• 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!

Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

So, the solution, is for government to pass legislation that caused insurance rates to go even higher and then force people to buy health insurance?

Yeah! I'm pumped!

Insurance premiums were not increasing prior to Obamacare. :roll:
 
the raison d'etre for obamacare was to reverse the cost trajectory

otherwise, why so radically redraw 1/6 of the united states economy?
 
the raison d'etre for obamacare was to reverse the cost trajectory

otherwise, why so radically redraw 1/6 of the united states economy?

Because more than half of all bankruptcies filed in the United States are medical related. I believe the President said it best, "the last thing you should be worried about is whether you’re going to go broke or make your parents broke just because you get sick.".
 
Because more than half of all bankruptcies filed in the United States are medical related. I believe the President said it best, "the last thing you should be worried about is whether you’re going to go broke or make your parents broke just because you get sick.".

Where did you get that information and how many of those people had an opportunity to have healthcare but chose not to participate or failed to sign up for available services? As I recall the number of individuals who declared bankruptcy was around 1.6 million so 800,000 or so declared bankruptcy because of medical expenses. No one knows how many of those 800,000 had access to insurance but chose not to participate. Doesn't stop you from using that number however to promote your cause. how any libertarian can support a massive govt. program like this healthcare program is beyond comprehension.
 
Where did you get that information and how many of those people had an opportunity to have healthcare but chose not to participate or failed to sign up for available services? As I recall the number of individuals who declared bankruptcy was around 1.6 million so 800,000 or so declared bankruptcy because of medical expenses. No one knows how many of those 800,000 had access to insurance but chose not to participate. Doesn't stop you from using that number however to promote your cause. how any libertarian can support a massive govt. program like this healthcare program is beyond comprehension.

Again, the President said it masterfully.
 
Something to chew on:

Illness or medical bills contributed to 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007, with 57.1% of the entire sample (92% of medical bankruptcies) having high medical bills. Among recent homeowners (as compared to all debtors) who were medically bankrupt, 34.7% had medical bills that exceeded either $5000, or more than 10% of annual family income.
 
Again, the President said it masterfully.

LOL, the President says a lot of things "masterfully", too bad the results never match the rhetoric. Doesn't stop the cult followers however from swooning and fainting over the brilliance of the rhetoric. Wonder when the Obama cult will stop buying the rhetoric and actually verify the accuracy of that rhetoric?
 
senator barack obama, jan 13, 2006: raising the debt ceiling is "a sign of failed leadership"

Dems, GOP jockey over debt ceiling - Jonathan Allen and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

The debt cieling is a political joke (practically). Don't let anyone tell you different. The real vote is on the annual budget. If a congressman (or woman) votes for a deficit, and then acts like the rising debt cieling is of concern, they are doing nothing but political grandstanding. They are banking on the ignorance of the voters.
 
if he's so concerned about medical bankruptcies why did his hhs surrender the elimination of the annual limit?
 
the party punted its responsibility of proposing a blueprint for 2010

Dems won

that's why we had to get by with all those stopgap appropriations, the last one being reid's ugly omnibus which he too surrendered

Democrats concede budget fight to Republicans - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

I'm not really disagreeing with you. If any congress person voted for the budget and against raising the debt cieling they are doing so only to score political points (in an extremely irresponsible way).
 
How about answering the question, how many of those that filed bankruptcy chose not to participate in insurance programs available to them?

I have no idea. The new legislation will force people on programs available to them!


In a country of 308 million what percentage is 800k? You would create a Federal Monstrosity to cover 800K?

These 800k force health care costs to rise. Reason be, if they declare bankruptcy, they no longer have to pay the hospitals and doctors who have performed the services. To mitigate this shortfall, hospitals and doctors raise prices on those who can afford to pay.
 
In 2006, we were not in a deflationary recession.

So soon do republicans forget. I support deficit spending in the current environment. However, it was really inexcusable to be running deficits from 2001(I think) to 2007. There was absolutely no economic reason to support it. The tax cuts to stimulate the economy by bush were a joke. By a typical definition of recession, the early 2000's "recession" does not even meet the criteria of 2 consecutive quarters of GDP loss.
 
if he's so concerned about medical bankruptcies why did his hhs surrender the elimination of the annual limit?

Cost ceilings are the solution?
 
So soon do republicans forget. I support deficit spending in the current environment. However, it was really inexcusable to be running deficits from 2001(I think) to 2007. There was absolutely no economic reason to support it. The tax cuts to stimulate the economy by bush were a joke. By a typical definition of recession, the early 2000's "recession" does not even meet the criteria of 2 consecutive quarters of GDP loss.

Amen brother.

How some people can condemn Keynesianism in one hand, and then turn a blind eye to it when it is implemented by their ideology, is totally beyond me.
 
Goldenboy219;1059206931]I have no idea. The new legislation will force people on programs available to them!

Which I believe is unconstitutional in this country. The govt. doesn't have the right to force anyone to purchase health insurance and those that don't should face the consequences of their poor choice.


These 800k force health care costs to rise. Reason be, if they declare bankruptcy, they no longer have to pay the hospitals and doctors who have performed the services. To mitigate this shortfall, hospitals and doctors raise prices on those who can afford to pay.


800000 spread over the nation is a drop in the bucket and ignores the total picture which you refuse to address. To insure those who cannot afford insurance doesn't require Obamacare and when the SC rules that the Govt. doesn't have the authority to force anyone to purchase healthcare insurance, the legislation will fail completely? MA is a perfect example of what is going to happen with Obamacare, suggest you research the results there.
 
Amen brother.

How some people can condemn Keynesianism in one hand, and then turn a blind eye to it when it is implemented by their ideology, is totally beyond me.

Tell that to the bureau of economic analysis that shows the GDP growing from 9.9 trillion to 14.5 trillion during the Bush years. Guess that didn't make the MSM headlines.
 
Which I believe is unconstitutional in this country. The govt. doesn't have the right to force anyone to purchase health insurance and those that don't should face the consequences of their poor choice.

If individuals who get sick or injured and who don't have health insurance faced the consequences alone, then you would have a point. The fact is that the uninsured drive up costs of insurance and government backed programs for all of us. If not having insurance costs us all, then we have a right to insist that they have insurance. If we're willing to turn them away from the emergency room and refuse treatment, then we don't have a right to insist on insurance.






800000 spread over the nation is a drop in the bucket and ignores the total picture which you refuse to address. To insure those who cannot afford insurance doesn't require Obamacare and when the SC rules that the Govt. doesn't have the authority to force anyone to purchase healthcare insurance, the legislation will fail completely? MA is a perfect example of what is going to happen with Obamacare, suggest you research the results there.

The other big elephant in the room is this:

A lot of those bankruptcies were suffered by people who did have insurance. Insurance (prior to the reform, at least) have a way of excluding "pre existing conditions", of dropping clients who become too costly, and of finding ways of delaying payments until it is too late.
 
A lot of those bankruptcies were suffered by people who did have insurance. Insurance (prior to the reform, at least) have a way of excluding "pre existing conditions", of dropping clients who become too costly, and of finding ways of delaying payments until it is too late.

then why the 200+ exemptions?
 
Back
Top Bottom