• 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

megaprogman said:
Debunk them.
Click to expand...
Been doing it for years here alone and really don't feel like going through all that spiel again. I'll let UHC proponents figure it out the hard way this time. Although if you want to check the archives be my guest.



Show me. At least I have attempted to provide outside data other than my own opinion.
Click to expand...
Look up consumer satisfaction surveys if they are provided, that is a direct indicator of how your healthcare is working, and for what it's worth, don't use the WHO, they are a lousy determinant as they do not use any truly relavent data.


I would hardly say that Canada is going broke. It seems that they have enough money for existing programs.
Click to expand...
And they also have a much smaller military budget, an easier border policy, etc. etc. I'm just waking up again so I don't remember if I said the country was going broke or not(if I did I misspoke)

NHS is losing money though. You are right about that.
Click to expand...
Now, keep in mind this is with a much smaller operating overhead than our government uses, that system is going broke with other programs they could borrow from, we are overextended.

And yes I am someone who wants it, because I believe it would be good for the country.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion, but couldn't disagree more. You differ than many of the UHC agendists though in at least you debate rather than sneak around or proclaim(using other's sources I might add). The end goal of single payer would bankrupt the country, it will always be a distraction from other issues because of the dynamic nature of costs in healthcare, patient options will diminish because you aren't directly paying for your own care anymore(as much has been seen in other countries), etc.
 
Last edited:
you know, admittedly this is all the way back to the OP, but it occurs to me:

are democrats really that afraid of this bill that they are now desperate to try to pin blame for it on the GOP?
 
The giant misnomer of this argument will be explained like this:

A mandate to buy groceries for your children, that's a good idea.
A mandate to buy a pink elephant to feed your children, a bad idea.

I hope you see the difference between the two medical care platforms.
One is a mandate to buy catastrophic coverage, the other is a mandate to buy a full prepayment medical policy that will be expensive.

Nice try but the smear on this is falsely identified.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Zyphlin, I never stated nor implied the 1993 Republican was identical to the bill that was just passed. I said, and provided proof, that today's law has roots in the 1993 and one of those similarities is the one which the GOP is screaming about the loudest. The individual mandate. I find that hypocritical when four of the sponsors of this bill still in congress bluster over that point now.

Beyond that there were these other aspects which could have been built upon: Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

Yes, it was made less liberal in order to appeal to the GOP. They still rejected it, oh well.

There is a fundamental problem in arguing about health care legislation. The Republicans lost power. They were never going to get all or the majority of what they wanted, that is our political process. The party which wins, shapes legislation to their political ideology. The GOP never seemed to accept this.
 
Gina said:
Yes, it was made less liberal in order to appeal to the GOP. They still rejected it, oh well.
Click to expand...

WRONG. it was made less liberal because otherwise even Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
 
cpwill said:
you know, admittedly this is all the way back to the OP, but it occurs to me:

are democrats really that afraid of this bill that they are now desperate to try to pin blame for it on the GOP?
Click to expand...

They know it's a piece-a-crap, just like everyone else knows it's a piece-a-crap. They're desperate to deflect blame however and where ever they can.
 
Gina said:
Zyphlin, I never stated nor implied the 1993 Republican was identical to the bill that was just passed. I said, and provided proof, that today's law has roots in the 1993 and one of those similarities is the one which the GOP is screaming about the loudest. The individual mandate. I find that hypocritical when four of the sponsors of this bill still in congress bluster over that point now.

Beyond that there were these other aspects which could have been built upon: Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments — something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

Yes, it was made less liberal in order to appeal to the GOP. They still rejected it, oh well.

There is a fundamental problem in arguing about health care legislation. The Republicans lost power. They were never going to get all or the majority of what they wanted, that is our political process. The party which wins, shapes legislation to their political ideology. The GOP never seemed to accept this.
Click to expand...

That's the messed up thing though.

They had an opportunity to help fix the problem and they decided to sell out to corporate interests.
Everyone should be pissed, they shouldn't accept it because it was the wrong thing to do.

It was a bill crafted on political expediency.
 
cpwill said:
you know, admittedly this is all the way back to the OP, but it occurs to me:

are democrats really that afraid of this bill that they are now desperate to try to pin blame for it on the GOP?
Click to expand...

Nope.

(ten characters)
 
cpwill said:
are democrats really that afraid of this bill that they are now desperate to try to pin blame for it on the GOP?
Click to expand...
Oh no, absolutley not. The Republicans will forever be known as being unanimously opposed to this historic legislation. Just pointing out the faux outrage now, when in the past they have favored the purchase mandate.
 
Gina said:
Zyphlin, I never stated nor implied the 1993 Republican was identical to the bill that was just passed. I said, and provided proof, that today's law has roots in the 1993 and one of those similarities is the one which the GOP is screaming about the loudest. The individual mandate. I find that hypocritical when four of the sponsors of this bill still in congress bluster over that point now.
Click to expand...
It was also proposed in the Healthy Americans Act (S. 334), otherwise known as the Wyden-Bennett bill after Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and his chief co-sponsor, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT). It was co-sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
One is a mandate to buy catastrophic coverage, the other is a mandate to buy a full prepayment medical policy that will be expensive.
Click to expand...
Where did this come from? I don't recall reading that anywhere. I did read that in the exchanges they would offer different levels of coverage - Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and Catastophic. I don't remember where one was required to purchase any particular plan.
 
BWG said:
Where did this come from? I don't recall reading that anywhere. I did read that in the exchanges they would offer different levels of coverage - Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum and Catastophic. I don't remember where one was required to purchase any particular plan.
Click to expand...

The 1993 program that the republicans offered was for Catastrophic coverage plan.
Similar to an HSA.
While I still disagree with any kind of mandate, that would help bend the cost curve down.

The bill passed now is just more of the same, you'd have to be crazy to think that would save money.
 
cpwill said:
WRONG. it was made less liberal because otherwise even Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
Click to expand...

Take it up with Zyphlin as well, I was agreeing with him.

The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases.​

I will also agree with you in that SOME Democrats, those who are more conservative or Blue Dogs, wanted a less liberal bill. Those were the holdouts and don't represent the majority of the party.
 
BWG said:
It was also proposed in the Healthy Americans Act (S. 334), otherwise known as the Wyden-Bennett bill after Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and his chief co-sponsor, Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT). It was co-sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.
Click to expand...

There ya go. Thanks! You're posts on the subject have been very knowlegible. Well done.
 
Gina said:
Take it up with Zyphlin as well, I was agreeing with him.

The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases.​

I will also agree with you in that SOME Democrats, those who are more conservative or Blue Dogs, wanted a less liberal bill. Those were the holdouts and don't represent the majority of the party.
Click to expand...

well thats fair enough; but nobody should pretend that republicans were ever wanted as anything but a rubber stamp. olympia snowe practically publicly begged them to put in one minor modification to let her vote yes and they told her to stick it.
 
This just proves that America needs the Libertarian Party!!!!

The blame game is soooooooo old. Look.... EITHER Party would point fingers at the other whether a bill was successful or not. All Hannity does is bash every single thing the Democrats do whether its good or bad. A Democrat can give a dying 15 year old kid a new organ so he lives and Hannity would say that the doctor who performed the operation is a gay partner of Hugo Chavez.

The Democrats arent much better either.
 
Gina, I don't deny that that part had roots in some republican legislation in the past (which again, seemed to be put forward at a time they were in the minority and wrote a compromised bill representing bipartisan ideas...bipartisan not in that it was "moderated" liberalism or conservatism but actually had ideas from both sides).

However, what GREW from those roots are two greatly different things. Other portions of the root system are entirely different as well. Like I said, at their roots golf and football both use a ball. To claim that anyone who likes one must like the other because they all use balls is foolishness.

The mandate, while something I disagree with, is something I could stomach and could see as a necessary evil under the right circumstances that makes private sector choice a legitimate and cost effective option without a number of regulations and punative legislation that increases the likelihood of pushing people onto the public option. It appears, from a cursory view, that the 1993 bill provided for that FAR more than the current bill.
 
Gina said:
Take it up with Zyphlin as well, I was agreeing with him.

The only real compromise that's been presented is "We'll make it LESS liberal" in most cases.​

I will also agree with you in that SOME Democrats, those who are more conservative or Blue Dogs, wanted a less liberal bill. Those were the holdouts and don't represent the majority of the party.
Click to expand...

Actually, you were pseudo-agreeing with me.

I don't think it was made less liberal to appeal to the GOP. For one, they didn't NEED them. For two, they were gambling on the belief that politically it'd be more advantageous for them to pass this and play the republicans up as obsturctionists who "forced" them to give up bipartisanship rather than pass it as a joint thing.

I think in reality the GOP was a way to build up a strawman of why they were compromising, to try and give the faux illuion that they were seeking bipartisnaship, when in reality it was the blue dogs they were courting. The democrats didn't need republicans, but they HAD to get the Blue Dogs on their side and that wasn't happening with the original bill. You can talk all you want about them being out of step with the majority of the party, but the Democrats wouldn't be in power in the first place if not for the wins by the Blue Dogs running as moderate/conservative democrats.

The few compromises in this bill I believe were far more for the good of the Blue Dogs, not the GOP
 
randel said:
just imagine if the repubs actually tried to work with the dems on the recent legislation :shock:
Click to expand...

They did. and that bi-partisan effort almost succeeded in stopping this POS…. to bad there wasn’t a bigger bi-partisan effort. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
you know, admittedly this is all the way back to the OP, but it occurs to me:

are democrats really that afraid of this bill that they are now desperate to try to pin blame for it on the GOP?
Click to expand...

Naaaaaaaaa........ it's Bush's fault.
 
cpwill said:
WRONG. it was made less liberal because otherwise even Democrats wouldn't vote for it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, there just wouldn't have been enough money in the world to bribe them to vote for it if they hadn't toned it down.
 
disneydude said:
The topic isn't about whether you personally agree that the healthcare bill is right or wrong. Its about whether the GOP is genuine in their opposition or whether their actions demonstrate otherwise.
There are plenty of other topics to express your personal like or dislike of the healthcare bill.
Click to expand...
I think there is more to this story than the one article says. There is more to it than just requiring individuals to buy insurance, and I doubt what's in the new law resembles what the GOP would have passed. You don't just come here saying it was a GOP idea for two decades, on top of the fact that this just comes out after over a year of debate on this, and say "oh the GOP wanted this". No, the timing of this is suspicious and no doubt intended to help the Dems in November.
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just more evidence of the hypocrisy so often found in our politics. I would not suggest it only runs one way, but this is clearly an example of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom