• 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!

Dems push bill on health care, drug prices through House

Crystal said:
Too bad they are so short sided to see that absolutely everyone must pay federal taxes to pay for it. Dems want to give health care to all the illegals. They are on the path to destroying Medicare.
Click to expand...
I dont want to give healthcare to illegals, besides maybe a few chronic conditions that are cheaper to control then deal with in the ER, but that's a cost/ benefit analysis, not a mortality argument.

And nobody is short sighted about taxes, everyone knows it's not free. It is the right wingers who are short sighted, lead by a few rich people worried about their self interest against your own. Do you not understand that a healthier population can continue to contribute to the economy and society longer? Are you not confused how the richest nation in the world is the ONLY first world nation that cant afford to keep even their citizens healthy? It is clear to me who is short sighted.
 
Nemiroff said:
I dont want to give healthcare to illegals, besides maybe a few chronic conditions that are cheaper to control then deal with in the ER, but that's a cost/ benefit analysis, not a mortality argument.

And nobody is short sighted about taxes, everyone knows it's not free. It is the right wingers who are short sighted, lead by a few rich people worried about their self interest against your own. Do you not understand that a healthier population can continue to contribute to the economy and society longer? Are you not confused how the richest nation in the world is the ONLY first world nation that cant afford to keep even their citizens healthy? It is clear to me who is short sighted.
Click to expand...

If you want healthcare for 320 million Americans and illegals too you are going to have to tax absolutely everyone to payfor it.
 
sangha said:
All you did was point out how the Republicans are trying to score points. I asked which provision were the Democrats using to score points?

Was it increasing protection for people with pre-existing conditions? The Republicans say they want to protect them.

All that article says is Republicans objected because.....Obama!!!

It looks like it's the Republicans who are playing politics with a worthy bill
Click to expand...

Of course the Republicans are playing politics, that's a given. But at the end of the day we still have higher drug pricing don't we?
 
Master Debator said:
Of course the Republicans are playing politics, that's a given. But at the end of the day we still have higher drug pricing don't we?
Click to expand...
And people with pre-existing conditions are still unprotected.

And I note that you STILL can't identify any provision in this bill that shows that the Democrats are trying to score political points
 
sangha said:
And people with pre-existing conditions are still unprotected.

And I note that you STILL can't identify any provision in this bill that shows that the Democrats are trying to score political points
Click to expand...

Because I don't see you reconciling the fact that something can be good policy and political grandstanding at the same time.
 
Crystal said:
If you want healthcare for 320 million Americans and illegals too you are going to have to tax absolutely everyone to payfor it.
Click to expand...
We do tax everyone, although I would imagine the tax to be progressive.

If you get charged an extra $50 a month in taxes but save $200 on insurance premiums, is that supposed to be a loss.

So your 1 sentence reply missed the majority of my posts and is a tell tale sign of short sightedness. I dont want to provide benefits to illegal immigrants. I dont think legal migrants should have equal benefits to citizens... however the right is trying to keep healthcare from everyone, including the citizens that you seem to gloss over.

Did you even read my post?!?
 
Master Debator said:
Because I don't see you reconciling the fact that something can be good policy and political grandstanding at the same time.
Click to expand...
Democrats have historically been relatively straightforward compared to the political games of the right (see Obama's supreme court pick). Playing nice with a scumbag is how you lose everything.

I'm not a fan of grandstanding, but I'm also not a fan of unilateral disarmament.
 
Nemiroff said:
Democrats have historically been relatively straightforward compared to the political games of the right (see Obama's supreme court pick). Playing nice with a scumbag is how you lose everything.

I'm not a fan of grandstanding, but I'm also not a fan of unilateral disarmament.
Click to expand...

Democrats historically were segregationists and Obama was the embodiment of unilateral disarmament. I'm not a fan of it either, but if the Republicans are signaling that they want to get something done on drug pricing(which they have been)that's not disarmament that's a win for the American people. Sticking protections for Obamacare in there which makes it DOA is grandstanding. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about all this.
 
Master Debator said:
Democrats historically were segregationists and Obama was the embodiment of unilateral disarmament, I'm not a fan of it either, but if the Republicans are signaling that they want to get something done on drug pricing(which they have been)that's not disarmament that's win for the American people. Sticking protections for Obamacare in there which makes it DOA is grandstanding. I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about all this.
Click to expand...
I agree we need to control drug policies, but sometimes half step legislation kills the momentum for the remained of the priorities. I would need to hear more details as to why they are not playing along instead of just accusation.

On a side note, which Democrats were segregationists? Are you talking about the Democrats of 150 years ago that represented mostly white, southern, rural, religious, conservative people? Aka modern day Republicans? I find the comparison to be dishonest. And how was Obama unilateral disarmament?
 
Nemiroff said:
I agree we need to control drug policies, but sometimes half step legislation kills the momentum for the remained of the priorities. I would need to hear more details as to why they are not playing along instead of just accusation.

On a side note, which Democrats were segregationists? Are you talking about the Democrats of 150 years ago that represented mostly white, southern, rural, religious, conservative people? Aka modern day Republicans?
Click to expand...

You mean from 55 years ago. Until 64' the Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow and segregation and had been for a hundred years. And it wasn't just southerners. Segregation, racism, and discrimination existed in the north as well. Until recently the Democrat party supported mandatory minimums and drug policies that resulted in mass incarceration of black people and Obama and Hillary didn't support gay marriage until like 2012. Were they as bad as Republicans? No, of course not. But if we're talking history lets be accurate.

Nemiroff said:
I find the comparison to be dishonest.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

Nemiroff said:
And how was Obama unilateral disarmament?
Click to expand...
Well Obamacare for one. Didn't even bother fight for a public option. Bush Tax cuts, Wall st. bailouts... how many Democrat policies do Republicans come in and not only extend but make permanent and give it steroids?
 
dcsports said:
The ACA had little attempt to reduce cost, and it's key provisions increased it.
Click to expand...

The ACA made plenty of attempts to reduce cost growth (e.g., "Shock treatment: A wasteful and inefficient industry is in the throes of great disruption" or "Recent Progress In The Value Journey: Growth Of ACOs And Value-Based Payment Models In 2018").

Meanwhile cost growth fell more than anyone predicted. Health care spending this year is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars below even what the rosiest, in-the-tank-for-the-ACA prognosticators suggested was possible when it passed.

Several issues here:
1) No GOP plan to 'cripple the ACA' - only to remove its more damaging aspects. It was built to fail from the start
Click to expand...

The GOP has been very openly and transparently attempting to cripple the ACA for years and years. If it were built to fail, they wouldn't need to keep trying to deliberately break it. And the model for it, Mass, wouldn't have the highest coverage rates, most insurer competition, and lowest marketplace premiums in the entire country.

Throwing more money can fix a lot of problems -- but unfortunately there isn't a magic money tree.
Click to expand...

Since health care costs have been so much lower than expected when the ACA was budgeted for, plenty can be done within the original financial envelop of the law.

The ACA turns 9. So how'd the CBO do?

Master Debator said:
Didn't even bother fight for a public option.
Click to expand...

The public option passed the House but didn't have, and was never going to have, 60 votes in the Senate. With hindsight, we now know it wouldn't have mattered. Its presence wouldn't have changed anything in 2014 and it likely would've faced the same fate as its replacement, the non-profit member-owned cooperative insurers, when the GOP broke the risk mitigation piece of the law.
 
Master Debator said:
You mean from 55 years ago. Until 64' the Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow and segregation and had been for a hundred years. And it wasn't just southerners. Segregation, racism, and discrimination existed in the north as well. Until recently the Democrat party supported mandatory minimums and drug policies that resulted in mass incarceration of black people and Obama and Hillary didn't support gay marriage until like 2012. Were they as bad as Republicans? No, of course not. But if we're talking history lets be accurate.



:shrug:

Well Obamacare for one. Didn't even bother fight for a public option. Bush Tax cuts, Wall st. bailouts... how many Democrat policies do Republicans come in and not only extend but make permanent and give it steroids?
Click to expand...


You cannot judge the people of yesterday by today's standards. Almost NO ONE supported gay marriage in the early 2000s. Even gay activists were shocked (but glad) at how quickly that was accepted. It was a whole paradigm shift for the nation and politicians are no different. As for the war on crime, it was a simple and logical response to high crime. The knowledge that policing doesnt solve underlying issues and the minority narrative was not yet mainstream as it is now. Although the damage was real, not everything is a conspiracy. Dont pretend that your current beliefs will forever be progressive.

Yes, I was wrong on the years, but regardless of when the name "democratic party" represented the constituents that are currently named Republican: conservativism, religion, rural lifestyles. The fact that you will find plenty of Republicans and active Republican parties in the largest cities of Califronia and New York doesnt make those any less of a democratic constituency in general. The name is irrelevant. The democrat party of then is the Republican party of now. The only difference is the name.

If we are going to talk history, let's be accurate, and let's not draw false comparisons. Otherwise everyone in the past was a terrible person.
 
Nemiroff said:
You cannot judge the people of yesterday by today's standards. Almost NO ONE supported gay marriage in the early 2000s. Even gay activists were shocked (but glad) at how quickly that was accepted. It was a whole paradigm shift for the nation and politicians are no different. As for the war on crime, it was a simple and logical response to high crime. The knowledge that policing doesnt solve underlying issues and the minority narrative was not yet mainstream as it is now. Although the damage was real, not everything is a conspiracy. Dont pretend that your current beliefs will forever be progressive.

Yes, I was wrong on the years, but regardless of when the name "democratic party" represented the constituents that are currently named Republican: conservativism, religion, rural lifestyles. The fact that you will find plenty of Republicans and active Republican parties in the largest cities of Califronia and New York doesnt make those any less of a democratic constituency in general. The name is irrelevant. The democrat party of then is the Republican party of now. The only difference is the name.

If we are going to talk history, let's be accurate, and let's not draw false comparisons. Otherwise everyone in the past was a terrible person.
Click to expand...

People say that all the time, that you can't judge people of yesterday by the standards of today. I say bull****. I can judge whomever I like. You want to give ****ty people a pass that's your choice. Also we're not talking a hundred years ago, 2012 was basically yesterday and Hillary and Obama both didn't support gay marriage until the poll numbers turned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom