• 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 repeal will cost $230 billion

Nonsense, I can pass multiple laws and still have the same police force enforce them. There are no police for seatbelt laws and those for speeding only.

You're comparing apples to oranges.
 
If that is the case, then the market does not work.

It has nothing to do with the market. When the government forces a business to cut it's operating capital by 20%, the business has no choice but to raise price, thereby generating more revenue, or go out of business.
 
Wow, there you go again, attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. What was presented in that article that is wrong? The fact remains Europe is going the opposite of this country and yet the best you can do is divert from that reality? Why would Europe be abandoning the govt. controlled and run healthcare system and what makes them less credible than this Administration?

I am saying that the author says that the system should not be thrown out, just fixed. He says we should learn from Europe's mistakes. Kinda how we did when we formed this nation.
 
It has nothing to do with the market. When the government forces a business to cut it's operating capital by 20%, the business has no choice but to raise price, thereby generating more revenue, or go out of business.

But the government is forcing more people to pay the premiums. SO it is market.
 
ANd just how do you determine 'scope of power'?

I am saying no one has ever really decreased the areas under the purview of the government. The closet thing was Bush's deregulation of markets which only ended up hurting the economy.
 
But the government is forcing more people to pay the premiums. SO it is market.

It costs, "X", to process each person. The more people that the insurance companies have to process, the more it's going to cost them to do it.

So, no, it's not the market. :lamo
 
I am saying no one has ever really decreased the areas under the purview of the government. The closet thing was Bush's deregulation of markets which only ended up hurting the economy.

Oh, so now we're back to Bush causing the depression?
 
And that increases their profits how ???

I am not against profits nor saying it increases profits. I am saying that they force the cost higher by having to accumulate so much income to keep theirselves afloat and their CEO's in million dollar bonuses. Thus they fight to pay doctors less, while charging us more.
 
It costs, "X", to process each person. The more people that the insurance companies have to process, the more it's going to cost them to do it.

So, no, it's not the market. :lamo

You are ignoring the fact that more people will be paying in! You have to look at ALL of it.
 
It costs, "X", to process each person. The more people that the insurance companies have to process, the more it's going to cost them to do it.

So, no, it's not the market. :lamo

So, they don't want new cutonmers because of the cost to process them? If the market works, more premiums means more profit. the more people you cover, the more likley you will have people not sick paying for those who are. It really should not cost insurance companies more. We should not accept their word that there is a need to raise premiums. We should see what the evidence shows.
 
Oh, so now we're back to Bush causing the depression?

No, I am saying he is the only one to even slightly reduce government oversight. And if you believe that his action played no part in contributing to it, then you probably believe in the tooth-fairy too.
 
You are ignoring the fact that more people will be paying in! You have to look at ALL of it.

You're ignoring the fact that the cost to process each new customer is going to stay the same, thereby adding to the insurance company's overhead. All the while, their operating capital is shrinking.

Increasing overhead and reducing operating capital is pure stupidity.
 
So, they don't want new cutonmers because of the cost to process them? If the market works, more premiums means more profit. the more people you cover, the more likley you will have people not sick paying for those who are. It really should not cost insurance companies more. We should not accept their word that there is a need to raise premiums. We should see what the evidence shows.


Not if the operating capital is reduce, unless--as we're seeing--premiums go up.
 
No, I am saying he is the only one to even slightly reduce government oversight. And if you believe that his action played no part in contributing to it, then you probably believe in the tooth-fairy too.

Tell us exactly which Bush policies caused the depression.
 
You're ignoring the fact that the cost to process each new customer is going to stay the same, thereby adding to the insurance company's overhead. All the while, their operating capital is shrinking.

Increasing overhead and reducing operating capital is pure stupidity.

Wrong, the bill provides for government funding to streamline the processing of patients and records. Thus overhead drops.
 
Tell us exactly which Bush policies caused the depression.

I never said his policies "caused" the depression. I said the lack of government "oversight" his policies created, prevented regulators from stopping the growth of the ballooon.
 
Wrong, the bill provides for government funding to streamline the processing of patients and records. Thus overhead drops.

So, hows does this reduce the deficit?

Government subsidies to insurance companies is going to reduce the deficit?

Ya'll need to stop, really. :lamo
 
I am not against profits nor saying it increases profits. I am saying that they force the cost higher by having to accumulate so much income to keep theirselves afloat and their CEO's in million dollar bonuses. Thus they fight to pay doctors less, while charging us more.

ObamaKare has a provision in it capping executive compensation at insurance companies at $500,000. / year. The only company exempted from this requirement was the AARP who spent millions of dollars on ads and lobbying to get the bill passed.
 
I never said his policies "caused" the depression. I said the lack of government "oversight" his policies created, prevented regulators from stopping the growth of the ballooon.

Give us some specific examples of wha Bush did that caused the depression. Thanks in advance.
 
I am saying that the author says that the system should not be thrown out, just fixed. He says we should learn from Europe's mistakes. Kinda how we did when we formed this nation.

But the system is being thrown out and we are going the other direction.
 
ObamaKare has a provision in it capping executive compensation at insurance companies at $500,000. / year. The only company exempted from this requirement was the AARP who spent millions of dollars on ads and lobbying to get the bill passed.

i didn't know that. compensation, not just salary?
 
Not if the operating capital is reduce, unless--as we're seeing--premiums go up.

Which were going up before reform. You still haven't addressed that. But, again, with more people paying, then more are likely to be younger and healthier, therefore it adds to capital, and thus the market would provide enough to cover additional costs.
 
i didn't know that. compensation, not just salary?

That's what I read:

The AARP is also exempt from the new law's $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives. (The nonprofit's last CEO received over $1.5 million in compensation in his last full year, 2009.) It won't pay any of the estimated $14 billion in new taxes on insurance companies, though according to its 2008 consolidated financial statement, it gets more money from its insurance offerings than it does from dues, grants and private contributions combined. Nor will it have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%.

Interesting read on all the "special" perks the AARP got for supporting this bill: Rove: ObamaCare Rewards Friends, Punishes Enemies - WSJ.com
 
Back
Top Bottom