• 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!

Republicans exempt their own insurance from their latest health care proposal

celticwar17 said:
Funny you speak of intellect... You think W really had all that much to do with the "mess"? The workings of our government and economy are much bigger than the president.... but please, keep playing the little political sports game, go team! right?
Click to expand...

the thing is Celt, you and yours were literally foaming at the mouth that President Obama caused the deficits. When it was proven that he inherited the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits, you and yours simply claimed he responsible the second he takes the oath of office. So by conservative standards, Bush is responsible for a recession that started 7 years into his administration. By intelligent standards he's responsible because it was his policies that caused it.
 
Perotista said:
Let me repeat myself again from another post.

Okay, congress originally exempted themselves, then after the public out cry, passed an amendment to include congress.
Click to expand...

they didn't "originally exempted themselves". they already had insurance. again, at some point you guys are going to have to realize that you've been lied to so much about Obamacare that you really shouldn't trust your own opinions on the matter.

Congress and an Exemption from 'Obamacare'? - FactCheck.org
 
Vern said:
the thing is Celt, you and yours were literally foaming at the mouth that President Obama caused the deficits. When it was proven that he inherited the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits, you and yours simply claimed he responsible the second he takes the oath of office. So by conservative standards, Bush is responsible for a recession that started 7 years into his administration. By intelligent standards he's responsible because it was his policies that caused it.
Click to expand...

I hold Bush accountable for his deficits just as as much I hold Obama for his. And no, the deficits have little to do with the recession... try again. If anything, deficits suspend recessions... or draw them out over longer period of time... temporarily.... but in the end, we will all pay eventually.
 
Vern said:
the thing is Celt, you and yours were literally foaming at the mouth that President Obama caused the deficits. When it was proven that he inherited the massive trillion dollar Bush Deficits, you and yours simply claimed he responsible the second he takes the oath of office. So by conservative standards, Bush is responsible for a recession that started 7 years into his administration. By intelligent standards he's responsible because it was his policies that caused it.
Click to expand...

I think you could place most of that blame on the Clinton regime. If you researched the real reasons.
 
jmotivator said:
The funny thing is that this is really just another case of the left fear mongering. The bill in question returns control of health insurance policy to the states, that is all it is... to the average Democrat this is seen as an extinction event. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's just a backdoor way to eliminate pre-existing condition coverage. Allow states to opt out, then allow insurance to be purchased by people in other states that didn't opt out. For healthy people, it will be cheaper to buy the out-of-state coverage. For others, their costs will spiral our of control

Make no mistake, this is typical cynical Republican legislating. They know cutting pre-existing condition protections will be immensely unpopular, so they're trying to find another way to do so without suffering the political consequences. I can understand the impetus, as they've already shown they can't pass repeal directly without angering their base. So instead they're trying to slip one past their constituents as cover so they can drum up enough votes.

Don't fall for this crap, people.
 
hanger4 said:
Congress only paying 25% regardless of income for the Gold level is a mighty big exemption.
Click to expand...

No different than any other large employer is required to provide.
 
Vern said:
they didn't "originally exempted themselves". they already had insurance. again, at some point you guys are going to have to realize that you've been lied to so much about Obamacare that you really shouldn't trust your own opinions on the matter.

Congress and an Exemption from 'Obamacare'? - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

^^^ Bolded for truth. When i challenge right wingers to explain why Obamacare is bad, they seem to only provide lies in response.
 
Nilly said:
No. You're flat out wrong.

The 'waiver' allows states to say that sick people can be put into high risk pools.

Section A, exempts them from that waiver. So they can't be put into high risk pools, whilst their constituents can.
Click to expand...

Again, no. The waiver policy allows states to determine their own insurance policies. It as much a "waiver to allow states to (do evil/good)" as Obamacare law "allows the Federal Government to (do evil/good)". The controlling factor on what "states can" do is what their constituents allow them to do. Either way it does not give Congress a waiver from the federal law, it does the opposite, it ties congress to the federal law, not a state law. How you see that provision really depends on how you view the results of a waiver.

The waiver provision is agnostic to what the state chooses to do.

Example: California could apply for and receive a waiver to convert their state into a single-payer, state-funded system that you would love, and Congressional employees would not be allowed to participate because they are bound to the federal law, not the state law.
 
Harshaw said:
Right, because Obamacare didn't set Congress up pretty compared to Joe Sixpack. :roll:
Click to expand...

So Republicans are like Democrats, only worse? I already knew that.
 
d0gbreath said:
This is the worst post that I've ever read on these forums.
Click to expand...

how is it the worse?

should you be responsible for someone else's 18th accident or should they?

you should know by now that pyramid scheme's do not work.
your lack of insight of why it is so bad if well pretty much negates any attempted argument you had.

Why should other people assume your risk?

"I say so" is a fallacy not an argument.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It's just a backdoor way to eliminate pre-existing condition coverage. Allow states to opt out, then allow insurance to be purchased by people in other states that didn't opt out. For healthy people, it will be cheaper to buy the out-of-state coverage. For others, their costs will spiral our of control

Make no mistake, this is typical cynical Republican legislating. They know cutting pre-existing condition protections will be immensely unpopular, so they're trying to find another way to do so without suffering the political consequences. I can understand the impetus, as they've already shown they can't pass repeal directly without angering their base. So instead they're trying to slip one past their constituents as cover so they can drum up enough votes.

Don't fall for this crap, people.
Click to expand...

Again, no. It is more an excuse for the Democrats to imagine all sorts of bull**** scare stories that the evil states can perpetrate than it is a green light for dastardly Republicans to murder people. In the end the citizens of any state will decide what is good for their state. If the system they implement through a waiver is better than Obamacare (not hard to do!) the Congressional staff from that state would still not be able to participate and would remain tied to policy written into the PPACA.
 
Ahh, the sweet, sweet smell of Conservative Compassion

1216_cash-dollars_650x455.jpg
 
jmotivator said:
Are we reading the same document? That passage in the law disallows granting a waiver from the law. That isn't the same as making them exempt from it... in fact, it appears to be the exact opposite of that.

1312(d)(3)(D) is the requirement for congress to buy insurance on the market. The line of this law prohibits them from granting themselves a waiver.
Click to expand...

Repeat after me:

'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
 
Absentglare said:
No, you got it wrong. It's really sad how easily manipulated the right wing is by such obviously intentionally misleading words.
Click to expand...

No, ironically, it is you who are easily manipulated by left wing (read: Vox) propaganda. The amendment in question does not exempt Congress from the law, it binds Congress to the federal law. The exact opposite of what Vox has stated.

The method they used to fool you is by couching their argument in an arbitrary scary story and then present the amendment as saving themselves from that imagined fate. In the real world, away from bull**** Vox propaganda, the exemption from State waiver is agnostic, and exempts Congress from state policy regardless of whether the resulting state policy is better or worse than the system laid out by the PPACA.

You've allowed yourself to be easily played by Vox who, apparently, knows their audience.

This is an admission that democrats did not exempt congress from the ACA. Please inform all those right wingers that continue to repeat that lie.
Click to expand...

I never said they did. The amendment to force Congress to participate in the exchanges was an amendment pushed by Republicans. This effort by the Republicans confused DailyKos completely... now I am sure DailyKOS is up in arms about Republicans perpetuating that mandated participation in the new law.
 
American said:
Repeat after me:

'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
'I didn't post all pertinent information necessary to make my assertion'
Click to expand...

Who is that directed at?
 
Vern said:
they didn't "originally exempted themselves". they already had insurance. again, at some point you guys are going to have to realize that you've been lied to so much about Obamacare that you really shouldn't trust your own opinions on the matter.

Congress and an Exemption from 'Obamacare'? - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is the article in "The Hill," is a lie? That Congress now falls fully under Obamacare, that all members of congress get their insurance through the exchanges? That none of them, congress, took advantage of the Obama waiver?
 
jmotivator said:
Again, no. It is more an excuse for the Democrats to imagine all sorts of bull**** scare stories that the evil states can perpetrate than it is a green light for dastardly Republicans to murder people. In the end the citizens of any state will decide what is good for their state. If the system they implement through a waiver is better than Obamacare (not hard to do!) the Congressional staff from that state would still not be able to participate and would remain tied to policy written into the PPACA.
Click to expand...

Is it really so easy, j? There's a reason that the pre-existing condition ban is so popular, and it's the same reason that Republicans have to obfuscate their attempts to change the policy.
 
ludin said:
how is it the worse?

should you be responsible for someone else's 18th accident or should they?

you should know by now that pyramid scheme's do not work.
your lack of insight of why it is so bad if well pretty much negates any attempted argument you had.

Why should other people assume your risk?

"I say so" is a fallacy not an argument.
Click to expand...

You are debating both sides of the argument. All I said was that I thought that your post was really bad.

So that driver's 18th accident was caused by what? Fate? Gremlins? ??? I'll bet it's because they either aren't a very good driver, or they commute on the Santa Monica Freeway. But, at 18, I'd wager that their defensive driving skills are non-existent.

Regardless, they have a hand in causing so many accidents, and should have they're license revoked. Not revoked, well your insurance is sky high.

Someone else is stricken with the Big C. After months of expensive hospital charges, their cancer has gone into remission. Will it stay away? American healthcare is willing to bet that it might come back or show up elsewhere in the body.

The once seriously ill person is now happy and feels healthy. Until they find out what their new insurance rates are going to be for something that they did not have a hand in causing the occurrence of cancer.

That's the true meaning of healthcare Charlie Brown.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, no. It is more an excuse for the Democrats to imagine all sorts of bull**** scare stories that the evil states can perpetrate than it is a green light for dastardly Republicans to murder people. In the end the citizens of any state will decide what is good for their state. If the system they implement through a waiver is better than Obamacare (not hard to do!) the Congressional staff from that state would still not be able to participate and would remain tied to policy written into the PPACA.
Click to expand...

Right, which means that members of Congress and their staff do not risk being caught by, most importantly, a pre-existing condition problem and be shunted to their state's crappy high risk pool that costs many times what insurance will cost on the exchanges and covers less, if you can get into the pool.
 
d0gbreath said:
You are debating both sides of the argument. All I said was that I thought that your post was really bad.

So that driver's 18th accident was caused by what? Fate? Gremlins? ??? I'll bet it's because they either aren't a very good driver, or they commute on the Santa Monica Freeway. But, at 18, I'd wager that their defensive driving skills are non-existent.

Regardless, they have a hand in causing so many accidents, and should have they're license revoked. Not revoked, well your insurance is sky high.

Someone else is stricken with the Big C. After months of expensive hospital charges, their cancer has gone into remission. Will it stay away? American healthcare is willing to bet that it might come back or show up elsewhere in the body.

The once seriously ill person is now happy and feels healthy. Until they find out what their new insurance rates are going to be for something that they did not have a hand in causing the occurrence of cancer.

That's the true meaning of healthcare Charlie Brown.
Click to expand...

If I see the right money, I could be convince to argue both sides. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom