• 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

Moderator's Warning:
Okay folks, let's stick to the topic.
 
Boo Radley said:
Do you read your posts? Go back and try to follow our discussion. When you catch up, we can continue. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I not only read the post but hit the enter key to post it. I said that 45 Doctor Owned hospitals have stopped construction and posted the link. It had nothing to do with MA but it will compound the problem nationwide. I will wait for yo uto catch up and actually respond to the MA results.
 
Objective Voice said:
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?
Click to expand...

I posted the assumptions provided in the healthcare bill given to the CBO for scoring. did you read the assumptions and if so which ones are accurate? 500 billion in Medicare cuts? Increased taxes on high end policiies? Complete participation on the part of all Americans? There are more so read the assumptions then tell me what happens if those assumptions are wrong? Where are the savings?
 
Henrin said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

People are the government. The government answers to the people. and take it their own hands how? Peoople told their elected officals denying care wasn't right, voted accordingly, and laws were passed. You can't remove the people from this. Sorry.

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.
Click to expand...

I think the talking point claim is just silliness. Perhaps an effort to ignore the point. But lets look at it. Non one said a thing about fairness. Not one word. So, you brining it up seems odd. The market merely raised costs, as expected. health care isn't free. So, if people want emergencies treated, responsible people seek a mechanism to have them paid for. If they don't want to pay for them, then they can't ask that they be treated. In otherwords, turn people away from care.

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.
Click to expand...

It's a problem that has not be adequately addressed. I agree.

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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that medicare and medicaid are tackling populations most likely to be in poor health, with no benefit from people who are less likely to need care, like insurance companies have. It is tackling too much without the benefit of the entire population. Add to it people trying to limit funding, and the problem grows larger. This is some a univerisal insurer would help.

Either way you look at, hospitals have been losing money for a long time across the board in all three areas.
Click to expand...

Losing money? Who says this? I've worked at several, and they have been booming. We pay for every short coming they have. They're not doing work with out making up the cost somewhere.
Click to expand...
 
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...

Other than food, shelter, clothing and water, everyone will need medical care at some time in their lives. But we don't all need auto insurance because not everyone drives an automobile. And even if they did drive and have valid driver's license, not everyone who does drive are the actual owner (or co-owner) of the vehicle they operate. Therefore, we agree in this regard: It is the States who mandate the requirement that each of its residents who own a motorized vehicle must insure that vehicle in case of accidental damage to property or injury to one's person, passengers or lose of life due to operating said motor vehicle.

I've stated before that I believe the individual health insurance mandate should also be at the State level, but I also understand the need for all Americans to have health insurance. Therefore, other than the mandate, do you know of any other way to ensure all Americans are, in fact, insured?
 
Conservative said:
I not only read the post but hit the enter key to post it. I said that 45 Doctor Owned hospitals have stopped construction and posted the link. It had nothing to do with MA but it will compound the problem nationwide. I will wait for yo uto catch up and actually respond to the MA results.
Click to expand...

Show me a hospital closing. I'll wait. :coffeepap
 
I got an idea: pass a bill mandating that people get out, get a job and buy their own health insurance.
 
Gill said:
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............
Click to expand...

Who will never requrie health care? Only those who will need health care are required to purchase health care. Exactly the same. ;)

No sidestep. Until you see the point, there is no question there to answer. health care is something that every single person needs. No one choses not to receive health care at some level. So, you miss the point with this line of argumentation.
 
The Prof said:
then why the preference for wik over the CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION?

LOL!
Click to expand...

Perefence? Never suggested a preference. I simply used it to give an overview. I was only suprised that the something more comparitive wasn't used. The issue isn't that there are not wait times in canada, but that both countries have issue swith wait times.
 
apdst said:
I got an idea: pass a bill mandating that people get out, get a job and buy their own health insurance.
Click to expand...

You do know there are people who have jobs but not health care?
 
Objective Voice said:
Other than food, shelter, clothing and water, everyone will need medical care at some time in their lives. But we don't all need auto insurance because not everyone drives an automobile. And even if they did drive and have valid driver's license, not everyone who does drive are the actual owner (or co-owner) of the vehicle they operate. Therefore, we agree in this regard: It is the States who mandate the requirement that each of its residents who own a motorized vehicle must insure that vehicle in case of accidental damage to property or injury to one's person, passengers or lose of life due to operating said motor vehicle.

I've stated before that I believe the individual health insurance mandate should also be at the State level, but I also understand the need for all Americans to have health insurance. Therefore, other than the mandate, do you know of any other way to ensure all Americans are, in fact, insured?
Click to expand...

I don't believe the government has the right to require all of its citizens to have health insurance, and it appears that at least two judges agree with me.
 
Boo Radley said:
Who will never requrie health care? Only those who will need health care are required to purchase health care. Exactly the same. ;)

No sidestep. Until you see the point, there is no question there to answer. health care is something that every single person needs. No one choses not to receive health care at some level. So, you miss the point with this line of argumentation.
Click to expand...

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............
 
Objective Voice said:
Isn't that what the mandate's all about? People who can afford to buy health insurance should acquire it?
Click to expand...

People who are able to work, should be mandated to go to work. Then, they can only blame themselves for not having insurance and stop insisting that I pay for it, for them.
 
Gill said:
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............
Click to expand...

Name another service every man wonman and child uses. You still don't see the point. The only reason all are required is becase all use it. If all had no choice but to drive, all would be required to purchase auto insurance. But regardless, government still removed the choice of someone to drive without insurance. You can't deny that. And you may continue to ignore the point, but it doesn't help your case any.
 
Oops......

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Must have been sometime ago, for someone else. Try reposting it.
Click to expand...

Under the headline, "Construction Stops at Physician Hospitals," Politico reports today that "Physician Hospitals of America says that construction had to stop at 45 hospitals nationwide or they would not be able to bill Medicare for treatments." Stopping construction at doctor-owned hospitals might not seem like the best way to boost the economy or to promote greater access and choice in health care, but that exactly what Obamacare is doing.

To get the full story do your own research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom