• 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

Dirty Harry said:
Another phoney conservative. You believe it's OK for people to leech off others?
Click to expand...
First off, never said that. You are using Nancy Pelosi logic to describe the symptom of artificially high prices in medicine created by initial government and tort interference, secondly, you are using the flawed logic of stating that you are "free riding" someone, this is also a very partisan misnomer, if anything, you are paying for government mandates that made the price of coverage undesireable to the ratio of potential use, get it yet? Next, you are supporting a very unconstitutional mandate to purchase something undesired by using federal force, all of which will not solve the initial problem of government interference. So please, tell me how I am a phony conservative when I happen to follow an anti-federalist/constitution model.
The federal government is granted the power to ensure the general welfare of it's people. The health of it's people is included in "general welfare". Sorry , but read the constitution.
Click to expand...
I can tell you right from the start that you are using purposefully flawed analysis, the general welfare clause has NOTHING to do with providing basic services, it is basically to insure against things that no individual or community can provide which cannot be used by the public. i.e. a bridge, dam, public road, etc.
I do believe everyone should have basic health insurance as long as hospitals are forced to treat them.
Click to expand...
That's terrific, so how do you propose we do that, considering this bill just raised costs?
The people should not have to pay for their treatment through higher taxes, premiums and healthcare costs. The government should be there to help those that can not afford insurance to get it.
Click to expand...
Not addressed in this bill, however tax increases, mandates, etc. are included.

I think the healthcare bill is horrible but I do know the system is broken and something had to be done.
Click to expand...
So, you want an awful bill with no benefit and even less chance of repeal as opposed to leaving things alone until people who actually have a good idea come around? That doesn't make any sense.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I can tell you right from the start that you are using purposefully flawed analysis, the general welfare clause has NOTHING to do with providing basic services, it is basically to insure against things that no individual or community can provide which cannot be used by the public. i.e. a bridge, dam, public road, etc.
.
Click to expand...

Wrong.:roll: The general welfare means just that. There is nothing about bridges, dams etc. How many dams were built by the colonists? Roads were the state's responsibility. As in The Declaration of Independence we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We elected people in government to decide what is the best welfare of the people. The constitution gave them broad power to determine what general welfare means and our votes determines who makes those calls. It's what a democracy is.
General welfare can include education, health, and basic needs of the people. It's just as important as defense. The people we elected make the decisions as to what is best for us. That's just the way it is. I didn't write the Constitution. If I had I would haverestricted federal government much more.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So, you want an awful bill with no benefit and even less chance of repeal as opposed to leaving things alone until people who actually have a good idea come around? That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Who decides what a good bill is? The democrats actually believe they have good ideas and it does make sense to them. I still don't know much about the bill so I don't know if it good or bad, but they knew they had to do whatever it took to get this passed as soon as possible or it never would happen and things would only get worse for millions of Americans..
The thing is, there really is not a good solution that everyone will agree on. There never is. What if this bill passes and turns out to reduce costs and does provide insurance for everyone? No one knows for sure what will happen if it's passed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Read the writings of the time.
Click to expand...

I have read some of The Federalist Papers. Have you? Nothing about dams and roads in it. General Welfare.


" provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document."
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
1) Have the bills been reconciled yet?
2) Has anybody actually been fined for not buying health insurance?
3) Why would someone who could afford health insurance not have it?
4) Won't the fines offset the massive costs of running public hospital emergency rooms that are being misused as primary care physicians?

If you're a fat slob super-sizing your way to early onset diabetes, get off your couch, sell your widescreen tv, and buy some friggin' insurance, porky.

Let's all calm the f the down and take an objective intelligent look at the proposed bills... Shall we?
Click to expand...

1: No. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Especially when the odds are that the things being discussed will still be in the bill when all is said and done.

2: No. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Especially when the odds are that the things being discussed will still be in the bill when all is said and done.

3: Why pay money for something that you don't need? Just because you see it as idiotic doesn't mean that those that don't have insurance but can afford it should have it if they don't want it. And the odds of needing it between the ages of 20-40 are a lot smaller than those that are younger or older. It is far healthier for people to drink water than any soft drink out there. Do you think that a law should be implemented to mandate the people stop drinking it? What gives the government the right to enforce such a law?

4: It might. But is it right to force someone into buying something that they don't want because they might need it before they think that they do?
 
Dirty Harry said:
I have read some of The Federalist Papers. Have you? Nothing about dams and roads in it. General Welfare.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read the federalist. What you aren't getting about my argument is that the general welfare clause(in the preamble) was not argued to be a catch all for government takeover, such as health care, it was meant to be a power to lay and collect taxes to exercise rights given to the federal, such as interstate commerce(facilitation of transportation, not control of it), and anything else would be state problems as they are state rights, thus, responsibilities. Again, how does health care qualify as a federal right? Especially since the government cannot do the job as efficiently or satisfactorally as the private sector.


" provides that the governing body empowered by the document may enact laws as it sees fit to promote the well-being of the people governed thereunder. Such clauses are generally interpreted as granting the state broad power to regulate for the general welfare that is independent of other powers specified in the governing document."
Click to expand...
Madison on the Meaning of the "General Welfare," the "Purpose" of Enumerated Powers, and the "Definition" of Constitutional Government -- Sorenson 22 (2): 109 -- Publius: The Journal of Federalism

This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means.
Click to expand...
 
Kal'Stang said:
3: Why pay money for something that you don't need? Just because you see it as idiotic doesn't mean that those that don't have insurance but can afford it should have it if they don't want it. And the odds of needing it between the ages of 20-40 are a lot smaller than those that are younger or older. It is far healthier for people to drink water than any soft drink out there. Do you think that a law should be implemented to mandate the people stop drinking it? What gives the government the right to enforce such a law?

4: It might. But is it right to force someone into buying something that they don't want because they might need it before they think that they do?
Click to expand...

Don't need? How do you or anyone know what they will need in terms of health care?

But, if we're going to treat you regardless of you ability to pay when you do need it, it's fair to expect you to pony up in advance, which is what insurance is.
 
Boo Radley said:
Don't need? How do you or anyone know what they will need in terms of health care?

But, if we're going to treat you regardless of you ability to pay when you do need it, it's fair to expect you to pony up in advance, which is what insurance is.
Click to expand...

How do you know what they won't need in terms of health care?

And if people don't pay their bills there are other avenues which can be taken to collect on that bill. It is not your fault or my fault if the person down the street can't pay thier bills. Why should I have to pay someone elses bill period? I sure don't expect anyone to pay my bills.

Insurance is a commodity to help people pay for bills right away instead of making payments over time. That is the whole point of insurance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How do you know what they won't need in terms of health care?
Click to expand...

Exactly what I'm asking you.

And if people don't pay their bills there are other avenues which can be taken to collect on that bill. It is not your fault or my fault if the person down the street can't pay thier bills. Why should I have to pay someone elses bill period? I sure don't expect anyone to pay my bills.
Click to expand...

You can take those actions, which are costly, and still not get a majority actually collected. Remember, many with high medical bills go bankrupt. So, you lose the money originally put out for the treatment, and then the money spent on collection. Who do you think pays those bills?


Insurance is a commodity to help people pay for bills right away instead of making payments over time. That is the whole point of insurance.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. You pay over time in advance. The way it works best is that well people pay in before they get sick or injured. If you only get it when you're sick, they can't pay your bills. Insurance simply wouldn't work.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yes, I have read the federalist. What you aren't getting about my argument is that the general welfare clause(in the preamble) was not argued to be a catch all for government takeover, such as health care, it was meant to be a power to lay and collect taxes to exercise rights given to the federal, such as interstate commerce(facilitation of transportation, not control of it), and anything else would be state problems as they are state rights, thus, responsibilities. Again, how does health care qualify as a federal right? Especially since the government cannot do the job as efficiently or satisfactorally as the private sector.


Madison on the Meaning of the "General Welfare," the "Purpose" of Enumerated Powers, and the "Definition" of Constitutional Government -- Sorenson 22 (2): 109 -- Publius: The Journal of Federalism
Click to expand...

You are making your own definition of general welfare. The writers of the constitution did leave it vague for the very purpose of addressing issues as they arose. They realized that great changes were ahead for the new nation and they were smart enough to realize that in order for the country to grow the Constitution would have to grow with it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Exactly what I'm asking you.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. I'm asking how do you know that they won't need insurance. You're asking how do I know what they will need.

Boo Radley said:
You can take those actions, which are costly, and still not get a majority actually collected. Remember, many with high medical bills go bankrupt. So, you lose the money originally put out for the treatment, and then the money spent on collection. Who do you think pays those bills?
Click to expand...

So you're telling me that they can't garnish someones wages through the courts? And bankruptcy does not override court ordered payments.


Boo Radley said:
Not exactly. You pay over time in advance. The way it works best is that well people pay in before they get sick or injured. If you only get it when you're sick, they can't pay your bills. Insurance simply wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If someone gets insurance and then uses it the next day for $15,000 and then after the bill is paid off they drop the insurance how is that an advance? How it works best does not reflect reality.
 
Dirty Harry said:
You are making your own definition of general welfare. The writers of the constitution did leave it vague for the very purpose of addressing issues as they arose. They realized that great changes were ahead for the new nation and they were smart enough to realize that in order for the country to grow the Constitution would have to grow with it.
Click to expand...

Actually it is very well defined. If you know how it came about.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not exactly. I'm asking how do you know that they won't need insurance. You're asking how do I know what they will need.
Click to expand...

No, you have that wrong. read again:

Don't need? How do you or anyone know what they will need in terms of health care?

So you're telling me that they can't garnish someones wages through the courts? And bankruptcy does not override court ordered payments.
Click to expand...

Not once there is bankruptcy. And check and see how little is actually collected of medical debt.

The development of a medical credit score system and the national debate over skyrocketing health-care costs have put the spotlight on the growing problem of medical debt. For consumers, medical debt is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Hospitals struggle to make up for lost revenue. Bruce J. Rueben, president of the Minnesota Hospital Association, shared his perspective on the issue with Star Tribune editorial writer Jill Burcum:

Q. Nationwide, an estimated $30 billion in medical bills go unpaid every year.

Q & A: MEDICAL DEBT; Ultimately, who's going to get stuck with the bill?(NEWS)(Opinion Exchange) - Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | Encyclopedia.com



Not exactly. If someone gets insurance and then uses it the next day for $15,000 and then after the bill is paid off they drop the insurance how is that an advance? How it works best does not reflect reality.
Click to expand...

If insurance companies did this, they go out business. The need people to pay in advance.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually it is very well defined. If you know how it came about.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it doesn't say what they want it to, so anything else is "a made up definition".
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually it is very well defined. If you know how it came about.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it is not well defined and that was on purpose. It came about because the founding fathers were smart enough not to try to predict the future. They set up the basic government to be flexible enough to address the expected change and growth.


"general welfare" has it's own obvious definition.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
1: No. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Especially when the odds are that the things being discussed will still be in the bill when all is said and done.

2: No. Doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discussed. Especially when the odds are that the things being discussed will still be in the bill when all is said and done.

3: Why pay money for something that you don't need? Just because you see it as idiotic doesn't mean that those that don't have insurance but can afford it should have it if they don't want it. And the odds of needing it between the ages of 20-40 are a lot smaller than those that are younger or older. It is far healthier for people to drink water than any soft drink out there. Do you think that a law should be implemented to mandate the people stop drinking it? What gives the government the right to enforce such a law?

4: It might. But is it right to force someone into buying something that they don't want because they might need it before they think that they do?
Click to expand...

oops, we got a reading comprehension issue going on here.

1) I never said it shouldn't be discussed, once all the facts and figures are in--a reasonable discussion is fine.

2) Ditto.

3) Can you afford to pay out of pocket for any unforeseen medical issue? Then why would you not have some type of basic health insurance. That soft drink crap is a false analogy. Government is requiring a minimum amount of personal financial responsibility. You can't drive a car without liability insurance. You can't rent commercial property without some type of insurance. Some landlords require renters insurance. Why would you risk burdening your family and/or society should you have a major health issue. That's being a selfish prick.

4) Maybe then they should have waiver. If anything should happen to you that you can't cover out of pocket--society in not responsible for you. Put it with your organ donor card. Call it, DNR /PNM -- "Do Not Resuscitate and Pay No Mind." Can we take the cost of the morphine out of your last paycheck? Because no one wants to hear you screaming while you bleed out.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, you have that wrong. read again:

Don't need? How do you or anyone know what they will need in terms of health care?
Click to expand...

Let me highlight the key words here. You're key word is "need". My key word is "won't". IE you're talking about what they will need. I'm talking about what they won't need. You keep saying that people can't predict that weather or not they will need it. Well, you can't predict the opposite either.

Boo Radley said:
Not once there is bankruptcy. And check and see how little is actually collected of medical debt.

The development of a medical credit score system and the national debate over skyrocketing health-care costs have put the spotlight on the growing problem of medical debt. For consumers, medical debt is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy. Hospitals struggle to make up for lost revenue. Bruce J. Rueben, president of the Minnesota Hospital Association, shared his perspective on the issue with Star Tribune editorial writer Jill Burcum:

Q. Nationwide, an estimated $30 billion in medical bills go unpaid every year.

Q & A: MEDICAL DEBT; Ultimately, who's going to get stuck with the bill?(NEWS)(Opinion Exchange) - Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | Encyclopedia.com
Click to expand...

Easy way to fix this? Make it a priority debt. Then the bankruptcy court cannot discharge it. Definately don't need this health care reform bill for that now do we?



Boo Radley said:
If insurance companies did this, they go out business. The need people to pay in advance.
Click to expand...

I never said the insurance companies do this. But people can.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Let me highlight the key words here. You're key word is "need". My key word is "won't". IE you're talking about what they will need. I'm talking about what they won't need. You keep saying that people can't predict that weather or not they will need it. Well, you can't predict the opposite either.
Click to expand...

It's not about predicting. It's about being prepared IF.

Easy way to fix this? Make it a priority debt. Then the bankruptcy court cannot discharge it. Definately don't need this health care reform bill for that now do we?
Click to expand...

Why do you think that would be better? This would ruin even more people.




I never said the insurance companies do this. But people can.
Click to expand...

And if they do, insurance companies go out of business. It is not good practice and insurance companies have every reason to fight this.
 
hazlnut said:
3) Can you afford to pay out of pocket for any unforeseen medical issue? Then why would you not have some type of basic health insurance. That soft drink crap is a false analogy. Government is requiring a minimum amount of personal financial responsibility. You can't drive a car without liability insurance. You can't rent commercial property without some type of insurance. Some landlords require renters insurance. Why would you risk burdening your family and/or society should you have a major health issue. That's being a selfish prick.
Click to expand...

I can so long as they allow me to make payments. Anyone can.

Driving is a priviledge. Hence why I don't mind that insurance. And you don't have to drive..ie you don't have to have the insurance either.

Not everyone rents commerical property. And does the federal government really require insurance? Or is that the person that requires it? Big difference there.

Landlords: That is far different from the government requireing you to have that insurance. There's also the fact that you don't have to rent from that landlord.

And I don't expect anyone to pay for my health care. I do expect ME to pay for it however. While I certainly couldn't pay the whole of a medical cost that's $1k and up I can certainly make payments. And would have no problem doing so. But see that's the problem here isn't it? Some people don't even attempt to make payments. Is that my fault? Yours? Or theirs? Who do you think should be held accountable? You? Why should you be held accountable for someone else's failure to pay their bills?

hazlnut said:
4) Maybe then they should have waiver. If anything should happen to you that you can't cover out of pocket--society in not responsible for you. Put it with your organ donor card. Call it, DNR /PNM -- "Do Not Resuscitate and Pay No Mind." Can we take the cost of the morphine out of your last paycheck? Because no one wants to hear you screaming while you bleed out.
Click to expand...

Or we can just hold that person accountable for the bill. Do not allow bankruptcy courts to discharge such debts (ie make it a priority debt) and garnish their wages.

Imagine that? Makeing people accountable for their own bills!

(imo we should just get rid of bankruptcy laws period)
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
It's not about predicting. It's about being prepared IF.
Click to expand...

IE predicting.

Boo Radley said:
Why do you think that would be better? This would ruin even more people.
Click to expand...

No it would hold people accountable for their bills. As for "ruin" people? I'm sorry but where is it said that people have a right to luxuries?

Boo Radley said:
And if they do, insurance companies go out of business. It is not good practice and insurance companies have every reason to fight this.
Click to expand...

Sure they can fight it. Doesn't mean that they will be successful. Before this HCB no one was required to buy anything that they could not get out of buying.
 
Kal'Stang said:
IE predicting.
Click to expand...

Planning, preparing, being personally responsible.

No it would hold people accountable for their bills. As for "ruin" people? I'm sorry but where is it said that people have a right to luxuries?
Click to expand...

Really, who can be responsible for bills so high as they will never be able to afford them. It's not like choosing to buy a car or not.


Sure they can fight it. Doesn't mean that they will be successful. Before this HCB no one was required to buy anything that they could not get out of buying.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they won't either. It's one reason the mandate is in the bill.
 
Boo Radley said:
Planning, preparing, being personally responsible.
Click to expand...

Where does the government have the right to force people to be responsible? (hint, this is where my soda pop analogy comes in)

Boo Radley said:
Really, who can be responsible for bills so high as they will never be able to afford them. It's not like choosing to buy a car or not.
Click to expand...

I can. I take responsibilities for my bills. I've paid for both of my kid's bills when they were born. And I only make 14k per year. Now how did I pay roughly 30k when I make so little? I made payments. So no one can tell me that it is impossible to pay off debts. Especially since the majority of people make more than I do.


Boo Radley said:
Doesn't mean they won't either. It's one reason the mandate is in the bill.
Click to expand...

So this is going to help health insurance businesses. Where exactly does it help joe blow? You see this is the problem. With insurance you HAVE to pay a certain amount in a certain short time period and then it restarts all over after 6-12 months. With medical costs you have the option of paying it over years if necessary. It is quite possible to pay a health insurance company more than you will ever need from them. By mandating it you do not have the option of not paying them more than you will ever recieve from them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Where does the government have the right to force people to be responsible? (hint, this is where my soda pop analogy comes in)
Click to expand...

Like with car insurance, when it effects someone else. We all pay for the irresponsible in health care.


I can. I take responsibilities for my bills. I've paid for both of my kid's bills when they were born. And I only make 14k per year. Now how did I pay roughly 30k when I make so little? I made payments. So no one can tell me that it is impossible to pay off debts. Especially since the majority of people make more than I do.
Click to expand...

I tell you, there are more expensive things out there than that. A lot more. Things you cannot pay for that way and actually get it paid.




So this is going to help health insurance businesses. Where exactly does it help joe blow? You see this is the problem. With insurance you HAVE to pay a certain amount in a certain short time period and then it restarts all over after 6-12 months. With medical costs you have the option of paying it over years if necessary. It is quite possible to pay a health insurance company more than you will ever need from them. By mandating it you do not have the option of not paying them more than you will ever recieve from them.
Click to expand...

Yes, it helps the insurance companies. But it helps Joe blow as well. He doesn't have to pay for those who abuse the system. Instead, he takes responsibility and plans for what could happen. And while it is possible to pay more than you will receive, it is just as possible to receive more than you'll ever pay. The point and the responsible thing is to be prepared.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Where does the government have the right to force people to be responsible? (hint, this is where my soda pop analogy comes in)
Click to expand...

When being irresponsible costs the rest of us tax dollars. (Hint: Driving without insurance would be a better analogy.)

Question:

Who are these people that can afford health insurance but will refuse to buy it. You? Why do they refuse?

And these healthy 20-something folks just out of college--how much does basic coverage cost them? And if they're not covered by their parents' plan, and they don't yet have a job with insurance, they're covered by Medicaid.

I'm still not clear on who we're talking about? Appalachian Mountain banjo playin' inbreds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom