• 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!

Filibuster reform bill headed for Senate floor, faces uphill battle

Z3n said:
que?

The problem is the profit incentive behind people's health that leads to poor health coverage and sometimes exploitative practices like pre-existing condition denial
Click to expand...

Profit motives are never a problem. Absolutely no reason a person shouldn't be paid for services rendered.

What you're failing to see is the lack of competition...enforced by the government which does not allow inurers to operate between states.
 
Z3n said:
que?
The problem is the profit incentive behind people's health that leads to poor health coverage and sometimes exploitative practices like pre-existing condition denial
Click to expand...
Profit motive is what drives quality and availability of care.
Take away that and no one will bother getting into the business.

The solution to the 'problem' is to remove third-party payment and expose everyone to the true costs of health care. This will, through free-market competition, reduce prices, increase quality and improve care.
 
megaprogman said:
I think Harkin et al. are wrong on this one.
While republicans are abusing the system...
Click to expand...
How, exactly, is the GOP abusing the fillibuster?

I think if anything, they should just change the rule back to the person filibustering is forced to actually filibuster and not simply file a motion.
Click to expand...
I've supported this for a long time.
 
Goobieman said:
Profit motive is what drives quality and availability of care.
Take away that and no one will bother getting into the business.

The solution to the 'problem' is to remove third-party payment and expose everyone to the true costs of health care. This will, through free-market competition, reduce prices, increase quality and improve care.
Click to expand...

Profit motive for medicine yes, but for insurance, is arguably a huge farce and waste of time
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Profit motives are never a problem. Absolutely no reason a person shouldn't be paid for services rendered.

What you're failing to see is the lack of competition...enforced by the government which does not allow inurers to operate between states.
Click to expand...

Questions. I couldn't find it in google. Does the Federal government not allow this or is it a result of each state having a different regulatory structure?
 
Z3n said:
Profit motive for medicine yes, but for insurance, is arguably a huge farce and waste of time
Click to expand...
Insurance comnpanie provide a service.
For that, they have the right to make money.

But, I will agree that insurance companies, like All third-party payer entities, are the problem in thay they insulate consumers from true costs.
 
Z3n said:
Profit motive for medicine yes, but for insurance, is arguably a huge farce and waste of time
Click to expand...


You get paid to spew socialist nonsense, don't you?

Why shouldn't others get paid to take risks and provide services?
 
megaprogman said:
Questions. I couldn't find it in google. Does the Federal government not allow this or is it a result of each state having a different regulatory structure?
Click to expand...

I believe it's a federal law, I've lived in many states and in not a single one could I buy insurance from another state.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You get paid to spew socialist nonsense, don't you?

Why shouldn't others get paid to take risks and provide services?
Click to expand...

hard to have civil political discourse with your trolling and ad hom. My point was that its the insurance thats the problem, not the service. :2wave:
 
Z3n said:
hard to have civil political discourse with your trolling and ad hom. My point was that its the insurance thats the problem, not the service. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Your point was that you didn't like the fact that profits serve a purpose.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your point was that you didn't like the fact that profits serve a purpose.
Click to expand...

profits absolutely do, its the denial of a service for profit thats the problem
 
Z3n said:
profits absolutely do, its the denial of a service for profit thats the problem
Click to expand...
What's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money?
Should you be forced to provide goods and services to people at a loss?
Why should YOU have to pay to provide someone ELSE with your goods/services?
 
Goobieman said:
What's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money?
Should you be forced to provide goods and services to people at a loss?
Why should YOU have to pay to provide someone ELSE with your goods/services?
Click to expand...

Because you're being paid money to provide the service...

No, and thats a structural flaw of medical insurance companies...

And

Sometimes wealth gained is not a mutual transaction. This being an example of this rarity.
 
Z3n said:
Because you're being paid money to provide the service...
Click to expand...
Yes... and the conditions and stipulations in the contract describe what services can be denied, when they can be denied, and under what conditions.

Presuming that the service in question falls under those conditions, what's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money? After all, you, the insured, agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.

No, and thats a structural flaw of medical insurance companies.
Click to expand...
There's no flaw there, except in the idea that people should be forced to provide for others at their own expense.

So, I ask again:
Why should YOU have to pay to provide someone ELSE with your goods/services?
 
bicycleman said:
That is the way the American government works. I always get a kick out of Europeans explaining how they think the American government should be. I suppose you want our government to be socialist, and the people subjects like the rest of the Europeans.
Click to expand...

The American system hasn't always worked like this. It's really only been in the last 10-20 years that senators have started filibustering everything under the sun, and it's only been relatively recently that senators could just SAY they are filibustering instead of ACTUALLY filibustering (i.e. continuing to talk indefinitely).
 
Goobieman said:
Yes... and the conditions and stipulations in the contract describe what services can be denied, when they can be denied, and under what conditions.

Presuming that the service in question falls under those conditions, what's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money? After all, you, the insured, agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.


There's no flaw there, except in the idea that people should be forced to provide for others at their own expense.

So, I ask again:
Why should YOU have to pay to provide someone ELSE with your goods/services?
Click to expand...

Because you promised it to them, if they agree to pay you so much per month. Jeez.
 
Kandahar said:
The American system hasn't always worked like this. It's really only been in the last 10-20 years that senators have started filibustering everything under the sun, and it's only been relatively recently that senators could just SAY they are filibustering instead of ACTUALLY filibustering (i.e. continuing to talk indefinitely).
Click to expand...

The polarization of partisan politics has been the cause of the extended use of the filibuster. Before the 1970's, there were disagreements but the two political party's ideology had more common ground to work on. Over the past 30 years the left goes further left, the right goes further right... the filibuster and cloture votes get more use.
 
danarhea said:
Because you promised it to them, if they agree to pay you so much per month. Jeez.
Click to expand...
Read what I said:

The conditions and stipulations in the contract describe what services can be denied, when they can be denied, and under what conditions.
Click to expand...

So.... no, you haven't promised it to them.

Thus, I ask again:
Presuming that the service in question falls under those conditions, what's wrong with denying a service that will cause you to lose money? After all, you, the insured, agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
The polarization of partisan politics has been the cause of the extended use of the filibuster.
Click to expand...

Ya but I think that cuts both ways. Perhaps it's also true that extensive use of the filibuster has been the cause of the polarization of politics.

Ockham said:
Before the 1970's, there were disagreements but the two political party's ideology had more common ground to work on. Over the past 30 years the left goes further left, the right goes further right... the filibuster and cloture votes get more use.
Click to expand...

Maybe a little bit, but that's due more to the polarization itself than to actual ideological shifts toward more extreme views. For example, the Democratic Senate health care bill is to the right of where Nixon stood on the issue nearly 40 years ago, and Bush's spending policies were well to the left of Carter's.

In general I'm not opposed to reforming the filibuster. At the very least, there need to be ways to circumvent it as there once was, when it becomes an endurance round with both parties camping out in the Senate as someone stands up and talks for as long as they can. That at least offered the prospect of important legislation passing with majority support.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
The polarization of partisan politics has been the cause of the extended use of the filibuster. Before the 1970's, there were disagreements but the two political party's ideology had more common ground to work on. Over the past 30 years the left goes further left, the right goes further right... the filibuster and cloture votes get more use.
Click to expand...

It's only become polarized in the last couple of decades or so. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil used to bash it out during the day, but after the day was over, they frequently had a beer together.
 
:cool:
danarhea said:
Looks like Democrats are looking for another way to ram their health care bill through Congress. On the surface, it looks like a long shot, since modern Senate rules maintain that 67 votes are needed to change the rules. But there was a Supreme Court ruling in 1892 (US v. Ballin), that made only a simple majority necessary to accomplish it. Things could get really ugly here in the next few months, and possibly another case could be headed for the Supremes to decide.

Article is here.

I believe that, while Republicans are in the right at this time, it wasn't long ago (2005) that roles were reversed, and it was Republicans planning the "nuclear option" and Democrats screaming their heads off. The bad news is that Republicans are going to end up looking like hypocrites here, but the good news is so will the Democrats. LOL.

I also made a post on my blog about this.
Click to expand...

I'd like to point out that the, then republican majority leader, was trying to use the nuclear-option to exclude democrats from Bush Judicial appointees, but then a group of republicans and democrats created a compromise called the "Gang of 14" which was a negotiation between 7 republicans and seven democrats to not use the nuclear-option.

But ofcourse, that was republicans standing up to the nuclear-option. That was more bipartisan than democrats ever will be.

Especially now with the whole so-called health care reform thing they wanna use the nuclear-option on. And it's not even judicial nominees, it's the option the democrats use to direct control over our/corp health care system.
 
donc said:
The Dems are making a mistake by doing this for this sorry a** bill, its not worth the hit they will take.
Click to expand...

Secret founding of abortion?

Secrets crap to give to illegal aliens?

Forcing people to buy health insurance?

Secret death penals just like in Britain?

It's just like single-payer.

donc, it's perfect for you!!!
 
Redress said:
I do not see any mention of much democratic support, so I doubt this will go very far. It's not a move by democrats in general as best I can tell, but of a few democrats.
Click to expand...

A few politburo democrats in control of many lower inferior democrats.
 
Baralis said:
And I believe this is the very reason Obama & Co. have changed thier stance on rushing the bill. They wish to wait and see if they can change the rules so that they can get it passed.
Click to expand...

What's with you leftists?

Is this the time you guys finally realize that these bills are nothing but crap in general?
 
political_debater said:
What's with you leftists?

Is this the time you guys finally realize that these bills are nothing but crap in general?
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry!

You had a line through the Sickle and Hammer, I just thought that meant something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom