• 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

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.

That's not a link. Just saying.
 
It's just an overview. Nothing more, and no worse than other such source. And yes, I do for it's purpose, limited as it is, put it over the CBC. Not as bad as the Canadian free press mind you.

Perefence? Never suggested a preference.

LOL!

you don't know what you're talking about
 
No, it isn't but it is about time for you to do some actual research instead of just passing on Democrat talking points.

I need something credible, and not about stopping construction, but closing existing hospitals, which is your claim.
 
You don't dispute me here. I said for it's purpose (comparison and overview).

i don't prefer wik to the cbc

i only prefer wik to the cbc for purposes of comparison and overview

LOL!
 
LOL!

then why did promise his bill would LOWER premiums $2500 per year?

Factcheck.org: Obama's Inflated Health 'Savings' - Newsweek

you don't know what you're talking about

There's no reason for them riase premiums, and in time, if the insdustry is honest, with more people paying premiums, and more people covered, there would be reason to lower them. But this doesn't mean they would lower them. This can only be promised factually if the government actually has control. They don't.
 
I need something credible, and not about stopping construction, but closing existing hospitals, which is your claim.

My claim was that construction was stopped on 45 hospitals and I further stated that other hospitals are dropping Medicare as are doctors. Then I pointed out that in MA the ER usage is way up with Obamacare style healthcare. Seems you are too busy responding to pay attention to what is being posted. You have way too much invested in this disaster and the question is why are you defending this program and the empty suit in the WH?
 
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.

Sure they can if Congress deems the economic impact to the country, the States and to the citizenry to be so paramount that a mandate is either necessary and proper or for the overall welfare of the country. All insurance is considered interstate commerce (hence, the reason the "commerce clause" was used as justification for the mandate), but commerce alone, IMO, isn't justification enough. The Constitution does grant Congress the power to write laws and levy taxes. It's a matter of if Congress is able to tie all these things (or a combination of any two) together - interstate commerce, general welfare, necessity and justifiable cause - w/taxation in order to impose a mandate.
 
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.

Here again, nobody's harming you economically if they can afford to buy health care for themselves. But you are harmed economically if they can get health care but refuse to do so. How? Because each time someone does go to the hospital ER but does not pay for the medical treatment they receive those cost eventaully get passed on to the consumer, specifically those individuals who do have health insurance.

I know you are aware of this - that a portion of our insurance premiums go towards paying for those non-funded health care costs. What you're complaining about - individuals on social programs like Medicaid - are dipping in your pockets via your tax dollars. But that's not the issue at hand here. Regardless, either way YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT - be it Medicaid for the poor or higher premiums due to the lazy SOB who refuses to get health care but can afford to do so.
 
Sure they can if Congress deems the economic impact to the country, the States and to the citizenry to be so paramount that a mandate is either necessary and proper or for the overall welfare of the country. [

Welfare hmm..

me said:
The term general welfare as in the "welfare clause" is describing the broad ends of the constitution i.e., justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty, It is meant to enlarge the dominion of government beyond the enumeration itself, but not to give power. In federalist #41 madison was talking about what "General Welfare" meant and why it was included in the document. In his explaining he is describing the purposes of the enumerated powers and provide more specific meaning to the general purposes of the government.

All insurance is considered interstate commerce (hence, the reason the "commerce clause" was used as justification for the mandate), but commerce alone, IMO, isn't justification enough. The Constitution does grant Congress the power to write laws and levy taxes. It's a matter of if Congress is able to tie all these things (or a combination of any two) together - interstate commerce, general welfare, necessity and justifiable cause - w/taxation in order to impose a mandate.

Quoting myself again..

me said:
The commerce clause gives the federal government the ability to settle disputes among states and among nations, it does NOT grant them the power to control business, to make people buy healthcare, or even to regulate business on their own accord.

Think about it like this, the commerce clause gives them the ability to be the middle man, to make sure commerce between states is going the way the states desire. It doesn't really do anything else.

As for Necessity and justifiable cause. What? I'm sorry, but where is that?
 
Last edited:
Here again, nobody's harming you economically if they can afford to buy health care for themselves. But you are harmed economically if they can get health care but refuse to do so. How? Because each time someone does go to the hospital ER but does not pay for the medical treatment they receive those cost eventaully get passed on to the consumer, specifically those individuals who do have health insurance.

I know you are aware of this - that a portion of our insurance premiums go towards paying for those non-funded health care costs. What you're complaining about - individuals on social programs like Medicaid - are dipping in your pockets via your tax dollars. But that's not the issue at hand here. Regardless, either way YOU ARE PAYING FOR IT - be it Medicaid for the poor or higher premiums due to the lazy SOB who refuses to get health care but can afford to do so.

Why do you continue to buy what this Administration tells you. How do you keep your current healthcare program and doctor if they go out of business? You claim there is no cost and base that opinion from an Administration that claimed their stimulus plan would cap unemployment at 8% and that Recovery summer would add 500,000 jobs a month. They then claimed their economic policy would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and create 4% economic growth per year every year. None of those projections were right yet now we are to believe them on a program that doesn't go into effect for another 3 years?
 
Henrin,

Necessary and Proper clause to the U.S. Constitution: Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 18 -

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
Henrin,

Necessary and Proper clause to the U.S. Constitution: Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 18 -

Oh yes, thank you for reminding me. That clause doesn't actually give new powers either though.
 
Why do you continue to buy what this Administration tells you. How do you keep your current healthcare program and doctor if they go out of business? You claim there is no cost and base that opinion from an Administration that claimed their stimulus plan would cap unemployment at 8% and that Recovery summer would add 500,000 jobs a month. They then claimed their economic policy would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term and create 4% economic growth per year every year. None of those projections were right yet now we are to believe them on a program that doesn't go into effect for another 3 years?

I'm not buying anything the Administration tells me. I can read, you know. There's plenty of information out there on the health care issue. Why do you continue supporting ideals that are contradictory?

You want people to be responsible for themselves, yet here we are debating the merits of "freedom of choice" over "personal responsibility". That's really what this health care debate boils down to. It's really not about providing health care options to those who can't afford to buy health insurance. It's about people who can afford to buy insurance, but instead are sticking up for their right to choose to buy or not to buy insurance for themselves and would rather refuse to do so dispite knowing that this goes contrary to "being responsible".

For me, it's a common sense thing plus personal responsibility. If I'm employeed and my salary is enough that I can afford to buy health insurance, I'll buy it. If not, I'll do like every other poor person and find a program I can afford to insure myself and my family - socialized or otherwise. But atleast I'm "being responsible".
 
Oh yes, thank you for reminding me. That clause doesn't actually give new powers either though.

Who said anything about giving Congress new powers? The Constitution has always given Congress this authority. They just have to ensure that whatever law is wirtten is within their power to pass. If such is in question, it's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not they overstepped their bounds.
 
I'm sort of with the Republicans on this one. I want it repealed. Unlike the Republicans I'd replace it with something that isn't the biggest joke of the millennium so far... I don't think I could come up with a more laughable bill if I tried.

For a Communist Obama certainly keeps a good disguise up. Seems like it would be in the interests of a Communist to... you know... do something remotely communistic... Instead he didn't pass universal healthcare (which most, if not all other developed nations have, so I suppose they're all super communists, even their conservative parties increase health spending lol), he didn't pass a public option (which to a communist would be only the most unacceptably ridiculous compromise ever), he didn't even properly aim to fix up the status quo a little, it was all rhetoric.

Regardless of what I think on the subject, it WILL be repealed. And it will be bipartisan. Just watch.

What would you replace it with?
 
Sure they can if Congress deems the economic impact to the country, the States and to the citizenry to be so paramount that a mandate is either necessary and proper or for the overall welfare of the country. All insurance is considered interstate commerce (hence, the reason the "commerce clause" was used as justification for the mandate), but commerce alone, IMO, isn't justification enough. The Constitution does grant Congress the power to write laws and levy taxes. It's a matter of if Congress is able to tie all these things (or a combination of any two) together - interstate commerce, general welfare, necessity and justifiable cause - w/taxation in order to impose a mandate.

That's not their job. We live in a free market economy and the government doesn't have the right to impose mandates, based on what they think is best for us. That equates to nothing less than full bore nanny statism.
 
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

So, basically it's the loss of tax revenues the health care bill would otherwise collect that's in question...

We already knew that. but notice that according to that same email the government would take in more revenue that it puts out over a 10-year perioed. I don't see that as problematic. But the deficit hawks apparently do!
 
Who said anything about giving Congress new powers? The Constitution has always given Congress this authority. They just have to ensure that whatever law is wirtten is within their power to pass. If such is in question, it's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether or not they overstepped their bounds.

New powers as in a powers given to them by the founding fathers. What that clause does is just ensure that they can do what is needed to do their enumerated powers. It doesn't actually give any new powers.

As for the supreme court comment, that doesn't actually mean anything to me. The supreme court understanding is the the result of the understanding of the people. If the people don't understand what is written we can't expect the people that come from the people to understand it either, aka the supreme court.

As for the supreme court as it stands now, its doesn't actually run by its original intent. If it did, all people that show political basis would be booted, which clearly does not happen though it did originally.
 
Last edited:
That's not their job. We live in a free market economy and the government doesn't have the right to impose mandates, based on what they think is best for us. That equates to nothing less than full bore nanny statism.

Sure it is! Why else do we elect people to Congress? To sit on their hands? C'mon, apdst!

What you're really trying to say is, "That's not what I want them to do." I guess that's what the midterms were all about. Time will tell if what was done is of benefit or hinderence to our country's overall health and welfare.

I'm fine letting the Supreme Court iron things out.
 
Back
Top Bottom