• 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!

Health Care Bill has passed

LaMidRighter said:
They are in the bill. Jallman read it pages 29-43.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa...I didn't say "death panels" were in the bill. The pages in question do speak very heavily about the role of a Health Choices Commissioner who will expand and reduce health care options, with no appeal process, based on available resources.

In other words, all of Pelosi and Obama's emphatic denial that health care will be rationed turns out to be bull****. Health care is going to be rationed according to the bill.
 
jallman said:
Whoa whoa whoa...I didn't say "death panels" were in the bill. The pages in question do speak very heavily about the role of a Health Choices Commissioner who will expand and reduce health care options, with no appeal process, based on available resources.

In other words, all of Pelosi and Obama's emphatic denial that health care will be rationed turns out to be bull****. Health care is going to be rationed according to the bill.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Jall, to me though that is a death panel, considering all the supporter rhetoric saying insurance does that and people die because of it. I'm just proactively apply their logic to their crappy bill.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Fair enough Jall, to me though that is a death panel, considering all the supporter rhetoric saying insurance does that and people die because of it. I'm just proactively apply their logic to their crappy bill.
Click to expand...

Well frankly, that's what people meant by death panels so I guess you could say it's in the bill. I just don't think we need to give that type any ammo. Be clear, be direct, and take no poetic liberties with the rhetoric when it comes to them.
 
LaMidRighter said:
You're ****ing kidding right? Jallman is reading the bill, everything that has been called "rightwing mis-information" is in the ****ing bill. So what misinformation are you talking about? I know what the damage is going to be, other citizens can see it too, which is why literally millions of people have been calling reps telling them to vote NO. Enough representatives ignored the people to insure they are gone, but please, continue to use talking points, it's much easier for me to win the debate that way. They are in the bill. Jallman read it pages 29-43.
Click to expand...


I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
You better read the bill yourself. The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be. The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Check this out in regards to the fine for not having insurance.

"(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such
taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf#page=336

You don't have to pay the fine and insurance companies must cover sick people.
An even worse combination.
 
USA-1 said:
I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
You better read the bill yourself. The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be. The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...
Blah Blah Blah. Rationed care can mean life or death. Rationing has been provided for IN THE BILL. Therefore it isn't spin.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Check this out in regards to the fine for not having insurance.

"(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such
taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf#page=336

You don't have to pay the fine and insurance companies must cover sick people.
An even worse combination.
Click to expand...
Lovely.:roll:
 
USA-1 said:
LaMidRighter said:
I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
You better read the bill yourself. The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be. The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...


The ones that don't want it and are force to buy it sure as hell will.....
Click to expand...
 
danarhea said:
You are asking someone to prove a negative? It doesn't work that way. I think the proper way to settle this would be to have Jallman post the relevant parts. That way, this gets settled immediately. I bet that jallman is right, but you still can't demand that someone prove a negative.
Click to expand...

If you just go to opencongress.org and get the copy of the bill there, you can check out the whole thing. It's pretty thick in the language but I reference pages 29-43 in regards to the rationing of health care part. It's really something that builds on itself from point to point, in my opinion. Check out that part and then raise whatever disagreements you have with me, but I can't quote 14 pages verbatim right here.
 
USA-1 said:
I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, okay... "Rationing Panels", if you will. A person who decides what health services will be rationed according to the amount of money available.

You better read the bill yourself.
Click to expand...
You better take your own advice.

The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be. The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...

Thank god that's a small percentage of the population.
 
danarhea said:
You are asking someone to prove a negative? It doesn't work that way. I think the proper way to settle this would be to have Jallman post the relevant parts. That way, this gets settled immediately. I bet that jallman is right, but you still can't demand that someone prove a negative.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking one to prove a negative.

For instance, I'm not asking him to prove they're NOT in the Bill.

Its been shown to be IN the Bill according to what Jallman was saying. On page 30 there are committees overseeing your health care choices, ala what the insurance companies currently do, but without an appeals process.

While not technically a "Death Panel" to the extent that was trumpted, this was the provision that caused the concern as its MORE restrictive then what the insurance companies currently do and places it into the governments hands.

What I was asking him to do was not to prove a negative, that such generalized legislation wasn't in the bill, but to prove the things Jallman did say was in the bill really aren't.

Granted, he is absolutely correct if he meant there are nothing specifically called "Death panels" in the bill. However, in the spirit of what he said, the thing Jallman quoted was the impotenence for the claims of "Death Panels" which, while incredibly stupid rhetoric in the name, was roughly correct in their general argument.
 
USA-1 said:
I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
You better read the bill yourself. The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be. The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...

What makes you believe 30 million people will get insurance?
 
jallman said:
Whoa whoa whoa...I didn't say "death panels" were in the bill. The pages in question do speak very heavily about the role of a Health Choices Commissioner who will expand and reduce health care options, with no appeal process, based on available resources.
Click to expand...

Correct, but you later touch on the point I'm making. If someone is so stupidly saying "there's no deaht panels" in there meaning, LITERALLY, there's nothing that says "Death Panel" in teh bill then they're correct...but that's a stupid point.

If they mean "there's no death panels in the Bill", ie "there are no panels that oversee the rationing of health care that is a more restrictive process than is currently present with insurance companies and places what level of treatment you get in the hands of government beuracrats with no method of appealing" which is what "Death Panels" were the hyper rhetoric term for, then they need to somehow prove that the very words already posted about in this thread somehow don't actually exist and we're all imagining it when we see them there.
 
rivrrat said:
Yeah, okay... "Rationing Panels", if you will. A person who decides what health services will be rationed according to the amount of money available.
Click to expand...

I guess that would be a better way to put it.

To summarize it, here is some text from the bill:

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.—If the Secretary es23
timates for any fiscal year that the aggregate
24 amounts available for payment of expenses of the
25 high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the ex-
1 penses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments
2 as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including
3 reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.
Click to expand...
 
USA-1 said:
Common sense.
Click to expand...

Look I understand that you thought this was going to work out great.
I like that you have hope, that's a good thing but we must dispense with that when reality comes into play.

People are supposed to buy insurance for the next 4 years, without the subsidy.
Now if they couldn't afford it before, how are they going to afford it now?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Blah Blah Blah. Rationed care can mean life or death. Rationing has been provided for IN THE BILL. Therefore it isn't spin.
Click to expand...

Show me where rationing is in the bill. If you can.

Death Panels? Falling for the spin? You proved my point.
 
danarhea said:
This is not the thread for that, but I would like to debate it with you. I don't want to derail this thread, though. I was comparing Obama to Bush, in the context of Obama's presidency, but don't really want to make this thread about Bush. Give me a couple of days, and I will start a thread about Bush, in the same context. I will message you when I start the thread. Cool?
Click to expand...

PM me too. Me too.:argue
 
jallman said:
If you just go to opencongress.org and get the copy of the bill there, you can check out the whole thing. It's pretty thick in the language but I reference pages 29-43 in regards to the rationing of health care part. It's really something that builds on itself from point to point, in my opinion. Check out that part and then raise whatever disagreements you have with me, but I can't quote 14 pages verbatim right here.
Click to expand...

No problem. You provided a source, and that is what counts.
 
It is a day of celebration for all the unemployed and underemployed crippled and dependent pets that have been so carefully cultivated by liberals for decades.

They dont know WHAT they have 'won', they dont have a clue how it will impact them, they dont know how much it will cost, and have no idea what it will look like after the senate 'fix' which has already started...

they endorse a federal government that has put us 13.5 trillion dollars in debt and give them a blank check to spend more.

but they won. Something. yay!
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
I see you fell for the spin too.
They are not death panels.:roll:
You better read the bill yourself. The bill is not as bad as the spinmasters made it out to be.
Click to expand...

Really? Did YOU read the bill. If you have, could you please explain to me how the pages that Jallman quoted does not establish a government panel filled with government beurcrats that oversee potential treatment of patients, especially high risks ones, and judge what kind, if any, treatments can be allowed for them and unlike current insurance company practices does not allow for a way to make an appeal.

Since you apparently read the bill, since you continue to tell others to read it, I'm sure you could answer this with something other than "They are not there" which isn't an argument as much as a baseless, unbacked up, statement.

The 30 million people that finally get insurance are not going to vote republican.
Click to expand...

First, there's a addage of not counting chickens before they hatch. 30 million people need to get on insurance before you can claim it happened.

Second, you're going off the false premise that EVERY person that is given something by the government will automatically vote for a democrat.

Third, you're going off the false premise that EVERY person that gets government health care would make health care their number one priority over anything else that would cause them to vote Republican.

Fourth, you're suggesting that GREED, in the terms many democrats define it as currently, is a worth while reason for people to vote for a particular politician. That because THEY get something GOOD at the expense of others that that is a commendable reason and one to be celebrated for voting in favor of those that would keep that status quo.
 
reefedjib said:
What I don't understand about the conservative position is how they propose we offer healthcare to all, both those who can afford and get (no pre-existing conditions) private insurance - group or individual, and those who cannot afford healthcare insurance - the poor, the elderly without wealth, and the sick, those with pre-existing conditions. Perhaps they think that if you cannot afford it that you just won't get it. That is heartless. Please explain.
Click to expand...

Nobody has anything to say about my question here? WHere are all the solutions? Or are you just in the habit of criticizing? I think I know the answer....
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Look I understand that you thought this was going to work out great.
I like that you have hope, that's a good thing but we must dispense with that when reality comes into play.

People are supposed to buy insurance for the next 4 years, without the subsidy.
Now if they couldn't afford it before, how are they going to afford it now?
Click to expand...

Reality? We will have to wait until reality plays out. I really don't think this bill is going to hurt the democrats at all. All that "sky is falling" hype isn't going to pan out.
The truth that the republicans did not want any reform whatsoever was apparent from the very beginning. Hell, they had 6 years and did absolutely nothing, not even tort reform. Then they cried because the dems kept them out of the process. The biggest fear of the republicans is that the program will be a success.
 
USA-1 said:
Reality? We will have to wait until reality plays out. I really don't think this bill is going to hurt the democrats at all. All that "sky is falling" hype isn't going to pan out.
The truth that the republicans did not want any reform whatsoever was apparent from the very beginning. Hell, they had 6 years and did absolutely nothing, not even tort reform. Then they cried because the dems kept them out of the process. The biggest fear of the republicans is that the program will be a success.
Click to expand...

I don't care who "wins" or "loses."

I want the best possible outcome, this isn't it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom