• 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!

Town hall tension: Meeting turns ugly over health care

No one suggested that white people should not have a voice, only that the people who showed up where not representative of the makeup of the district. Don't go building that strawman.

Did they live there, or didn't they?

Hmmmm?

Yes.

Then they had as much right to be heard as anyone. Congressional district gerrymandering does not override the Constitution.
 
My point is that its likely the people showing up for the townhall meeting are not actually representative of districts constituents. One would expect a grassroots movement to be made up of people mirror the community they live in. I would suspect these people are simply an organized minority in the neighborhood, although they could have been brought in from outside the district.

One would expect racial stereotyping from Democrats.

One gets it.
 
If a group of mostly black people showed up a Malibu city council meeting claiming to be representative of the city, I would say exactly the same thing.

Not if they were spamming for your Messiah.
 
There is no reason for anyone to be angry about healthcare reform because not only are there no details to get upset about, but it has been made clear that anyone who likes their healthcare coverage may keep it. The "anger" is all phony, or perhaps these people are angry because the president is black.

For some strange reason, the nation that won the Cold War isn't all that excited about trusting the party that opposed the efforts to win that War.

And, then again, the party making the vast and empty promises is the party that lied their asses off to defend a perjured president, who tried to steal the election in 2000, who stole the Minnesota Senate election of 2008, who hasn't spent nearly a trillion dollars in "stimulus" money but wants to spend one or two more trillion stimulationg something, no one's sure what, and who can't run Medicaid or a CARS program, yet demands to nationalize the entire country's medical industry.

No, we're not going to trust those friggin' idiots, and even the worms under the grass roots are starting to realize the danger of letting Democrats steal 1/6 of the national economy.
 
Did they live there, or didn't they?

Hmmmm?

Yes.

Then they had as much right to be heard as anyone. Congressional district gerrymandering does not override the Constitution.

Good to see some things are constant. Scarecrow still cannot argue against what is actually said, having to twist words to have something he can make an argument against.

Hint: no one said that any one did not have a right to be heard. Thank you for trying, but once again, you failed.
 
Do you know every detail of all the legislation enacted by congress?

Why not? Arent you troubled?

Shouldn't he be? You're arguing that because our ignorance of the laws passed by those crooks in Washington has done so much damage to our freedom and our economy so far, we shouldn't be worried that even more of the same will do more of the same?
 
The only thing "pathetic" is these furious, incensed people at town hall meetings who won't allow a democratic exchange of ideas to take place. Why? Because they are so angry about health care. Why are they angry? I have no idea. Nothing has been taken from them, nothing has been threatened, no matter what form of bill is passed they will not have to change their health care if they don't want to. So why are they angry? I suspect because Glenn Beck or some other brainless fringe pundit told them to be angry.

They are exchaning ideas.

Instead of sitting there getting fed loads of horse**** from Democrats, they're giving the Democrats the idea that not everyone likes horse****.

That's the most refreshing exchange I've seen in decades.
 
Good to see some things are constant. Scarecrow still cannot argue against what is actually said, having to twist words to have something he can make an argument against.

Hint: no one said that any one did not have a right to be heard. Thank you for trying, but once again, you failed.

You failed to state that the "minority" was not legally resident in the aforementioned district.

What you are doing is responding to the perfectly valid point that minorities in gerrymandered district also have a right to confront their Congressthing with issues, and the Congressthing is obligated to listen.

No, instead, you're entering irrelevant ad hominem BS because you can't address the truth. You seem to have some issue against minorities being represented equally in Congress.
 
For some strange reason, the nation that won the Cold War isn't all that excited about trusting the party that opposed the efforts to win that War.

And, then again, the party making the vast and empty promises is the party that lied their asses off to defend a perjured president, who tried to steal the election in 2000, who stole the Minnesota Senate election of 2008, who hasn't spent nearly a trillion dollars in "stimulus" money but wants to spend one or two more trillion stimulationg something, no one's sure what, and who can't run Medicaid or a CARS program, yet demands to nationalize the entire country's medical industry.

No, we're not going to trust those friggin' idiots, and even the worms under the grass roots are starting to realize the danger of letting Democrats steal 1/6 of the national economy.

I don't know whether to laugh at your ridiculous remarks or be concerned that many Americans actually believe this tripe.
The proposed health care bill (according to Wikipedia) mainly is concerned with these points:
The summary of the bill includes the following elements, among others:[5]

1.Establishes a mandate for health insurance for all legal residents of the U.S.
2.Prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions.
3.Prohibits premium variances, except for age, geographic area, or family (vs. individual) enrollment.
4.Prohibits cancellation of coverage except for evidence of fraud.
5.Limits annual out-of-pocket expenses to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family.
6.Includes a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance.
7.Establishes a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) within a proposed Health Choices Administration, to provide individuals and employers access to health insurance coverage choices. The HIE would contract with various insurers to offer benefit plans at competitive prices, by establishing a risk-pooling mechanism. This will allow individuals and small companies to band together to bargain for lower rates.
8.Provides a tax credit for low-income individuals and families to help pay insurance premiums.
9.Requires employers with payroll costs over $250,000 that are using the HIE to provide health insurance.
10.Provides for a tax on individuals without health insurance and employers that do not provide the required health insurance.
11.Provides for a tax on individuals with adjusted gross income exceeding $350,000.
12.Reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with excessive re-admissions.
13.Establishes a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research, which would analyze cost variances for similar treatments across the country.
14.Further expands Medicaid eligibility and scope of covered preventive services, for lower-income individuals and families.
15.Increases Medicaid payments to physicians for primary care.
16.Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop quality measures for the delivery of health care services in the United States.
17.Establishes the Health Benefits Advisory Committee chaired by the Surgeon General.

I don't understand how so many of you can object to things like people not being refused for pre-existing conditions. In fact, all these points sound logical and reasonable.
 
They are exchaning ideas.

Instead of sitting there getting fed loads of horse**** from Democrats, they're giving the Democrats the idea that not everyone likes horse****.

That's the most refreshing exchange I've seen in decades.

They are not exchanging ideas. I've seen the videos, they are chanting non-stop to end the discussion. And you defend them.
 
I guess on top of everything else, you're a race-baiter, too, eh?

When push comes to shove, the Democrats will ALWAYS resort to the race card.

After all, the facts are against them on this health scam legislation.

Have any of the Messiah followers explained just why they want to destroy the nation's health care system, or are they just passing the lie that they really want to "fix" it, as if the end results aren't clear to all?
 
You failed to state that the "minority" was not legally resident in the aforementioned district.

What you are doing is responding to the perfectly valid point that minorities in gerrymandered district also have a right to confront their Congressthing with issues, and the Congressthing is obligated to listen.

No, instead, you're entering irrelevant ad hominem BS because you can't address the truth. You seem to have some issue against minorities being represented equally in Congress.

Actually, you seriously need to read and comprehend the thread before making accusations. I started my comments based on some one pointing out that the meeting was not representative of the district since it was almost strictly white was not "bringing race into the issue".

Now, I repeat the point that contrary to your claim, Neither I nor any one else stated that any one did not have a right to be heard. You made it up and attached it to me, which is incredibly dishonest.
 
Originally Posted by rathi
It then creates new regulations for health insurance providers such as no denying for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime maximums and minimum required covered treatments.

I also believe that insurance companies would not be allowed to increase premiums if you developed some kind of sickness. Basically forcing the insurance companies to assume more risk, without being able to collect for it.
If I came to you and said " I'll give you $500 a month, and you cover all my potential medical needs up to $1 million worth". I am healthy and have little history of medical issues. You might take me up on that. If I came to you and said "I'll give you $500 a month, and you cover all my medical needs up to $1 million worth, and oh by the way I have cancer that requires chemotherapy and I have to take 3 different kinds of medication" you might consider not making that deal, since you are likely to take a big loss. You would either ask for more money, or not offer coverage at all.

Now insurance companies cannot raise premiums on you mid term for any reason already. They have 30 days to "inspect" and cancel you at the beginning of a policy(or charge more premium) and its usually 60 days prior to the renewal of the policy, if they are raising rates or canceling your coverage. The industry has to be allowed to raise rates for increased risk assuming. The government will have to raise rates, in the form of taxes, for the exact same thing. Telling a private company it can't, is forcing it out of business.
 
Actually, you seriously need to read and comprehend the thread before making accusations. I started my comments based on some one pointing out that the meeting was not representative of the district since it was almost strictly white was not "bringing race into the issue".

Now, I repeat the point that contrary to your claim, Neither I nor any one else stated that any one did not have a right to be heard. You made it up and attached it to me, which is incredibly dishonest.

No.

I read your post.

Clearly if the "minority" is white, then in your eyes they should shut up and be fitted for slave collars.

You were quite plain.
 
No.

I read your post.

Clearly if the "minority" is white, then in your eyes they should shut up and be fitted for slave collars.

You were quite plain.

Keep lying about me and thinking you are accomplishing anything. Clearly, I said nothing even remotely like that.
 
Now insurance companies cannot raise premiums on you mid term for any reason already. They have 30 days to "inspect" and cancel you at the beginning of a policy(or charge more premium) and its usually 60 days prior to the renewal of the policy, if they are raising rates or canceling your coverage. The industry has to be allowed to raise rates for increased risk assuming. The government will have to raise rates, in the form of taxes, for the exact same thing. Telling a private company it can't, is forcing it out of business.

I agree with your analysis, although I don't think the consequences would be quite as drastic. The dutch have find a workable solution called "risk equalization".

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_equalization]Risk equalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I agree with your analysis, although I don't think the consequences would be quite as drastic. The dutch have find a workable solution called "risk equalization".

Risk equalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the government is subsidizing the "discriminatory" premium adjustments made on the sick/elderly the money still has to come from somewhere. At the categorizations of the N and S classes would be left to the value judgement of our government. I can see that being a sticky issue in our halls of power.

I'll agree that its a better idea that forcing companies to take on higher risk, and not allowing them to charge for it.
 
Back
Top Bottom