• 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!

Senate OKs health care measure, reaching milestone

Who are we talking about here? If they can't afford it, there are exemptions.

How many people are we talking about that can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it? Jerry Sienfeld -- Who are these people?

And only a moron would believe someone is going to end up in jail over this. However, if they are really that stupid and selfish, then perhaps jail would do them some good...

Stupid and selfish? Do them some good? How is it selfish to oppose something that is not only unconstitutional but also immoral? How is it stupid to use logic? Why would it do ANYONE any good to put supposed "stupid and selfish" people in jail?

I have heard that of the 31 million without insurance about half of them can afford it.

And the exemptions won't help everyone. People can be denied those exemptions by just being $1 over on their gross income.
 
Yes, and having health insurance limits what others will have to pay for you when you mess up and need it. if you don't have it, others will have to pay for you. Health care isn't free.

As for what passed, I believe it doesn't do enough. We needed a good public option for this to have any chance at real success. Because of the silliness this topic always elicit, this may be the best we can get for now. It will fail, and more will be needed. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
All the way to what? Total government takeover of all of the hospitals?? Because that is exactly what the left want, all of the Left.
 
Who are we talking about here? If they can't afford it, there are exemptions.

How many people are we talking about that can afford health insurance but refuse to buy it? Jerry Sienfeld -- Who are these people?

And only a moron would believe someone is going to end up in jail over this. However, if they are really that stupid and selfish, then perhaps jail would do them some good...

People who don't want it, that's enough for me.

Why is someone stupid and selfish for not wanting to buy health insurance?
Maybe just on principle they disagree with being forced to do things.
 
All the way to what? Total government takeover of all of the hospitals?? Because that is exactly what the left want, all of the Left.

Nope. That's just paranoia making you a little silly. And what's with "The Left" stuff. Do you ever see people as individuals? I don't care what left or right want. I care about what I think is best. try convincing me something else is better if you can. If you can't, you might want to reconsider your position. ;)
 
Yes, and having health insurance limits what others will have to pay for you when you mess up and need it. if you don't have it, others will have to pay for you. Health care isn't free.

As for what passed, I believe it doesn't do enough. We needed a good public option for this to have any chance at real success. Because of the silliness this topic always elicit, this may be the best we can get for now. It will fail, and more will be needed. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Of course it isn't but what about those who want to self insure?
Why should they be forced to buy insurance?

I hate to inform you but as it is now, no alterations can be made to the senate bill without a super majority vote by both the house and the senate and it has to be for recommendations made by the new health panel.
 
Same with all taxes and fines. But the offense one would go to jail for is not paying the tax/fine. Not for not having insurance. There is no jail penalty for not having insurance. You have to commit another offense in order to go to jail.

And no, separating things that are separate is being factual.

Why did they get the fine? Simple answer.
 
Nope. That's just paranoia making you a little silly. And what's with "The Left" stuff. Do you ever see people as individuals? I don't care what left or right want. I care about what I think is best. try convincing me something else is better if you can. If you can't, you might want to reconsider your position. ;)
Really?? And the "public option" will do what Liberals have wanted for a long time! Kill off the private sector insurance completely. And that is something I will not tolerate.
 
Of course it isn't but what about those who want to self insure?
Why should they be forced to buy insurance?

I hate to inform you but as it is now, no alterations can be made to the senate bill without a super majority vote by both the house and the senate and it has to be for recommendations made by the new health panel.

There is another way. The court system.
 
Why did they get the fine? Simple answer.

They get the tax for not having insurance.

Now, do you want the entire answer, or just what you think is the trick part?

They don't go to jail for not having insurance. Same with all taxes and fines. But the offense one would go to jail for is not paying the tax/fine. Not for not having insurance. There is no jail penalty for not having insurance. You have to commit another offense in order to go to jail.

And no, separating things that are separate is being factual.
 
There is another way. The court system.

Sorry but that isn't possible, as far as I have read, since military base closers operate on the same principle as this and it has been legal for over 100 years.

Even though Congress does not have the power to give away their power they somehow have been able to do so with the courts approval.
 
Really?? And the "public option" will do what Liberals have wanted for a long time! Kill off the private sector insurance completely. And that is something I will not tolerate.

Again with liberals. Do you go to their meetings? Perhaps you could invite me next time you go?

And I see no evidence it would kill off anything. Again, I see that as just hyperbolic paranoia, little more.
 
They get the tax for not having insurance.

Now, do you want the entire answer, or just what you think is the trick part?

They don't go to jail for not having insurance. Same with all taxes and fines. But the offense one would go to jail for is not paying the tax/fine. Not for not having insurance. There is no jail penalty for not having insurance. You have to commit another offense in order to go to jail.

And no, separating things that are separate is being factual.
So you're either damned if you do (pay through the nose in insurance premiums) or damned if you don't (get sent to the pokey for not ponying up the dough at tax time). Either way it sucks big time!
 
So you're either damned if you do (pay through the nose in insurance premiums) or damned if you don't (get sent to the pokey for not ponying up the dough at tax time). Either way it sucks big time!

There's a third option: poney up the dough at tax time. :lol:
 
They get the tax for not having insurance.

Now, do you want the entire answer, or just what you think is the trick part?

They don't go to jail for not having insurance. Same with all taxes and fines. But the offense one would go to jail for is not paying the tax/fine. Not for not having insurance. There is no jail penalty for not having insurance. You have to commit another offense in order to go to jail.

And no, separating things that are separate is being factual.

What happens if a person cannot pay that "tax"/fine? IE the "tax"/fine doesn't get paid.
 
What happens if a person cannot pay that "tax"/fine? IE the "tax"/fine doesn't get paid.

Same as any other time. The IRS will work with you; I know from experience. You don't have to go to jail.
 
Again with liberals. Do you go to their meetings? Perhaps you could invite me next time you go?

And I see no evidence it would kill off anything. Again, I see that as just hyperbolic paranoia, little more.
Horsesh!t!! The only thing the "public option" is designed to do is to get that proverbial "foot in the door" to totally socialized medicine! Not to mention that big daddy gubment, once they get into this racket, can, and will undercut any private insurance company into the ground!
 
Horsesh!t!! The only thing the "public option" is designed to do is to get that proverbial "foot in the door" to totally socialized medicine! Not to mention that big daddy gubment, once they get into this racket, can, and will undercut any private insurance company into the ground!

I'm open to any factual and objective evidence you have. But just yelling horsesh!t!! isn't very convincing. You know the CBO said it wouldn't, don't you?
 
Sorry but that isn't possible, as far as I have read, since military base closers operate on the same principle as this and it has been legal for over 100 years.

Even though Congress does not have the power to give away their power they somehow have been able to do so with the courts approval.

If it is deemed unconstitutional then the courts can nullify that part of the bill. Congress cannot stop this.

The difference between the military and you and I is that you join the military voluntarily. Which means you follow their rules voluntarily. We do not join life voluntarily. We are mandated to have health insurance from the day that we are born with the passing of this bill.
 
I don't trust anything from big daddy gubment.

Not asking you to. I'm asking you to quit spewing and start providing some evidence. I think this is a fair request, don't you?
 
Not asking you to. I'm asking you to quit spewing and start providing some evidence. I think this is a fair request, don't you?
http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-bad-public-options/2009/07/21/id/331744


Obama's 'Public Option' Insurance Will Abandon 100 Million Citizens
Tuesday, 21 Jul 2009 12:22
By: David A. Patten


Up to 100 million people would lose their current healthcare plan within the next three years if Congress passes the "public option" health bill now making its way through Congress, policy experts tell Newsmax.

Defections on that scale would mean the death of the health-insurance sector within five years, a leading GOP congressman says.

These findings fly in the face of President Obama's assurances.

"Under our proposals," Obama told the American people during his July 18 weekly radio address, "if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance. Period, end of story."

Not so, according to a report released Monday by the Lewin Group, a nonpartisan Falls Church, Va., firm that provides consulting services to the healthcare industry. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation sponsored the study.

The study concludes that, although the government won't actually order people to leave their private insurance plans, it will induce their employers to do so. The taxpayer subsidies in the public option will tilt the economic scales so much that employers and individuals will abandon the private insurance market by the millions, the Lewin Group study indicates.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., an orthopedic surgeon and senior ranking Republican on the Health subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, tells Newsmax the imbalance will kill private health insurance as it currently exists in less than a decade.

"I don't see how it can go longer than somewhere between three and five years," Price tells Newsmax. "The phase-in makes it so that we'll see tens of millions go from private plans to the government-run plan within a year or two. And then five years is the drop dead date where everybody is forced off."

The mainstream media is beginning to question Obama's presumptions as well.

ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper writes on his Political Punch blog that the president has admitted his statement is not literally true.

The government "might create circumstances" that would lead to a widespread change in policies, Tapper writes.

"I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the healthcare plans that you provide your employees," Obama recently told ABC's Diane Sawyer. "What I can say is that the government is not going to force . . . your employers or you to join a government plan, for example."

Tapper reports that Obama later appeared to hedge on his promise during ABC News' healthcare forum, saying: "If you are happy with your plan, and if you are happy with your doctor, we don't want you to have to change."

Yet that is exactly what would happen to tens of millions of policyholders if Congress passes the current plans, Lewin Group and other experts say.

Obama has justified the public option as a means of policing private insurers, saying it "will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

The reality, critics say, is that Obama's proposal would go far beyond that, possibly even driving the private health-insurance sector out of business altogether, at a time when the economy already is closing in on 10 percent unemployment.

The Lewin Group appears to support Rep. Price's conclusion that public-option healthcare will bring radical changes to voters' health insurance coverage.

That consultant's analysis finds that the average monthly premium under the public option would be $179 less than the average private premium.

Lewin's analysts calculate that this would induce 83.4 million Americans and their employers to change plans. Because the employers usually make the decision, millions of those individuals would have little or no say in whether they would join the public-option plan.

Lewin concludes that 103.4 million Americans would sign up for the public plan, cutting the size of the private-insurance market just about in half. In three years, 48.4 percent fewer people would be covered by private insurance.

"The president simply isn't telling the truth," Price charges. "I don't know if that's because he hasn't read the bill, or he doesn't know what his cohorts up here on Capitol Hill have done to the legislation, but it's very, very clear."

He adds, "This will destroy the individual private insurance market in this nation. And if you talk to the folks who authored the plan, they admit it. They aren't trying to hide that at all. It's just the President who's trying to hide that."

One reason that healthcare policy experts cite for the profound impact the public-option would have on private insurers is "cost shifting."

Hospitals and physicians now defray the cost of the billions of dollars of free medical care they provide to uninsured people — known as "uncompensated care" — by increasing their fees to private health plans. As the number of people covered by private plans diminishes, fewer policyholders remain to absorb the cost of uncompensated care, which raises their premiums and results in an ever-narrowing base of privately insured.

"It’s a death spiral," Price tells Newsmax, "because as you take people out of personal insurance market then you are decreasing the number of individuals for whom risk is spread across. As you do so, the cost increases for each individual that remains in the private market. With the bill, you get to that point relatively quickly."

Advocates of the bill maintain, however, that by boosting the level of healthcare enrollment to about 95 percent of the populace, uncompensated care should diminish drastically. So far, the president's biggest hurdle comes from members of his own party, who are nervous about projected budget deficits and a surtax of up to 8 percent on the wealthy that would be used to reduce the plan's estimated budgetary impact of more than $1 trillion over the next decade.

"Congress needs to strive for a bill that's deficit-neutral over the long term, even beyond 10 years. All the bills so far have run deficits in the first 10 years, and would likely run massive deficits in following decades," senior Heritage analyst Brian Riedel tells Newsmax.

Riedel voices open skepticism about current projections for the plan's impact on the deficit: "The healthcare estimates are almost certainly underestimating the cost of health care. For starters, government healthcare programs almost always cost substantially more than is projected," he says.

"In this instance," Riedel adds, "many are assuming that the public plan will create all of these efficiencies that hold down costs, and I'm not sure that's going to happen. Additionally, there's always a chance that taxpayers are going to be asked to subsidize the public option, in order to give it a competitive advantage over private health care. That will raise the cost as well."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom