• 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 majority votes in favor Health Care Bill

kaya'08 said:
I have thus far failed to see why healthcare is bad. It will save the lives of many millions of more Americans and give them access to a healthcare system that wont burden them financially. A major right has been secured here, and a bit of socialism in the system never hurt anyone

I say this because i have first hand experience on the benefits and convienience of a national healthcare system.

In bold...

Strange how most everyone with UHC says this, rather than the opposite, contrary to what those opposed would have you believe...:)
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

I have thus far failed to see why healthcare is bad. It will save the lives of many millions of more Americans and give them access to a healthcare system that wont burden them financially. A major right has been secured here, and a bit of socialism in the system never hurt anyone :)

I say this because i have first hand experience on the benefits and convienience of a national healthcare system.

Then you are aware of policies like denying joint replacement surgery to fat people even though research show that there is no difference in success rates or benefits between thin people and fat people who have these procedures?

Obese people 'should not be denied knee replacement' - Telegraph

I fail to see the "benefits" of denying medical procedures for non medical reasons if you are under a "universal heath care" system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...h-pliers-long-waiting-lists-NHS-dentists.html

Lack of dentists who will take NHS clients causing people to DYI dental care.
 
Last edited:
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

Then you are aware of policies like denying joint replacement surgery to fat people even though research show that there is no difference in success rates or benefits between thin people and fat people who have these procedures?

The NHS does not deny such surgery to obese people. The article describes the indivisual choices of surgeons not to carry out the procedure. It is not the official position of the NHS. It does not specify the public/private sector anyway.

Nick Fiddian, president of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee, said that it was "pretty rare" for patients to be turned away from surgery, which was decided on a case by case basis by the individual surgeon.

If this is the case, you may find a different surgeon within the UHC (NHS). Simple as.
There have been times when family members have been denied a CAT scan because they felt there was nothing wrong, after extensive diagnosis. So what did they do? They asked a different surgeon under the national healthcare. Its no different in the private sector.


I fail to see the "benefits" of denying medical procedures for non medical reasons if you are under a "universal heath care" system.

There is no denial of medical procedures going on. You misread. I still fail to see whats so aweful about affordable health care. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

l• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years."

Those are sections of the tax code, not the HC bill.

The right wing is throwing all kinds of bs around, hoping to rile up the sheep.
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

Then you are aware of policies like denying joint replacement surgery to fat people even though research show that there is no difference in success rates or benefits between thin people and fat people who have these procedures?

Obese people 'should not be denied knee replacement' - Telegraph

I fail to see the "benefits" of denying medical procedures for non medical reasons if you are under a "universal heath care" system.

Thank God I won't be dependent on this slurry... it's the masses that are going to get kicked in the teeth, the balls and ass when this gets passed and massaged in future years.

Isn't medicare, medicaid and all the other socialist medical programs in Europe and Kanuckistan just great?

Think of all those illegals you'll be subsidizing.
Think of how "Free" will be abused and corrupted.
Think about paying more and more and getting less and less from fewer and fewer medical care givers.

Enjoy it.

Suckers.

.
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

I personally think the senate unfairly represents different amounts of people and as such should be seriously reformed or just given the ole boot altogether...but that's just this guy.

This is not a direct Democracy. We do have an adversial relationship between the states and the Federal government. That is good. Decentralization of power is always good.
 
Re: House approves landmark healthcare reform bill

Those are sections of the tax code, not the HC bill.

The right wing is throwing all kinds of bs around, hoping to rile up the sheep.

nice "try", joe, hope you didn't work too hard

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

ensign was one of baucus' Ubiquitous Six
 
I think out of all the arguments i have read so far, the American worry about the UHC bringing about more of a centralized government rather than a federal one as is the point of the American "republic", is definetly the most reasonable argument so far. Wouldnt it be better if indivisual states could have their own state health care system?
 
I think out of all the arguments i have read so far, the American worry about the UHC bringing about more of a centralized government rather than a federal one as is the point of the American "republic", is definetly the most reasonable argument so far. Wouldnt it be better if indivisual states could have their own state health care system?

Yes, I agree, as long as pre-existing conditions weren't refused, everyone was covered, the costs didn't make it prohibitive, and the free market could continue to work. If that requires torte reform, then we ought to do that.
 
I think out of all the arguments i have read so far, the American worry about the UHC bringing about more of a centralized government rather than a federal one as is the point of the American "republic", is definetly the most reasonable argument so far. Wouldnt it be better if indivisual states could have their own state health care system?

Yes it would. Some States would opt not to provide health care. People that wanted to not pay for UHC would gravitate to those States, while those that choose to provide, and pay for everyone would gravitate to those States that had UHC.

I wonder which States would go broke, and which States would have a population explosion.
 
Yes, I agree, as long as pre-existing conditions weren't refused, everyone was covered, the costs didn't make it prohibitive, and the free market could continue to work. If that requires torte reform, then we ought to do that.

Not gonna happen - tort reform requires sacrifices by the legal community of which Congress makes up a very reflective amount. They're not going to curb their own influence just like they won't curb their voting themselves pay increases.
 
The real question is, does this healthcare bill openly violate the constitution? And not just "in your view". But does it actually violate it?
 
Lieberman just said he thinks this could be the anvil that does in America.

It is and it could. Just look at all the well managed, cost effective, timely... LOL... socialist medical systems.
 
Lieberman just said he thinks this could be the anvil that does in America.

It is and it could. Just look at all the well managed, cost effective, timely... LOL... socialist medical systems.

Could you name a few ineffective, untimely socialist medical systems?
 
Could you name a few ineffective, untimely socialist medical systems?

NHS in Britain.

So is this where you claim it's not socialist? Or do we dither of the definition of "ineffective"?

Maybe Canada's medicine would be another? I'm no fan of NHS or Canada's system frankly - I'd much rather keeping our system but just fixing some things. This take over is over the top, not needed and simply a political power game. I know the left wants power to be with the government and that's who's pushing this.
 
Not gonna happen - tort reform requires sacrifices by the legal community of which Congress makes up a very reflective amount. They're not going to curb their own influence just like they won't curb their voting themselves pay increases.

I said torte! :D:D:D

It seems as if Republicans want it and the Great Whig Party wants it. If there is enough public clamour it may happen. If the cost of this healthcare can be linked to insurance costs then perhaps. I think the cost of medication muddies the water, though.
 
NHS in Britain.

So is this where you claim it's not socialist? Or do we dither of the definition of "ineffective"?

Ineffective, of course.

Maybe Canada's medicine would be another? I'm no fan of NHS or Canada's system frankly - I'd much rather keeping our system but just fixing some things. This take over is over the top, not needed and simply a political power game. I know the left wants power to be with the government and that's who's pushing this.

What part of Canada's system or the NHS system is untimely, ineffective and unaffordable, though? Granted, it could take months just to get a CT scan. But if the UHC can see your condition is serious and is deteriorating fast, you will be moved to the top of the list at your local UHC hospital. Otherwise, its worth waiting, especially if it means it doesnt burn a $1,000+ hole in your wallet.

Also, dont act as if this is a complete take over of the private health sector - it isnt. It wont kill you to have two options and give those unfortunate Americans the choice of choosing an alternative, affordable method.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, if your so against it, you can seek healthcare by private insurance companies and hospitals. The law may pass but you wont have to have anything to do with it.
 
Ineffective, of course.



What part of Canada's system or the NHS system is untimely, ineffective and unaffordable, though? Granted, it could take months just to get a CT scan. But if the UHC can see your condition is serious and is deteriorating fast, you will be moved to the top of the list at your local UHC hospital. Otherwise, its worth waiting, especially if it means it doesnt burn a $1,000+ hole in your wallet.

It's not always worth waiting. For example the extreme cases are people waiting in pain for sometimes, up to 7 or 8 years for a replacement hip, knee or other non-life threatening affliction. They wait because they are prioritized. Have you lived with extreme pain for say 5 years that affects your life, your job (or lack thereof), day in and day out. Not fun. That's untimely and ineffective in my book. There's also no guarantee that a deteriorating condition will re-prioritize anything. You're speaking like you know how this is all going to work when it doesn't even get put in place until 2013. You really can't say how it will work, if it will work well, or how people will get prioritized.

Also, dont act as if this is a complete take over of the private health sector - it isnt. It wont kill you to have two options and give those unfortunate Americans the choice of choosing an alternative, affordable method.

It has the potential to take over exactly that. From a dollars and cents means - corporations will pay the amount to the government and drop Company paid plans because they save money. Secondly, by dropping workers, it forces them into the artificially low cost public plan - why? Because the government won't let it's own plan fail. Let's get real. This isn't an overnight take over - it's a gradual and long term removal. Make a dependency on government over the next generation and no one will be able to get rid of it --- example1: Social Security example2: Medicare example3: Medicaid. Who's going to take anyone seriously who wants to ditch those programs? Same will happen with government run health care. And as we've seen in NHS in both Canada and Britain, it does kill - whether or not it will kill me personally we'll have to wait and see.
 
The real question is, does this healthcare bill openly violate the constitution? And not just "in your view". But does it actually violate it?

Read the constitution and see if it lists UHC as a "enumerated power" of the Federal Government.

Hint..... it doesn't, those powers rest with the States or the citizens of the States.
 
Read the constitution and see if it lists UHC as a "enumerated power" of the Federal Government.

Hint..... it doesn't, those powers rest with the States or the citizens of the States.

Does it list the UHC as an enumerated power of the state?
 
It's not always worth waiting. For example the extreme cases are people waiting in pain for sometimes, up to 7 or 8 years for a replacement hip, knee or other non-life threatening affliction. They wait because they are prioritized. Have you lived with extreme pain for say 5 years that affects your life, your job (or lack thereof), day in and day out. Not fun.

Which is why some people have the option to go private. I have never heard of such extreme cases whereby somebody has to wait up to 7 to 8 years for treatment, i have heard about 2 years at most, an extreme scenario, and she was not living in constant agony either. Where did you here that?

That's untimely and ineffective in my book. There's also no guarantee that a deteriorating condition will re-prioritize anything. You're speaking like you know how this is all going to work when it doesn't even get put in place until 2013. You really can't say how it will work, if it will work well, or how people will get prioritized.

That is how it works in all of the countries i have been to with a UHC. You need to remember it isnt one big hospital. Its many hospitals belonging to the UHC in your local area/state. If you are in extreme pain they will prioritize and move you to the top of the list, if the affordable medication they provide you in the mean time does not suffice to ease your pain. Unless your federal government intends to kill of its citizens and get itself sued left and right, believe me, they wont have any other choice but to prioritize.

It has the potential to take over exactly that. From a dollars and cents means - corporations will pay the amount to the government and drop Company paid plans because they save money. Secondly, by dropping workers, it forces them into the artificially low cost public plan - why? Because the government won't let it's own plan fail. Let's get real. This isn't an overnight take over - it's a gradual and long term removal.

If this does happen its because of the way Obama has legislated the bill.
Otherwise, where else have you seen this happen? In Britain, the private sector rakes in just as much money as the NHS.

Make a dependency on government over the next generation and no one will be able to get rid of it --- example1: Social Security example2: Medicare example3: Medicaid. Who's going to take anyone seriously who wants to ditch those programs? Same will happen with government run health care. And as we've seen in NHS in both Canada and Britain, it does kill - whether or not it will kill me personally we'll have to wait and see.

The NHS kills? Do you have a link?
 
Does it list the UHC as an enumerated power of the state?

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress...snip

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
Back
Top Bottom