• 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

Interesting. I guess it shows how much politics in this country is heading to the right if a republican idea 10 years ago is a democrat idea today.
 
Interesting. I guess it shows how much politics in this country is heading to the right if a republican idea 10 years ago is a democrat idea today.
Right, but the writings by Orrin Hatch were an admission that it was the political version of a logic bomb, it was in there back then specifically to make the bill unconstitutional and thus unusable at the time. Unfortunately, this batch of Democrats were even dumber than given credit for and used the provision anyway. Let's be fair, no one can count for stupidity in even the best laid plans.
 
Versus a worse option that was equally so. Doesn't matter in the end though, the Democrat part majority leadership voted to implement it with no Republican yea votes. So congratulations, you own it and there is nothing you can say that will change the fact that you own it.

Nice strawman there chief. That wasn't what anybody was arguing.
 
Nice strawman there chief. That wasn't what anybody was arguing.
Sorry to interrupt this partisan gotcha game, but it is part of the argument, and the reality is you all own this thing. But hey, I knew I wasn't going to get much out of you......feel free to continue.
 
Sorry to interrupt this partisan gotcha game, but it is part of the argument, and the reality is you all own this thing. But hey, I knew I wasn't going to get much out of you......feel free to continue.

I'm happy to take credit for it. Thanks!

The point people are trying to make, that is escaping you it seems, is that Republicans are being deceitful in their opposition to this bill.
 
Right, but the writings by Orrin Hatch were an admission that it was the political version of a logic bomb, it was in there back then specifically to make the bill unconstitutional and thus unusable at the time. Unfortunately, this batch of Democrats were even dumber than given credit for and used the provision anyway. Let's be fair, no one can count for stupidity in even the best laid plans.

The idea predated that though. George H.W. Bush was in favor it. As was Romney and Tommy Thompson later on.
 
Thanks Gina and BWG

However, what you showed kind of re-enforces my point. While the mandating of insurance is similar, there are a number of difference between the two bills that is at the core a likely reason its okay then and not now. For example, one of the key ones it seems is the ability to purchase between state lines. This opens up competition in the market place making insurance more varied, more affordable, and gives more choices to those having to buy it. From what I've seen the penalties for buying your own insurance, and buying very good insurance for yourself, were not present in the older bill which again makes the choice more difficult.

The plan from 1993 also had a number of things, such a reform of malpractice law, that have been denied going into this.

It also doesn't seem to have a number of things, such as the direct access to our bank accounts, a government panel making decisions regarding what treatment you can have (without the appeals process found in private insurance), subsidizing union contracts, and other such things that add to this.

As I've stated, I very much dislike the notion of mandated insurance. I think its a constitutionally problematic thing that I believe violates the spirit more so than the letter of it. That said, as part of a compromised bill which stressed consumer responsibility and choice of private insurance with the government simply, at most, as a safety net...without a number of penalties and regulations that seem to have no real purpose other than to set the stage for continual legislation pushes towards more people choosing or needing the government plan and thus moving to single payer...could be a compromised type bill I could get behind if done honestly and above the board while in the minority...as the republicans were in 1993.

That is not the case, in any way here. Many of the core conservative ideas for fixing things have been utterly rejected. The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases. The various regulations, penalties, and fines on individuals, business, and the insurance companies appears to be a clear attempt to make it either difficult or inefficient to get the insurance you want, you want to provide as a business owner, or you need to provide to get a profit as an insurance provider. This, coupled with the mandate for individual insurance, I believe is going to simply set the stage for more problems, not less, to simply give a way to say "See, we should've done single payer in the first place, lets do it now".

I don't see those same things in the 1993 plan.
 
The idea predated that though. George H.W. Bush was in favor it.
H.W. isn't exactly the best example of a conservative Republican though.
As was Romney and Tommy Thompson later on.
Right, but it was a proven failure in Mass. already, and people changed their minds, nothing more to it really.
 
I'm happy to take credit for it. Thanks!
It's called blame, you know, the opposite of credit.

The point people are trying to make, that is escaping you it seems, is that Republicans are being deceitful in their opposition to this bill.
Oh, I get the point you are trying to make, but the fact is that the Republicans did not act on the proposals, which anyone who is being honest would assess, provided they can grasp concepts, would be that actions are all that matter, and the Republicans are not the one's with blood on their hands.
Thanks for playing.
 
Thanks Gina and BWG

However, what you showed kind of re-enforces my point. While the mandating of insurance is similar, there are a number of difference between the two bills that is at the core a likely reason its okay then and not now. For example, one of the key ones it seems is the ability to purchase between state lines. This opens up competition in the market place making insurance more varied, more affordable, and gives more choices to those having to buy it. From what I've seen the penalties for buying your own insurance, and buying very good insurance for yourself, were not present in the older bill which again makes the choice more difficult.

The plan from 1993 also had a number of things, such a reform of malpractice law, that have been denied going into this.

It also doesn't seem to have a number of things, such as the direct access to our bank accounts, a government panel making decisions regarding what treatment you can have (without the appeals process found in private insurance), subsidizing union contracts, and other such things that add to this.

As I've stated, I very much dislike the notion of mandated insurance. I think its a constitutionally problematic thing that I believe violates the spirit more so than the letter of it. That said, as part of a compromised bill which stressed consumer responsibility and choice of private insurance with the government simply, at most, as a safety net...without a number of penalties and regulations that seem to have no real purpose other than to set the stage for continual legislation pushes towards more people choosing or needing the government plan and thus moving to single payer...could be a compromised type bill I could get behind if done honestly and above the board while in the minority...as the republicans were in 1993.

That is not the case, in any way here. Many of the core conservative ideas for fixing things have been utterly rejected. The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases. The various regulations, penalties, and fines on individuals, business, and the insurance companies appears to be a clear attempt to make it either difficult or inefficient to get the insurance you want, you want to provide as a business owner, or you need to provide to get a profit as an insurance provider. This, coupled with the mandate for individual insurance, I believe is going to simply set the stage for more problems, not less, to simply give a way to say "See, we should've done single payer in the first place, lets do it now".

I don't see those same things in the 1993 plan.

What is stopping insurance companies from setting up a subsidiary in different states? As a means to increase competition that is
 
What is stopping insurance companies from setting up a subsidiary in different states? As a means to increase competition that is
It's not that easy, every state sets it's own insurance laws and companies must appoint individually with each state in which they do business, if a state is mandate heavy on coverage it may not be worth setting up shop as doing business would skew the business model more towards the red. In other words, insurance friendly states usually have more options, overregulated states are "options poor".
 
It's not that easy, every state sets it's own insurance laws and companies must appoint individually with each state in which they do business, if a state is mandate heavy on coverage it may not be worth setting up shop as doing business would skew the business model more towards the red. In other words, insurance friendly states usually have more options, overregulated states are "options poor".

So you would rather have the federal government override what is a states rights regarding health insurance?
 
So you would rather have the federal government override what is a states rights regarding health insurance?
Not really, I'd rather the federal mind what it's supposed to rightfully within the constitutional boundaries, initial federal health policy created this mess to begin with. But if it's that or mandated insurance, IRS expansion, and an overmpowered DHHS I'll take an interstate competition model any day.
 
H.W. isn't exactly the best example of a conservative Republican though. Right, but it was a proven failure in Mass. already, and people changed their minds, nothing more to it really.

He was a part of the GOP though. If I wanted to argue about its conservative bonafides, I would have brought this up instead.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement.

And I would have mentioned that this organization is the one that Rush Limbaugh is constantly promoting.
 
Last edited:
He was a part of the GOP though.
Fair enough. Again, my point is at that time it was just an idea, and not even a seriously entertained one. As well, the responsibility is that of the people who passed the mandate in reality. Disneydude and the usual partisan crowd are only interested in playing gotcha games and trying to put out the public relations fires that the Dems are suffering because of the bill, and frankly I'm going to keep them on the hook.
 
Fair enough. Again, my point is at that time it was just an idea, and not even a seriously entertained one. As well, the responsibility is that of the people who passed the mandate in reality. Disneydude and the usual partisan crowd are only interested in playing gotcha games and trying to put out the public relations fires that the Dems are suffering because of the bill, and frankly I'm going to keep them on the hook.

I am not as interested in that since I think while an individual mandate is unpopular, its going to be a necessary part of any real fix to our health care problems in this country. So I don't think there is any blame to cast, only the maturity to realize that we have a mess on our hands and that we have to do something about it.

Its not the best solution (single payer is), but it can probably be made to work.
 
I am not as interested in that since I think while an individual mandate is unpopular, its going to be a necessary part of any real fix to our health care problems in this country. So I don't think there is any blame to cast, only the maturity to realize that we have a mess on our hands and that we have to do something about it.

Its not the best solution (single payer is), but it can probably be made to work.
Single payer is a horrible solution, mandates are not much better. I think that alot of people need to do some research on all of the economic damage caused by ridiculously lousy regulations over the last century or so, then alot of people would realize why not only single payer is garbage, but why the federal government has no business setting anything past basic sanitary regulations.
 
Single payer is a horrible solution, mandates are not much better. I think that alot of people need to do some research on all of the economic damage caused by ridiculously lousy regulations over the last century or so, then alot of people would realize why not only single payer is garbage, but why the federal government has no business setting anything past basic sanitary regulations.

Yet pretty much every first world (and many third world) country has that or a similar system, that tends to be very popular, is more cost efficient, and often similar or better outcomes than what we have.

If the system as a whole appears to work (as evidence by a vast amount of data from other countries) the individual details don't matter so much to me. Sure regulations can often be stupid, but as a whole, this sort of thing appears to be a huge success.
 
Last edited:
Yet pretty much every first world (and many third world) country has that or a similar system, that tends to be very popular, is more cost efficient, and often similar or better outcomes than what we have.
Now you are starting to use talking points. The fact is that UHC is losing popularity in the U.K. and I think Canada as we speak, the Canadian as well as the U.K are easing restrictions on private plans to appease a constantly growing public outcry over wait times, cuts, and rationing to ease it's financial burdens as well as growing public satisfaction. There are daily newsstories in both of those countries saying such.
So no, it won't be popular or efficient, and I could give a good god damn about what other countries are doing, this one isn't them.
 
New health insurance requirement ... was GOP idea - Yahoo! News

Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
....Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, many of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare. Most experts agree some kind of requirement is needed in a reformed system because health insurance doesn't work if people can put off joining the risk pool until they get sick.

Any argument that the tactics of the GOP are anything other than political posturing simply to oppose anything that Obama proposes is disengenuous.


They were for it before they were against it.


Great! Let's scrap the whole bill. This ought put the Liberals squarely behind that idea, now. Right??
 
Now you are starting to use talking points. The fact is that UHC is losing popularity in the U.K. and I think Canada as we speak, the Canadian as well as the U.K are easing restrictions on private plans to appease a constantly growing public outcry over wait times, cuts, and rationing to ease it's financial burdens as well as growing public satisfaction. There are daily newsstories in both of those countries saying such.
So no, it won't be popular or efficient, and I could give a good god damn about what other countries are doing, this one isn't them.

Universal Health Care is not losing support in Canada

Not being able to pay for extra coverage or quicker coverage is
 
Now you are starting to use talking points.

You call them talking point. I call them common sense. Whatever.

The fact is that UHC is losing popularity in the U.K. and I think Canada as we speak, the Canadian as well as the U.K are easing restrictions on private plans to appease a constantly growing public outcry over wait times, cuts, and rationing to ease it's financial burdens as well as growing public satisfaction. There are daily newsstories in both of those countries saying such.

(By the way, the bolded part is also a talking point)

One news article I find shows that Canadians are very satisfied with their health care.
A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

Edit: found another one. CBC News: Poll: Canada and the world This shows that 2% think that health care wait times are canada's most important issue.

As for NHS. According to their internal surveys. 92% were satisfied with their care. https://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/article.aspx?name=T4usersurvey

So no, it won't be popular or efficient, and I could give a good god damn about what other countries are doing, this one isn't them.

It appears that the data shows another conclusion. Besides, universal health care hasn't been implemented here, so we can't know how popular it would be. There is resistance to it, but there has been resistance to positive change in the past.
 
Last edited:
You call them talking point. I call them common sense. Whatever.
There's nothing common sense about them,, most of them are based on general statements, wishful thinking, comparative, or emotional language. And all can be debunked.



(By the way, the bolded part is also a talking point)

One news article I find shows that Canadians are very satisfied with their health care.
That's nice, I can find a news article also to say whatever I want to make a point about. How about some hard data, because most of the news I've heard is negative.

Edit: found another one. CBC News: Poll: Canada and the world This shows that 2% think that health care wait times are canada's most important issue.
Again, for every source you find I've seen a counter. Let's see some hard data instead.

As for NHS. According to their internal surveys. 92% were satisfied with their care. https://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/article.aspx?name=T4usersurvey
Internal surveys are awful, they can find any way to word things in their favor.



It appears that the data shows another conclusion. Besides, universal health care hasn't been implemented here, so we can't know how popular it would be. There is resistance to it, but there has been resistance to positive change in the past.
You are the one who wants it, even though it is beyond the scope of government power and is ill advised, I need more proof than two newspaper articles and internal polling. As well, you haven't addressed the fact that the systems are going broke, and that they are deferring to private insurance as much as possible.
 
Universal Health Care is not losing support in Canada

Not being able to pay for extra coverage or quicker coverage is
Now why would one need additional coverage or "quicker" coverage if UHC was so much more efficient and popular?
 
There's nothing common sense about them,, most of them are based on general statements, wishful thinking, comparative, or emotional language. And all can be debunked.

Debunk them.

That's nice, I can find a news article also to say whatever I want to make a point about. How about some hard data, because most of the news I've heard is negative.

Again, for every source you find I've seen a counter. Let's see some hard data instead.

Internal surveys are awful, they can find any way to word things in their favor.

Show me. At least I have attempted to provide outside data other than my own opinion.

You are the one who wants it, even though it is beyond the scope of government power and is ill advised, I need more proof than two newspaper articles and internal polling. As well, you haven't addressed the fact that the systems are going broke, and that they are deferring to private insurance as much as possible.

capc1_11-eng.gif


I would hardly say that Canada is going broke. It seems that they have enough money for existing programs, such as their health service.

NHS is losing money though. You are right about that.

And yes I am someone who wants it, because I believe it would be good for the country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom