towhich this lawsuit is really all about.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Towit...







Notwithstanding my initial response above, I'll answer your more direct question this way: "No, the Democrats would not support repealing and replacing ObamaCare with a different health care reform bill as long as they believe doing so undermines the objectives and ultimate goal mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Which is no answer at all.

You claimed in your posts that all the Republicans had to do was "remove the words 'Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate'". I simply asked if you actually believe the Democrats would agree to that "simple" change and if they did, would the President not veto it. It's a simple question.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Which is no answer at all.

You claimed in your posts that all the Republicans had to do was "remove the words 'Sec, HHS is authorized to appropriate'". I simply asked if you actually believe the Democrats would agree to that "simple" change and if they did, would the President not veto it. It's a simple question.
Click to expand...

And I answered you. No, they would not, not if they believed that by doing so it undermined the objectives and ultimate goal of standing law. And considering that the GOP has already tried to defund the law on a number of occasions, it stands to reason they would never do so.

Both situations - altering the law by removing Sec, HHS funding authorization and repeal and replace based on past GOP proposals - in the minds of congressional Democrats equate to the same thing. Both threaten to undermine existing objectives and the goal set forth in existing law. So, no, as things currently stand they wouldn't go for that.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
And I answered you. No, they would not, not if they believed that by doing so it undermined the objectives and ultimate goal of standing law. And considering that the GOP has already tried to defund the law on a number of occasions, it stands to reason they would never do so.

Both situations - altering the law by removing Sec, HHS funding authorization and repeal and replace based on past GOP proposals - in the minds of congressional Democrats equate to the same thing. Both threaten to undermine existing objectives and the goal set forth in existing law. So, no, as things currently stand they wouldn't go for that.
Click to expand...

So your claim that things "could be easily remedied" by this change if Congress did it, but Republicans won't because they don't want to was a bit of a crock because you acknowledge that Democrats wouldn't let it happen. Pretty convenient to blame a flawed law enacted by Democrats alone and one that Democrats won't allow to be changed on the Republicans.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So your claim that things "could be easily remedied" by this change if Congress did it, but Republicans won't because they don't want to was a bit of a crock because you acknowledge that Democrats wouldn't let it happen. Pretty convenient to blame a flawed law enacted by Democrats alone and one that Democrats won't allow to be changed on the Republicans.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is I understand what both sides want on this issue. In principle, Republicans don't like various part of ObamaCare, specifically, the taxation on individuals and businesses, the authoritarianism from the Executive Branch, the excessive spending and especially the expansion of and perceived access to government health care to immigrants. Ideologically, they don't want to give a Democrat President a victory at any level.

Democrats support this law in large part because it insures a large number of people who weren't insured previously, provides what they believe to be greater insurance benefit coverage by stabilizing/standardizing essential benefits, provides for funding (in the future at least) through taxation making health care exchanges self-sustaining and forcing government to find ways to "make it all work" while retaining the hardline on maintaining funding measures in the immediate future.

Could these problems be fixed if both sides at least tried to understand where the others sees problems with the law and really work to resolve them while also maintaining broad reach in access to health care, self-sustaining funding without federal funding (tax dollars/appropriations) and reducing the size or scope of government? Sure! But such will never happen as long as both sides remain so firmly entrenched.

Personally, I've always believed Universal Health Care or a system similar to the CLASS Act would be far superior to what we got because at least with either EVERYONE would have a buy-in into the health care system similar to what Medicare now provides only you get to use it much sooner rather than paying into it for 35-40 years and only being able to use it once you retire. But you can never get Congress to stop the stupidity and just do it without trying to win votes by downing the other side for making common sense decisions.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
All I'm saying is I understand what both sides want on this issue. In principle, Republicans don't like various part of ObamaCare, specifically, the taxation on individuals and businesses, the authoritarianism from the Executive Branch, the excessive spending and especially the expansion of and perceived access to government health care to immigrants. Ideologically, they don't want to give a Democrat President a victory at any level.

Democrats support this law in large part because it insures a large number of people who weren't insured previously, provides what they believe to be greater insurance benefit coverage by stabilizing/standardizing essential benefits, provides for funding (in the future at least) through taxation making health care exchanges self-sustaining and forcing government to find ways to "make it all work" while retaining the hardline on maintaining funding measures in the immediate future.

Could these problems be fixed if both sides at least tried to understand where the others sees problems with the law and really work to resolve them while also maintaining broad reach in access to health care, self-sustaining funding without federal funding (tax dollars/appropriations) and reducing the size or scope of government? Sure! But such will never happen as long as both sides remain so firmly entrenched.

Personally, I've always believed Universal Health Care or a system similar to the CLASS Act would be far superior to what we got because at least with either EVERYONE would have a buy-in into the health care system similar to what Medicare now provides only you get to use it much sooner rather than paying into it for 35-40 years and only being able to use it once you retire. But you can never get Congress to stop the stupidity and just do it without trying to win votes by downing the other side for making common sense decisions.
Click to expand...

Change on issues of such magnitude don't come easily. That's why they should be done judiciously and cooperatively right from the start. I mentioned in a previous post that Canada's universal health care doesn't cover the cost of medications for anyone over 18 and under 65 unless they are on welfare. That's been a problem from the beginning and a government commission recommended that drugs be covered for all some 50 years ago and the vast majority of Canadians would support it and yet no such change has been proposed in that period of time let alone adopted by dozens of different governments over those decades.

Even though a majority of Americans look at the ACA unfavourably for one reason or another, you may end up being stuck with it as it is for decades, just as Canada has, because changing it has too many special interests at cross purposes.
 
Objective Voice said:
I guess it depends on what changes are being proposed. You have to remember there were two basic objectives behind the PPACA:

1) to provide access to insurance coverage to as many people as possible;

2) to provide various funding mechanism to pay for health insurance exchanges at both the state and federal levels.

The goal, of course, is to increase access to health care while bringing down the cost. If such a bill continued to meet such objectives without forcing people to change their existing health care coverage, increase the cost or eliminate it all together all while being self-sustaining financially, I don't see why such a bill would fail to pass muster.
Click to expand...

This may be a little elementary a question here, but could you explain who was ever denied buying health insurance?
 
Threegoofs said:
Thanks for the admission that you did forget.

Millions haven't.
Click to expand...

Come on goof, man up and try to be honest a little would ya? You're argument for the ACA is that we needed it for among other reasons, to stop the practice of Insurance companies dropping, or refusing to pay for the chronically ill, and diagnosed diseased. But your wording to that, among other aspects of thought, are troubling...There could very well have been legislation, or regulation that could have addressed the practice of pre existing conditions without having to attempt to take over a 6th of the nations economy, and using it for a wealth redistribution scheme. That's just the excuse.

The thing is that the more this thing comes out, the more the Gruber's of the progressive wet dream come out and blow the whistle on you lying bastards...The real problem is that progressives think that the public is stupid, when in reality we called it exactly like it is now playing out, years ago....And that burns you up. So next will come nothing of substance, just insults, and temper tantrums...Progressives are children, and need to STFU and go away, they are destructive.
 
j-mac said:
Come on goof, man up and try to be honest a little would ya? You're argument for the ACA is that we needed it for among other reasons, to stop the practice of Insurance companies dropping, or refusing to pay for the chronically ill, and diagnosed diseased. But your wording to that, among other aspects of thought, are troubling...There could very well have been legislation, or regulation that could have addressed the practice of pre existing conditions without having to attempt to take over a 6th of the nations economy, and using it for a wealth redistribution scheme. That's just the excuse.

The thing is that the more this thing comes out, the more the Gruber's of the progressive wet dream come out and blow the whistle on you lying bastards...The real problem is that progressives think that the public is stupid, when in reality we called it exactly like it is now playing out, years ago....And that burns you up. So next will come nothing of substance, just insults, and temper tantrums...Progressives are children, and need to STFU and go away, they are destructive.
Click to expand...

You really can't solve the problem of pre-existing conditions in a way that won't 'take over a sixth of the nations economy' (what a stupid phrase....who took it over?) because it's at the heart of affordable widespread coverage. The free rider problem is immense.

If it was easy, it could have been done a long time ago.

I find it funny that I'm bothering to explain this to a guy who forgot pre-existing conditions were a primary reason for implementing this law!
 
j-mac said:
This may be a little elementary a question here, but could you explain who was ever denied buying health insurance?
Click to expand...

A good bait question for sure.

No one was denied the opportunity to purchase health insurance even on the open (private health care) market. But lots of people were denied coverage.

Many people who had pre-existing conditions were either denied coverage OR the cost was very expensive even in state-sponsored high-risk pools (which few people knew anything about until after the PPACA/ObamaCare was enacted). So, yes, it's quite possible for most people to find almost any health insurance policy they want that would fit their needs, but in some cases it was just too expensive and in other cases some were denied coverage because they were too high a health care risk.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Come on goof, man up and try to be honest a little would ya? You're argument for the ACA is that we needed it for among other reasons, to stop the practice of Insurance companies dropping, or refusing to pay for the chronically ill, and diagnosed diseased. But your wording to that, among other aspects of thought, are troubling...There could very well have been legislation, or regulation that could have addressed the practice of pre existing conditions without having to attempt to take over a 6th of the nations economy, and using it for a wealth redistribution scheme. That's just the excuse.

The thing is that the more this thing comes out, the more the Gruber's of the progressive wet dream come out and blow the whistle on you lying bastards...The real problem is that progressives think that the public is stupid, when in reality we called it exactly like it is now playing out, years ago....And that burns you up. So next will come nothing of substance, just insults, and temper tantrums...Progressives are children, and need to STFU and go away, they are destructive.
Click to expand...

But federal health care expenditures (Medicare, SSDI & Medicaid) was already taking up at least 6% of the federal budget long before the PPACA. All kinds of reports, independent studies and documentaries have already confirmed this as fact.
 
Objective Voice said:
All I'm saying is I understand what both sides want on this issue. In principle, Republicans don't like various part of ObamaCare, specifically, the taxation on individuals and businesses, the authoritarianism from the Executive Branch, the excessive spending and especially the expansion of and perceived access to government health care to immigrants. Ideologically, they don't want to give a Democrat President a victory at any level.

Democrats support this law in large part because it insures a large number of people who weren't insured previously, provides what they believe to be greater insurance benefit coverage by stabilizing/standardizing essential benefits, provides for funding (in the future at least) through taxation making health care exchanges self-sustaining and forcing government to find ways to "make it all work" while retaining the hardline on maintaining funding measures in the immediate future.

Could these problems be fixed if both sides at least tried to understand where the others sees problems with the law and really work to resolve them while also maintaining broad reach in access to health care, self-sustaining funding without federal funding (tax dollars/appropriations) and reducing the size or scope of government? Sure! But such will never happen as long as both sides remain so firmly entrenched.

Personally, I've always believed Universal Health Care or a system similar to the CLASS Act would be far superior to what we got because at least with either EVERYONE would have a buy-in into the health care system similar to what Medicare now provides only you get to use it much sooner rather than paying into it for 35-40 years and only being able to use it once you retire. But you can never get Congress to stop the stupidity and just do it without trying to win votes by downing the other side for making common sense decisions.
Click to expand...

Our government, all levels combined and all programs combined, as of 2008 already paid for about half of the total national healthcare bill, it worked out to about $4,000 per citizen, which is roughly the cost of a Obamacare HSA compliant Bronze level policy in most states. So having universal insurance, particularly if it was a major medical policy, isn't as "unaffordable" as most people think it is.

It's just a matter of streamlining the system and consolidating all of these different government programs into one plan which provides identical coverage for every American. I pitched this idea to my (moderate republican) congressman a year before Obamacare became law, he couldn't seem to grasp the concept.

My plan was a compromise, it provided for "universal" coverage, which should have pleased dems, yet it didn't involve any more taxes and would have significantly lowered the private sector cost of having employees, which should have pleased republicans, so I thought that it would be politically viable. Apparently, the two parties aren't interested in a reasonable compromise, even if it gives both of them what they want most.
 
j-mac said:
This may be a little elementary a question here, but could you explain who was ever denied buying health insurance?
Click to expand...

My wife for one.

She was denied due to a minor pre-existing condition that has never caused us a penny of healthcare costs.

She now has affordable (unsubsized) insurance, due to Obamacare.
 
j-mac said:
So you needed 2000++ pages of every progressive wish under the sun, and the redistribution of wealth to solve that? I don't think so...
Click to expand...

What's your solution?

Anyhow, all insurance is redistributive in nature.

It's a form of socialism. A bunch of people pool their money together, and then whoever needs it gets it. There is no purer form of socialism than that.

Under purely capitalistic healthcare system, everyone would just pay directly for their own healthcare needs, with no third party (insurance company or government) redistributing the money. That's actually the system that would probably work best, for all except for catistrophic care.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
My wife for one.

She was denied due to a minor pre-existing condition that has never caused us a penny of healthcare costs.

She now has affordable (unsubsized) insurance, due to Obamacare.
Click to expand...

That's great for you Scott, but you understand you are not the norm right? Also, like I said, we all understand that pre existing conditions were a problem, but you don't need 2000 plus pages to rectify that.

What's your solution?
Click to expand...

I don't have to have a solution, I am not in government...But if I were, I wouldn't have voted for this piece of crap...
 
imagep said:
What's your solution?

Anyhow, all insurance is redistributive in nature.

It's a form of socialism. A bunch of people pool their money together, and then whoever needs it gets it. There is no purer form of socialism than that.

Under purely capitalistic healthcare system, everyone would just pay directly for their own healthcare needs, with no third party (insurance company or government) redistributing the money. That's actually the system that would probably work best, for all except for catistrophic care.
Click to expand...
This is completely wrong.

You pay someone, in this case a company, to take some of your risk for a thing that has not yet happened. If it has happened it is no longer a risk. Companies use statistics to determine how much risk they can "buy" for a particular fee.

What all of this idiotic healthcare is today is prepaid services. If we could get the government completely out of health care we would have a wide variety of products to choose from across a wide variety of price points.

It is socialism that drives up cost, lowers quality and makes a very great many of us angry.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Nope, not wrong at all, and you even agree with me on most of my points, you just don't realize that you agree...

You pay someone, in this case a company, to take some of your risk for a thing that has not yet happened. If it has happened it is no longer a risk. Companies use statistics to determine how much risk they can "buy" for a particular fee.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was explaining. Insurance is socialistic in nature. Insurance companies pool the premiums from a bunch of people, and then they redistribute the money on need bases. While I get that our current system isn't forced (at least not until Obummercare), that doesn't negate the reality that insurance in itself is a socialistic enterprise, even if it is voluntary and for profit.

What all of this idiotic healthcare is today is prepaid services.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. that's what I am trying to explain, what we have now, the prepaid healthcare plan, isn't really the normal purpose of insurance. It's like buying auto insurance and expecting the insurance company to cover the cost of gas and oil and normal maintenance.

If we could get the government completely out of health care we would have a wide variety of products to choose from across a wide variety of price points.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should get government out of healthcare, however as it is, even with Obummercare, we still ahve a wide variety of products to choose from, and a wide variety of prices. Maybe you should shop around for insurance some, so that you can see there are zillions of different options - even on the healthcare.gov site.

It is socialism that drives up cost, lowers quality and makes a very great many of us angry.
Click to expand...

Yep. The prepaid healthcare plan, which we both agree is socialistic, drives up costs because it removes the motive for price competition between healthcare providers. That's exactly what we need to get away from, regardless of Obummercare (we had these prepaid plans long before Obummercare existed).

Our only healthcare crises is the cost of healthcare, and insurance isn't the solution, it's actually the biggest problem. I totally agree that government policies have created this monster, but it didn't just start with Obama, it started decades earlier. Yes, we should get rid of Obummercare, but we also need to get rid of virtually all government involvement in healthcare. Prices and the level of care and what treatments are given should be between the patient and the doctor, and government and our employers have no business being involved, they simply shouldn't be a party to my healthcare decisions, any more than they should determine what I eat or who I marry or what type of car I drive.
 
j-mac said:
That's great for you Scott, but you understand you are not the norm right? Also, like I said, we all understand that pre existing conditions were a problem, but you don't need 2000 plus pages to rectify that.
Click to expand...

I'm not the norm, but thousands if not millions of families have been turned down for insurance on the bases that someone is too high of a risk, essentially dumping much of the health care cost of those people onto everyone else in the form of jacked up prices at the emergency room. People like my wife, who would have gladly contributed to the system by purchasing a health insurance policy, if she could have found a company that would cover her.

I don't have to have a solution, I am not in government...But if I were, I wouldn't have voted for this piece of crap...
Click to expand...

Me either. I met with our congressman (at the time), Bob Inglis, to push for a better solution. My ideas fell on deaf ears.

I'm far from an Obummercare supporter. I don't like the partisan hate speech and lies that so many on the radical right spew out, and when I point out the fallacy in those lies, the anti-logic that people like Rush use to trick otherwise perfectly normal people into despising Obama to the degree that they wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. I've never see hatred of any president to this degree, I suspect that the fact that a black man is in the white house has caused this (not suggesting that every Obummer hater is a racist, only that when we are told lie after lie after lie for long enough, we naturally start believing that they are true, and have thus have been brainwashed to hate Obummer).
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Exactly what I was explaining. Insurance is socialistic in nature. Insurance companies pool the premiums from a bunch of people, and then they redistribute the money on need bases. While I get that our current system isn't forced (at least not until Obummercare), that doesn't negate the reality that insurance in itself is a socialistic enterprise, even if it is voluntary and for profit.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, every investment bank or hedge fund I've ever worked for was a socialist enterprise, because insurance companies are not just pooling premiums from a bunch of people...

Also, you get out what you paid in with insurance. How is that socialist?
 
imagep said:
Nope, not wrong at all, and you even agree with me on most of my points, you just don't realize that you agree...
Click to expand...
LOL. No. You might be delusional.


Exactly what I was explaining. Insurance is socialistic in nature. Insurance companies pool the premiums from a bunch of people, and then they redistribute the money on need bases. While I get that our current system isn't forced (at least not until Obummercare), that doesn't negate the reality that insurance in itself is a socialistic enterprise, even if it is voluntary and for profit.
Click to expand...
And you are still completely wrong. It is amazing just how little we learn in school these days. The money is not pooled. No one is redistributing wealth. I just have to say, "wow!"
 
WallStreetVixen said:
If that is the case, every investment bank or hedge fund I've ever worked for was a socialist enterprise, because insurance companies are not just pooling premiums from a bunch of people...
Click to expand...

No. These hedge funds are very different. You have an account, and your money is your money.

Also, you get out what you paid in with insurance. How is that socialist?
Click to expand...

I have had insurance continuously for the past 25 years, yet I have never once filed a claim. So are you suggesting that I can now just "cash in" on my healthcare insurance and get all my premiums back?

Or are you saying that I can contact my money manager and tell him that I had an unexpected expense, and somehow "withdraw" more money than I have in my account?

You may have worked on Wall Street, but I'm beginning to suspect you are a janitor or the mail clerk, as you have absolutely no understanding of how these things work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom