• 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!

Nelson says he'll support healthcare bill

Strucky said:
Corruption is alive and well in the Democrat controlled Congress...Despite promises to the contrary.
Click to expand...

And the republicans are our saviors and there is no history of curruption in the republican part. :rofl:rofl:rofl
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Not enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, not enough. One of the first HMOs I had was great, but soon it became as difficult and restrictive as most insurances, and many got a bad name, rightfully so.

As for tort reform, I believe most states have already done this, and the results have been less than stellar, which at a minimum raises the question as to whether they really do much at all.
 
Dav said:
That is both not true, and it does not address American's request.
Click to expand...

Denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions is not true? Tell that to a friend of mine that is facing that right now. Paid his premiums on time for years. But he made the mistake of having a heart attack. That's bad for the bottom line of his insurance company so they are crying pre-existing condition. Not uncommon at all.

And as far as insurance companies terminating coverage when bills get too high that's not uncommon either.

Something tells me you've never had any experience with health care costs. Maybe under 30 and still living with Mom an Dad?
 
Last edited:
Let's remember that most people not covered by the government are covered by their employers. So your company, not insurance companies decide who gets coverage and if their is a lifetime dollar limit.

Also while this bill says that you can buy insurance, it does not say at what cost, will it be affordable. My sense is that you will find that once again the middle class worker gets screwed.
 
washunut said:
Let's remember that most people not covered by the government are covered by their employers. So your company, not insurance companies decide who gets coverage and if their is a lifetime dollar limit.

Also while this bill says that you can buy insurance, it does not say at what cost, will it be affordable. My sense is that you will find that once again the middle class worker gets screwed.
Click to expand...

And it is a burden on business, which is why so many are dropping it. It may not be the best way to provide insurance.

And as I said earlier, it would have been far more affordable with a public option. This is still something we will have to address later on.
 
Boo Radley said:
And it is a burden on business, which is why so many are dropping it. It may not be the best way to provide insurance.

And as I said earlier, it would have been far more affordable with a public option. This is still something we will have to address later on.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's one of the highest expenses there are for businesses. Removing that expense would cause expansion of businesses like you'd wouldn't believe. Something the republicans totally miss.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Agreed. It's one of the highest expenses there are for businesses. Removing that expense would cause expansion of businesses like you'd wouldn't believe. Something the republicans totally miss.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I'm not sure why. I would be interested to hear an explanation.
 
I am speaking of large companies that are not dropping insurance for their employees. People keep talking about a public option for competition. States regulate and establish what insurance companies can charge.

Look at the legislation out there now, with all the special interest waste. Imagine if the whole health care system was run by these people. Costs would skyrocket.

Everyone says there is tremendous waste in Medicare, do you think a public option would not have the same problem.
 
washunut said:
I am speaking of large companies that are not dropping insurance for their employees. People keep talking about a public option for competition. States regulate and establish what insurance companies can charge.

Look at the legislation out there now, with all the special interest waste. Imagine if the whole health care system was run by these people. Costs would skyrocket.

Everyone says there is tremendous waste in Medicare, do you think a public option would not have the same problem.
Click to expand...

A public option is irrelavent. It's out of the running.
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is why the public option was actually necessary. They way insurance works best is to have a large pool, and it has to include healthy people paying. Without this, benefits are less and the need to ration is greater.
Click to expand...

well, there is no PO

not here in reality, anyway

which is why, with the class act imposing hi premiums relatively on the young invulnerables and lower rates on the more infirm, "benefits," as you say, "are less and the need to ration is greater"

the whole scheme depends on massive cuts to m and m which aint gonna happen

when they don't go down, the deficit explodes

same with the doc fix

universal coverage, to oblivious obama, simply means---you kids go out and buy it, all of you

that's universal

good job, dems

once more, congrats

live it, love it

INCUMBENT byron dorgan TRAILS some generic north dakota republican by TWENTY TWO

SPEAKER reid trails a pair of challengers by half a dozen each

INCUMBENT michael bennett of colorado is BEHIND by between 4 and 9

dodd's dead

INCUMBENT blanche lincoln trails by 6

etc

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls
 
Last edited:
washunut said:
I am speaking of large companies that are not dropping insurance for their employees. People keep talking about a public option for competition. States regulate and establish what insurance companies can charge.

Look at the legislation out there now, with all the special interest waste. Imagine if the whole health care system was run by these people. Costs would skyrocket.

Everyone says there is tremendous waste in Medicare, do you think a public option would not have the same problem.
Click to expand...

There's waste in the private sector as well, lots of it, and yet you seem to think it's ok to let those run things. Everything run by everyone is subject to waste, corruption, and simple inefficiency. That's the risk we take in doing anything.

And let's remember, Medicare has to take on a population that is mostly in need without the benefit of having the young, healthy patients to supplement the cost. This makes a real difference, so all things considered, the program doesn't do that poorly.

However, while it would have more sense to have the public option, the fact is it isn't there. Detractors succeeded in getting it removed. I personally think this was a mistake, and hope it gets revisited in the future.
 
The Prof said:
well, there is no PO

not here in reality, anyway

which is why, with the class act imposing hi premiums relatively on the young invulnerables and lower rates on the more infirm, "benefits," as you say, "are less and the need to ration is greater"

the whole scheme depends on massive cuts to m and m which aint gonna happen

when they don't go down, the deficit explodes

same with the doc fix

universal coverage, to oblivious obama, simply means---you kids go out and buy it, all of you

that's universal

good job, dems

once more, congrats

live it, love it

INCUMBENT byron dorgan TRAILS some generic north dakota republican by TWENTY TWO

SPEAKER reid trails a pair of challengers by half a dozen each

INCUMBENT michael bennett of colorado is BEHIND by between 4 and 9

dodd's dead

INCUMBENT blanche lincoln trails by 6

etc

RealClearPolitics - Latest Election Polls
Click to expand...

No, cuts won't happen. Hopefully other methods involved (Tax on Cadillac plans for example) will bring in enough revenue. That said, I doubt this present plan will be successful as written and will have to be readdressed alter on. Hopefully by then we can more forward and do a better job.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's waste in the private sector as well, lots of it, and yet you seem to think it's ok to let those run things. Everything run by everyone is subject to waste, corruption, and simple inefficiency. That's the risk we take in doing anything.

And let's remember, Medicare has to take on a population that is mostly in need without the benefit of having the young, healthy patients to supplement the cost. This makes a real difference, so all things considered, the program doesn't do that poorly.

However, while it would have more sense to have the public option, the fact is it isn't there. Detractors succeeded in getting it removed. I personally think this was a mistake, and hope it gets revisited in the future.
Click to expand...

Problem is, in the Private sector, they have to make up for waste. Either they pass it on to the consumer if they think they can get away with it or they do their best not to waste. Not to mention, we're not forcibly paying into every aspect of the private industry so often we're not directly being hit by their waste. On the other hand, the Government will take what it can get. If it achieves its goals then it's a success. They aren't going for profit, and they aren't really even going for "break even" at this point, which means the money we're paying in isn't always going to the best cause.

That being said, we need a happy medium. Whatever that happy medium is, I don't rightly know at this point and time.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Problem is, in the Private sector, they have to make up for waste. Either they pass it on to the consumer if they think they can get away with it or they do their best not to waste. Not to mention, we're not forcibly paying into every aspect of the private industry so often we're not directly being hit by their waste. On the other hand, the Government will take what it can get. If it achieves its goals then it's a success. They aren't going for profit, and they aren't really even going for "break even" at this point, which means the money we're paying in isn't always going to the best cause.

That being said, we need a happy medium. Whatever that happy medium is, I don't rightly know at this point and time.
Click to expand...

They make up for waste by charging more (you mentioned that). And sometimes they go out of business without the good sense to police themselves.

The government functions much the same way. The only difference is we are the board of directors. We decide how we proceed in the future. We change leadership, often based on issues, and let our satisfaction or disappointment known.

As for middle ground, that was the public option. It was between entirely the private sector and universal insurer.
 
Boo Radley said:
They make up for waste by charging more (you mentioned that). And sometimes they go out of business without the good sense to police themselves.
Click to expand...

I've never taken more than an economics 101 class and yet I can see what those execs cannot. Weird...:lol:

Boo Radley said:
The government functions much the same way. The only difference is we are the board of directors. We decide how we proceed in the future. We change leadership, often based on issues, and let our satisfaction or disappointment known.
Click to expand...

IN theory yes, in actuality, there are factors in play that create quite the corrupt company and we, more like shareholders, are getting continually screwed because the government has turned from a Government for the People, By the People, to a system that almost rewards failure/inaction and focuses on the wrong values in leadership positions.

Boo Radley said:
As for middle ground, that was the public option. It was between entirely the private sector and universal insurer.
Click to expand...

The middle ground should have been finding a way to reduce costs without spending all this money and creating controversial legislation. But then again, that's business as usual in Washington I suppose. I'm not a fan of piling more systems onto already failing systems to try and patch the holes in the entire system. It's like we're living in a house that needs some serious fixing up and they want to add on a brand new sun room.
 
EpicDude86 said:
I've never taken more than an economics 101 class and yet I can see what those execs cannot. Weird...:lol:
Click to expand...

I suspect you're not alone in that. :lol:


IN theory yes, in actuality, there are factors in play that create quite the corrupt company and we, more like shareholders, are getting continually screwed because the government has turned from a Government for the People, By the People, to a system that almost rewards failure/inaction and focuses on the wrong values in leadership positions.
Click to expand...

If true, and I'm unconvinced either way, that would be because we have stopped holding them accountable. We play too much us versus them, let them manipulate us with unimportant issues, and don't pay near enough attention.


The middle ground should have been finding a way to reduce costs without spending all this money and creating controversial legislation. But then again, that's business as usual in Washington I suppose. I'm not a fan of piling more systems onto already failing systems to try and patch the holes in the entire system. It's like we're living in a house that needs some serious fixing up and they want to add on a brand new sun room.
Click to expand...

I would have favored a complete remaking of the system. I tend to lean towards a universal payer, with all of us paying a premium. This would make the pool sufficient enough to cover costs. And this would be that serious fixing.

However, that was never going to happen. So, a middle ground was sought, a public option. And in the end, we let those who demagogue destroy any reasonable effort.
 
Boo Radley said:
I suspect you're not alone in that. :lol:




If true, and I'm unconvinced either way, that would be because we have stopped holding them accountable. We play too much us versus them, let them manipulate us with unimportant issues, and don't pay near enough attention.




I would have favored a complete remaking of the system. I tend to lean towards a universal payer, with all of us paying a premium. This would make the pool sufficient enough to cover costs. And this would be that serious fixing.

However, that was never going to happen. So, a middle ground was sought, a public option. And in the end, we let those who demagogue destroy any reasonable effort.
Click to expand...


I have come to love you and value your posts over these past few days.

<3
 
I've enjoyed them myself.
 
Chappy said:
Eliminating the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage to people will simplify the business; no longer can the most cut throat insurance companies undermine their competitors.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, although health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, there is nothing that prohibits insurers from jacking up rates on those individuals.

If this is true (and I keep hearing that it is), insurance companies will still be able to avoid covering those with pre-existing conditions by simply pricing them out of the market.

Denial of coverage with an added twist. :sinking:
 
Glinda said:
My understanding is that, although health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, there is nothing that prohibits insurers from jacking up rates on those individuals.

If this is true (and I keep hearing that it is), insurance companies will still be able to avoid covering those with pre-existing conditions by simply pricing them out of the market.

Denial of coverage with an added twist. :sinking:
Click to expand...
Apology accepted. Get in the KMA line.
 
I would like to know the constitutionality of:

- The Federal government forcing a private citizen to buy a commodity

- Forcing citizens of other states to pay for the Medicare/Medicaid of Nebraska

I agree we need health care reform. There is no question, but is this how we want to do this as a nation?

It is illegal to buy a private citizens vote, yet it is alright to by a U.S. Senator's vote? How did that become o.k.? When is either party going to finally stand up for what is right?

I thought the Democrats and President Obama ran on a platform of transparency, honesty, and change. I am concerned with what is happening.
 
The Truth said:
I would like to know the constitutionality of:

- The Federal government forcing a private citizen to buy a commodity

- Forcing citizens of other states to pay for the Medicare/Medicaid of Nebraska

I agree we need health care reform. There is no question, but is this how we want to do this as a nation?

It is illegal to buy a private citizens vote, yet it is alright to by a U.S. Senator's vote? How did that become o.k.? When is either party going to finally stand up for what is right?

I thought the Democrats and President Obama ran on a platform of transparency, honesty, and change. I am concerned with what is happening.
Click to expand...

General Welfare is a legitimate cause for creating a Nanny State, or at least facets of it in large parts of our life. I wish that Forza 3 was necessary for the General Welfare because I want a copy of that instead of Health Care.
 
The Truth said:
I would like to know the constitutionality of:

- The Federal government forcing a private citizen to buy a commodity

- Forcing citizens of other states to pay for the Medicare/Medicaid of Nebraska

I agree we need health care reform. There is no question, but is this how we want to do this as a nation?

It is illegal to buy a private citizens vote, yet it is alright to by a U.S. Senator's vote? How did that become o.k.? When is either party going to finally stand up for what is right?

I thought the Democrats and President Obama ran on a platform of transparency, honesty, and change. I am concerned with what is happening.
Click to expand...

Is it just the different federal and state government, or do you see some other difference between mandating Health insurance and mandating auto insurance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom