• 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!

New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

GhostlyJoe said:
Alright. First, your fist paragraph is a bunch of allegations of hypocrisy -- the same thing you were arguing against earlier.

Second, by framing the debate as "government control" versus reduction in government, you pin your opponents into an ideological corner. This bill is far, far short of absolute government control, and dropping the public option shows a willingness to step away from ideological extremes. In my experience, those making broad ideological arguments aren't looking to compromise.

I don't want to read too much into your post, but I caution against a "good guy" versus "bad guy" take on politics. That's not the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

I was arguing that allegations of hypocrisy is not an argument.

I was simply citing the hypocrisy of certain officials. I did not present them as an argument about anything.

You know that, though. You know that because I told you that.

Then you said that my closed doors comment was merely a talking point. I see you ducked my response on that. Of course, the closed doors comment was relevant given the repeated promises that this would be a transparent process.
 
washunut said:
No one will know for a few years if this bill helps or hurts " bending the cost curve". There is some logic that says that when you increase demand and do not change supply, costs go up not down.
Click to expand...

There is also some logic that says if you are heading over a cliff, a course correction is in order.

If this course correction is not sufficient than we may need to adjust course further in the future.
 
Catawba said:
There is also some logic that says if you are heading over a cliff, a course correction is in order.

If this course correction is not sufficient than we may need to adjust course further in the future.
Click to expand...

What's the plan when prices continue to rise?

Are you going to blame the "free market" or will it be properly placed on this legislation?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
What's the plan when prices continue to rise?
Click to expand...

Then it may be necessary abandon the private health insurance oligopolies to adopt a UHC system, like the rest of the developed world.

Even Costa Rica's health care system is more affordable than ours, and their citizens make 1/10 on average what US citizens make.
 
Catawba said:
Then it may be necessary abandon the private health insurance oligopolies to adopt a UHC system, like the rest of the developed world.

Even Costa Rica's health care system is more affordable than ours, and their citizens make 1/10 on average what US citizens make.
Click to expand...

So the plan is to restrict the market under the guise of making it better, then when that fails you want to completely close off the market.

That's some crazy logic you've got there.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So the plan is to restrict the market under the guise of making it better, then when that fails you want to completely close off the market.

That's some crazy logic you've got there.
Click to expand...


No, the plan is to try the private market approach proposed by the Republicans in 1993, if that doesn't work than our best option will be adopt true UHC as have the rest of the developed world.
 
Catawba said:
No, the plan is to try the private market approach proposed by the Republicans in 1993, if that doesn't work than our best option will be adopt true UHC as have the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

But this isn't a private market, with Medicare and Medicaid involved and by giving out subsidies to corporations it's a crony capitalism/economic fascist approach to medicine.

This plan gives these insurance companies welfare, why do you support that?

You're basically telling me that continually restricting the market to the point of failure is the best way to operate medical care.

What the hell. :shock:
 
Catawba said:
No, the plan is to try the private market approach proposed by the Republicans in 1993, if that doesn't work than our best option will be adopt true UHC as have the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...

LOL.

If it is a success : DEMOCRATS WERE RIGHT!!!!!

If it fails: These were Republican ideas anyway

:donkeyfla
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
But this isn't a private market, with Medicare and Medicaid involved and by giving out subsidies to corporations it's a crony capitalism/economic fascist approach to medicine.

This plan gives these insurance companies welfare, why do you support that?
Click to expand...

I agree that a single payer system would have been far preferable to the Republican plan of '93 used in this plan. However, being pragmatic, I understand that the US is only capable of baby steps towards social progress.

You're basically telling me that continually restricting the market to the point of failure is the best way to operate medical care.
Click to expand...

The market was already failing. My insurance rates for catastrophic coverage increased by 300% in the last 10 years. If allowed to continue, health insurance would simply be unaffordable for me and most of the middle class.
 
Catawba said:
I agree that a single payer system would have been far preferable to the Republican plan of '93 used in this plan. However, being pragmatic, I understand that the US is only capable of baby steps towards social progress.
Click to expand...

The 93' Republican plan involved catastrophic coverage not comprehensive coverage.
You being dishonest or you don't really understand it.

Catawba said:
The market was already failing. My insurance rates for catastrophic coverage increased by 300% in the last 10 years. If allowed to continue, health insurance would simply be unaffordable for me and most of the middle class.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that the increasing restrictions on the market correlate with the failure?

Minimum mandates have preceded increases in costs(minus inflation), it's far from a market failure but a public policy failure.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The 93' Republican plan involved catastrophic coverage not comprehensive coverage.
You being dishonest or you don't really understand it.
Click to expand...

The main thrust of the plan is the individual mandate as opposed to an entitlement program covered by taxes.

So you don't think that the increasing restrictions on the market correlate with the failure?
Click to expand...

As I showed, the market had already failed us. The constitution seeks to promote the general welfare of the we the people, not the welfare of the corporations.
 
Catawba said:
The main thrust of the plan is the individual mandate as opposed to an entitlement program covered by taxes.
Click to expand...

A subsidized but unenforceable mandate.
It's still an entitlement program for a great many people.
Of course you have to add in taxes from all those listed in the bill.

The core of this bill though are the other mandates which you conveniently ignore.
You're baiting conservatives but for me, your rouse doesn't work so well.

Catawba said:
As I showed, the market had already failed us. The constitution seeks to promote the general welfare of the we the people, not the welfare of the corporations.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show anything.
You said that the market needs restriction and when I pose the question of what happens when those restrictions fail, you say the market needs further restriction.
A very flawed logic.

You also fail to note the correlation between market restriction and increase in costs, which is totally public policy.

Further the bill indirectly subsidizes corporation further by subsidizing individuals and softly mandating them to purchase coverage.
So it seems you only like corporate welfare when it's your brand of Congress and President.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
A subsidized but unenforceable mandate.
It's still an entitlement program for a great many people.
Of course you have to add in taxes from all those listed in the bill.

The core of this bill though are the other mandates which you conveniently ignore.
You're baiting conservatives but for me, your rouse doesn't work so well.
Click to expand...

If you want to see a real entitlement program, see the health care plans in the rest of the developed countries.


You have yet to show anything.
You said that the market needs restriction and when I pose the question of what happens when those restrictions fail, you say the market needs further restriction.
A very flawed logic.

You also fail to note the correlation between market restriction and increase in costs, which is totally public policy.
Click to expand...

A 300% increase in insurance cost over the last 10 years represented a failed situation for myself and the majority of voters in the last election. That is why we voted in representatives that would provide an affordable alternative. While assuredly the current plan is not near as preferable as a single payer system, as I mentioned before, with our severe conservative mentality handicap in this country, I can only expect baby steps in social progress. We have to learn how to crawl before we can walk with the big boys (the rest of the developed world) in adopting real UHC.

Further the bill indirectly subsidizes corporation further by subsidizing individuals and softly mandating them to purchase coverage.
So it seems you only like corporate welfare when it's your brand of Congress and President.
Click to expand...

First you say it will restrict insurance corporations to the point of failure, and then you say it will subsidize them to the point of corporate welfare.

Which one do you want to go with?
 
Catawba said:
A 300% increase in insurance cost over the last 10 years represented a failed situation for myself and the majority of voters in the last election. That is why we voted in representatives that would provide an affordable alternative.
Click to expand...

How's that working out for ya?

CBO estimates both individual and group premiums will increase anywhere between 10 and 17%.

CBO was able to estimate, by ignoring the doc fix, some reduction in the deficit...add the doc fix in, which is explicitly a part of Obamacare, a the deficit starts taking massive annual hits.

You were saying something about voting in reps that would enact affordable...oh, never mind, silly.

While assuredly the current plan is not near as preferable as a single payer system, as I mentioned before, with our severe conservative mentality handicap in this country, I can only expect baby steps in social progress. We have to learn how to crawl before we can walk with the big boys (the rest of the developed world) in adopting real UHC.
Click to expand...

Oh? You want to see an ever-increasingly costly health system like France's result in 15,000 deaths in a mere three weeks because of a minor heat wave? You want to have a shortage of labor and delivery rooms as there is in Britain and replicate Britain's NICE (look it up, makes death panels seem relatively wonderful)? You want cancer treatment to be rationed as it is in Canada?

Great plan, yo.
 
Conservative Sword said:
How's that working out for ya?
Click to expand...

I'll let you know in ten years when my rates do not increase another 300% like the did during the last ten years.

CBO estimates both individual and group premiums will increase anywhere between 10 and 17%.
Click to expand...

Far preferable to 300%.

CBO was able to estimate, by ignoring the doc fix, some reduction in the deficit...add the doc fix in, which is explicitly a part of Obamacare, a the deficit starts taking massive annual hits.
Click to expand...

Can you link the part of the HCR passed where the doc fix is included? It was not rated because it was not part of the plan.

You were saying something about voting in reps that would enact affordable...
Click to expand...

Since the CBO did not project premiums raising 300% in the next 10 years as it did under the status quo during the last decade, yes, I expect it to be more affordable.

Oh? You want to see an ever-increasingly costly health system like France's result in 15,000 deaths in a mere three weeks because of a minor heat wave? You want to have a shortage of labor and delivery rooms as there is in Britain and replicate Britain's NICE (look it up, makes death panels seem relatively wonderful)? You want cancer treatment to be rationed as it is in Canada?
Click to expand...

I want a health care plan like the 36 countries that have a higher rated system than the US at a fraction of what we pay for health care here.
Click to expand...

Great plan,....
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is why the rest of the developed world adopted a UHC system years ago!
 
Catawba said:
A 300% increase in insurance cost over the last 10 years represented a failed situation for myself and the majority of voters in the last election. That is why we voted in representatives that would provide an affordable alternative. While assuredly the current plan is not near as preferable as a single payer system, as I mentioned before, with our severe conservative mentality handicap in this country, I can only expect baby steps in social progress. We have to learn how to crawl before we can walk with the big boys (the rest of the developed world) in adopting real UHC.
Click to expand...

Still arguing with the ole appeal to the majority fallacy.
Then you snipe at conservatives by painting them as disabled persons, not socially progressive of you. :lol:
Back up your reasoning with facts instead of, well nothing substantial.

So you can't back up that it was the market the caused the problems and you still ignore the fact that increases in restrictions and mandates have correlated with increases in prices.

You're very fond of unfounded assumptions I see.
How is UHC social progress?
What facts can you provide that UHC will work for the U.S.?
Remember that Medicaid and Medicare are busting our budgets.

Catawba said:
First you say it will restrict insurance corporations to the point of failure, and then you say it will subsidize them to the point of corporate welfare.

Which one do you want to go with?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it would cause insurance corporations to fail.
I said the legislation would fail, maybe you should read what I write.

How about you tell me why you still believe the President and Congress, when their words and their actions are a complete contradiction?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Still arguing with the ole appeal to the majority fallacy.
Click to expand...
That's how elections are decided in a Republic.

So you can't back up that it was the market the caused the problems and you still ignore the fact that increases in restrictions and mandates have correlated with increases in prices.
Click to expand...

I've provided my personal situation that was unsustainable under the status quo.

In addition:

" * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

* The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 Census Revises Estimates of the Number of Uninsured People — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher. Professors Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, in "It's The Premiums, Stupid: Projections Of The Uninsured Through 2013," Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.143, "project that the number of non-elderly uninsured Americans will grow from forty-five million in 2003 to fifty-six million by 2013." According to these authors, by now the number of non-elderly uninsured by this date clearly would be nearly 50 million."

"According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175"
MichaelMoore.com : SiCKO : Checkup on the Facts

You have provided no "facts" that increases in restrictions and mandates have caused increases and prices.

How is UHC social progress?

What facts can you provide that UHC will work for the U.S.?

Remember that Medicaid and Medicare are busting our budgets.
Click to expand...

Dozens of countries have been rated with a better health care system for more of their people for far less cost than the US. M/M operate at an efficiency that cannot be matched in the private market. They are busting our budgets because of the unregulated rise in medical costs in the US and priority for an energy program that requires Middle East wars.

I think the US has the capacity to act as intelligently as the rest of the developed world.


How about you tell me why you still believe the President and Congress, when their words and their actions are a complete contradiction?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean there. The difference I see is one between a moderate goal and a conservative reality.
 
Last edited:
Yep, 10-17% beats 300%.
 
cpwill said:
would this be kind of like how the Democratic party voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it?
Click to expand...

They never voted for the war. No one did. No matter how much you want to say you know what they really meant, reading minds and all, the fact is all they voted for was to let Bush decide. There was never any declaration of war. They never ever voted on going to war.

So, no, it wouldn't be anything like that. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
They never voted for the war. No one did. No matter how much you want to say you know what they really meant, reading minds and all, the fact is all they voted for was to let Bush decide. There was never any declaration of war. They never ever voted on going to war.

So, no, it wouldn't be anything like that. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, they let Bush decide and when he decided they supported it until it went south and then for political reasons they turned on the President and with the help of the media did their best to destroy Bush ignoring their responsibility to the country.

In the process they turned their backs on our military and the average American citizen as they gave aid to our enemies. "The War is Lost" Harry Reid along with the other Democrat Opportunists in Congress were more concerned about regaining the WH than doing their job for the American people. We are paying the consequences for that type of "leadership" today.
 
Conservative said:
In the process they turned their backs on our military and the average American citizen as they gave aid to our enemies.
Click to expand...

You're calling people traitors now. That's a very serious accusation. You really ought to make it to their faces. I dare you.
 
Catawba said:
That's how elections are decided in a Republic.



I've provided my personal situation that was unsustainable under the status quo.

In addition:

" * The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention actually reported that 54.5 million people were uninsured for at least part of the year. Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2006. Centers for Disease Control. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

* The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 Census Revises Estimates of the Number of Uninsured People — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. With 44.8 uninsured in 2005, in 2007 the number will be much higher. Professors Todd Gilmer and Richard Kronick, in "It's The Premiums, Stupid: Projections Of The Uninsured Through 2013," Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.w5.143, "project that the number of non-elderly uninsured Americans will grow from forty-five million in 2003 to fifty-six million by 2013." According to these authors, by now the number of non-elderly uninsured by this date clearly would be nearly 50 million."

"According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175"
MichaelMoore.com : SiCKO : Checkup on the Facts

You have provided no "facts" that increases in restrictions and mandates have caused increases and prices.



Dozens of countries have been rated with a better health care system for more of their people for far less cost than the US. M/M operate at an efficiency that cannot be matched in the private market. They are busting our budgets because of the unregulated rise in medical costs in the US and priority for an energy program that requires Middle East wars.

I think the US has the capacity to act as intelligently as the rest of the developed world.




Not sure what you mean there. The difference I see is one between a moderate goal and a conservative reality.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have so much faith in the Federal Govt. solving an individual responsibility item. What exactly do you believe the role of the Federal Govt. is and what is it exactly in this bill that improves the quality of healthcare and the quantity of doctors to meet the increased demand?

This is the first step towards what you really want, a single payer system, which for some reason you believe will create the utopia that liberals are advertising. In spite of the single payer SS and Medicare system being broke this time it will be different, right?

This massive increase in the size of govt. is unsustainable and for some reason doesn't resonate with you. Why? Who pays for this debt being generated? Name for me one social program run well by the Federal Govt?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, they let Bush decide and when he decided they supported it until it went south and then for political reasons they turned on the President and with the help of the media did their best to destroy Bush ignoring their responsibility to the country.

In the process they turned their backs on our military and the average American citizen as they gave aid to our enemies. "The War is Lost" Harry Reid along with the other Democrat Opportunists in Congress were more concerned about regaining the WH than doing their job for the American people. We are paying the consequences for that type of "leadership" today.
Click to expand...

I remember Kerry stating clearing he would oppose the president if he went to war without the UN. In other words, he state up front where he drew the line. I suppose that doesn't matter when you make you determination about doing things simply for political reasons?

Blind support has always helped tyrants do terrible things. The claim that we must allow the president to spend young lives, our sons and daughters, as he pleases, with no justification, logic or accountability, and those who demand that are traitors is skewed to say the least. Bush betrayed his oath of office by spending these lives without just cause. He betrayed the troops in doing so. So, your claim rings hallow to me.
 
Boo Radley said:
I remember Kerry stating clearing he would oppose the president if he went to war without the UN. In other words, he state up front where he drew the line. I suppose that doesn't matter when you make you determination about doing things simply for political reasons?

Blind support has always helped tyrants do terrible things. The claim that we must allow the president to spend young lives, our sons and daughters, as he pleases, with no justification, logic or accountability, and those who demand that are traitors is skewed to say the least. Bush betrayed his oath of office by spending these lives without just cause. He betrayed the troops in doing so. So, your claim rings hallow to me.
Click to expand...


Look, nothing is going to change your mind about the reasons for going to war and you will continue to ignore all the quotes of Democrats during the Clinton years, the Iraq Liberation Act, as well as those during the early part of the Bush Administration. Doesn't matter to you nor does it matter now other than to divert from the reality we faced at the time.

So let me get this straight, you believe that there was blind support for Bush during his term but no blind support now for the Obama agenda? You are allowing this President to spend U.S. Treasure on a failed ideology that does nothing to solve the problems with healthcare other than increasing access to an infrastructure that not capable of handling that increase nor does it do anything to lower costs. There is no justification for this but that doesn't stop you and others from promoting it.

GW Bush did what he thought was right and history will be the judge. History has already judged what Obama is doing as we have results of Federal social engineering, high debt, ineffeciency, and massive growth of the federal bureaucracy.
 
Conservative said:
History has already judged what Obama is doing as we have results of Federal social engineering, high debt, ineffeciency, and massive growth of the federal bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

No, YOU have already judged him (pre-judged him). History doesn't jump to wild conclusions like you do. History will take a few more years at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom