• 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

Boo Radley said:
That's a matter of opinion to say the least. I'm sure you won't mind if a lot of people disagee. And I have linked for you in the past doctors who disagree with you, as well as many others.

And no, it isn't a take over process. No one is taking over anything.
Click to expand...

Look, I know you aren't that naive, who is going to bailout the people when they cannot get service, when the doctors drop patients, and hospitals close down? Incrementalism!
 
Conservative said:
Look, I know you aren't that naive, who is going to bailout the people when they cannot get service, when the doctors drop patients, and hospitals close down? Incrementalism!
Click to expand...

Do you have trouble with parinoia? That won't happen. Sorry. You're over reaching here.
 
liblady said:
exactly. and the stipulation is fine as well. it's too bad this won't happen, i have a feeling the majority of people would opt in.
Click to expand...

If Obama believed that, he wouldn't have made it mandatory.
 
Mach said:
So you are claiming the government did, or did not, take over my choice to not purchase health insurance? Because I'm pretty sure it states that I will have to (when it goes active), purchase health insurance, under federal penalty.

Doesn't it also put similar requirements on private enterprises that sell insurance, or administer health care? Do you think it's appropriate to suggest that "Takeover" implies controls every single decision? A slave decided a lot of things on their own, but still a slave, no? (not equating it to slavery, just the first analogy I typed).

The idea that health care, and health insurance, should have significant government involved at all, is the argument libertarians pose.
Click to expand...

No more than they took over your choice to drive an automobile without auto insurance.

And no, regulations and standards do not equal control. The government is not running either. I'm sorry, but noen of what you're claiming is factually accurate.
 
Conservative said:
What happens if you are wrong? Maybe you are that naive.
Click to expand...

Not much. We adjust. But there is really no likihood that's wrong, and it is almost certain that you are. :coffeepap
 
Gill said:
Sounds simple to me:

They thought the assumptions used by the CBO initially were sound, but those used in the second were garbage. No Republican that I've heard has criticized the CBO, they've only criticized the assumptions that the Dems gave the CBO.
Click to expand...

But that's just it! Neither side can make such claims without the health care bill being scored by the CBO. Thus, both side have used the same CBO's estimates to support their cause which we both know is either side simply playing political, partisan games.

Still, does it make sense to you that the GOP would be so reliant on the CBO's estimates in one situation, but as soon as that same non-partisan group says that what the GOP is trying to do will have a negative impact on the deficit suddenly what the CBO says is not trustworthy?

You either believe what the CBO is putting forth or you don't; either their estimates are reliable and credible or they're not. Which is it?

If not credible, then STOP QUOTING THEM TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!

If credible, then take heed in what they say.

It's just that simple.

The GOP are the ones who look foolish when they stand firm in their position to repeal health care reform when their position is based squarely on the cost estimates of the non-partisan agency that now warns them there will be an economic drawback should the law be repealled. IMO, the best thing the GOP can do is work w/the Dems to fix what they view is broken with the law.
 
chevydriver1123 said:
Regulating transporation is an actuall legit power of the government. Try again
Click to expand...

It's an opinioon as to what is legit. The courts will settle that issue. But factually, one is no more a removal of choice than the other.
 
Boo Radley said:
No more than they took over your choice to drive an automobile without auto insurance.
Click to expand...
How does government control in another area counter government control with regards to the health care/insurance industry precisely? Driving an automobile is also still a choice, even if it were relevant, it's not the same is it.

And no, regulations and standards do not equal control. The government is not running either. I'm sorry, but noen of what you're claiming is factually accurate.
Click to expand...
Most certainly they do. What is a regulation by definition if not the government dictating what behavior is and is not legal?
Maybe what you meant is they don't equate to "takeover" (which is a red herring, it's about control).
 
Gill said:
Wow, an article claiming that repeal would cost $230 billion with not one single example of how this could be possible. Great job CNN. Easy to see why no one watches you any more.

I'll side with Paul Ryan. He's a bit more credible on the subject and said that he would eat his tie if this outlandish claim actually turned out to be correct.
Click to expand...

Actually that WOULD be correct. It WOULD cost that much if not MORE! Even Fox News mentioned it!

 
Mach said:
How does government control in another area counter government control with regards to the health care/insurance industry precisely? Driving an automobile is also still a choice, even if it were relevant, it's not the same is it.
Click to expand...

The only difference is the ability to opt out of care. An injuried person will be treated. But, the premise is the same, and the lack of choice is the same. If you want to drive, you are required to buy auto insurance.

Most certainly they do. What is a regulation by definition if not the government dictating what behavior is and is not legal?
Maybe what you meant is they don't equate to "takeover" (which is a red herring, it's about control).
Click to expand...

Hardly. No. We have regulations on all kinds of things, and we're not running around calling the government in control. it only provides regulations for various reasons, some helping business. it is too narraw and ina ccurate view to ask for no regulation. And lack of regulation has often hurts asmuch, if not more, than no regulation over the years.

Nor is regulation illegal. We have a long history of government regulation.
 
Objective Voice said:
But that's just it! Neither side can make such claims without the health care bill being scored by the CBO. Thus, both side have used the same CBO's estimates to support their cause which we both know is either side simply playing political, partisan games.

Still, does it make sense to you that the GOP would be so reliant on the CBO's estimates in one situation, but as soon as that same non-partisan group says that what the GOP is trying to do will have a negative impact on the deficit suddenly what the CBO says is not trustworthy?

You either believe what the CBO is putting forth or you don't; either their estimates are reliable and credible or they're not. Which is it?

If not credible, then STOP QUOTING THEM TO YOUR ADVANTAGE!

If credible, then take heed in what they say.

It's just that simple.

The GOP are the ones who look foolish when they stand firm in their position to repeal health care reform when their position is based squarely on the cost estimates of the non-partisan agency that now warns them there will be an economic drawback should the law be repealled. IMO, the best thing the GOP can do is work w/the Dems to fix what they view is broken with the law.
Click to expand...

Where have Republicans stated that the CBO did anything wrong ???

Answer: They haven't. They said the Dems gave the CBO lousy assumptions to base their calculations on.

Garbage in - Garbage out.
 
Boo Radley said:
No more than they took over your choice to drive an automobile without auto insurance.

And no, regulations and standards do not equal control. The government is not running either. I'm sorry, but noen of what you're claiming is factually accurate.
Click to expand...

Does the federal government require everyone to have auto insurance ???

Does the federal government require my 8 yo grandaughter to have auto insurance ???

Name another service or product that the federal government requires every man, woman, and child in the country to buy from a private company ...
 
Boo Radley said:
Not much. We adjust. But there is really no likihood that's wrong, and it is almost certain that you are. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Wrong, we know what we have now but we don't know what is going to happen in 3 more years although we have a picture from MA, a picture that you want to ignore. Makes me believe this is either an act on your part or you stand to do quite well with Obamacare in place. Better get used to disappointment.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, we know what we have now but we don't know what is going to happen in 3 more years although we have a picture from MA, a picture that you want to ignore. Makes me believe this is either an act on your part or you stand to do quite well with Obamacare in place. Better get used to disappointment.
Click to expand...

Hospitals haven't closed in MA either. Again, you're overraching here, badly. Sorry. :coffeepap
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
Actually that WOULD be correct. It WOULD cost that much if not MORE! Even Fox News mentioned it!

Click to expand...


Obviously you want to ignore the assumptions that the Congress gave the CBO. By ignoring those assumptions you destroy your credibility. Where are the savings if those assumptions are accurate? When was the last time the CBO was accurate with projections 10 years out? They didn't even get the stimulus right but now they have the answer to what is going to happen 10 years from now? LOL, this is really entertaining.
 
Gill said:
Does the federal government require everyone to have auto insurance ???

Does the federal government require my 8 yo grandaughter to have auto insurance ???

Name another service or product that the federal government requires every man, woman, and child in the country to buy from a private company ...
Click to expand...

Everyone who wants to drive yes. You distinction has no point. It is a limitation of choice all the same.

And you eight year old grand daughter doesn't drive. if she did, she'd have to hacve insurance. however, she may well need health care, and if she is not covered, she will burden others, the ssame reasoning for having auto insurance.

Again, you are side stepping the issue and ignoring the actual issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hospitals haven't closed in MA either. Again, you're overraching here, badly. Sorry. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

Who said hospitals closed in MA? I said that ER use is skyrocketing and raising costs. Here is a perfect example of liberals ignoring actual results to promote another agenda. Part of Obamacare savings was predicated on lower ER costs, that hasn't happened in MA but when you add 40 million more nationwide it will? LOL, you are the one that needs to apologize for your stance on this issue and for the disaster that Obama has created.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not really. Government didn't just decide these things. People did.
Click to expand...

Of course government decided on action. People might have asked for it, but the person or group that does an action is always responsible for it.

Take not turning people away from emergency rooms. There was a time when hospitals did just that, even in life threatening situations. Not all did, but because they could, it happened. Those without insurance were sent to charity hospitals, even if they were too far away, costing lives. Again, there were good people who defied such thinking and treated and then sent, but the law allowed them to be shipped off. I remember one case in Georgia before the law was even intorduced that upset people a great deal, and people wrote letters and lobbied for laws to prevent such tragedy. So, it wasn't a case of government simply jumping to this conclusion. it was bore out of events that cased peole to take notice. People decided.
Click to expand...

They could of taken their own power in hand, but instead they decided to give their power up. Instead what happened was the government decided it wasn't within the hospitals rights to deny people care. Therefore denying a right, taking power, and creating a bad law.

But, like in most cases, they discionnect themselves from what the actions cost. Because they didn't required, hell didn't even want to hear about, any cost issues, they did this with no organized plan on how to handle the cost, as if the treratment would be free. It's not. We all pay for everyone who is treated but can't pay. And we have no mechanism to even assess if we're charged fairly.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part. The last sentence is just a talking point. Fairness is decided by the market. If people in the market don't like it they don't have to be involved. Yes, even in healthcare.

And while all groups cost, those who pay, pay what they cost. You don't have to ask others to pay for them. They pay their bill, and they pay their premium. So, the larger problem are those who get service but pay nothing, or next to nothing. That means the total cost is passed on. Hosptials don't eat the cost. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Reimbursements from insurance companies for a long time now have not been reliable on covering the cost of care. Recently, declining reimbursements from insurance companies, increasing cost of care, labor shortages, rising cost by an aging population has been a cause in hospitals failing.

Government care as in Medicare is part of this problem but instead of working out reimbursements with the hospital they dictate cost to the hospital. Making it far more of a problem than insurance companies that at least do that.

Either way you look at, hospitals have been losing money for a long time across the board in all three areas.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
Who said hospitals closed in MA? I said that ER use is skyrocketing and raising costs. Here is a perfect example of liberals ignoring actual results to promote another agenda. Part of Obamacare savings was predicated on lower ER costs, that hasn't happened in MA but when you add 40 million more nationwide it will? LOL, you are the one that needs to apologize for your stance on this issue and for the disaster that Obama has created.
Click to expand...

Do you read your posts? Go back and try to follow our discussion. When you catch up, we can continue. :coffeepap
 
Gill said:
Where have Republicans stated that the CBO did anything wrong ???

Answer: They haven't. They said the Dems gave the CBO lousy assumptions to base their calculations on.

Garbage in - Garbage out.
Click to expand...

That's just passing the buck because both parties know the CBO doesn't make its estimates based on word-of-mouth. They take the legislation either as proposed or as passed and based their reports on their findings most times using calculating models of their own design. If they used "assumptions" given by either party, they're really not being non-partisan, now are they?
 
Boo Radley said:
Everyone who wants to drive yes. You distinction has no point. It is a limitation of choice all the same.

And you eight year old grand daughter doesn't drive. if she did, she'd have to hacve insurance. however, she may well need health care, and if she is not covered, she will burden others, the ssame reasoning for having auto insurance.

Again, you are side stepping the issue and ignoring the actual issue.
Click to expand...

Bingo !!! The only people required to have auto insurance are those that own autos. If you don't have a car, the government doesn't require you to have insurance. Your repeated side stepping of this central issue is really getting comical.

You side stepped my last point and question also (color me shocked):

Name another service or product that the federal government requires every man, woman, and child in the country to buy from a private company ...

I'll still be waiting............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom