• 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

Boo Radley said:
People without insurance aren't seen at doctors offices because they won't see you without ability to pay. And many fall in a place where they don't have insurance but don't qualify for assistance. So, there isn't any new entitlement program here. There is no public option. All that was done was open up medicaid to take more people and required everyone to have insurance. And a few more regulations. But no public option; no single payer.

And again, no one is ignoring anything. Merely pointing out your factual errors. ;)
Click to expand...

Here seems to be a problem that you refuse to acknowledge. Better wake up to reality!

Robert Samuelson:

The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed.” … Medicare’s introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn’t find gains.
 
Conservative said:
Here seems to be a problem that you refuse to acknowledge. Better wake up to reality!

Robert Samuelson:

The uninsured, it’s said, use emergency rooms for primary care. That’s expensive and ineffective. Once they’re insured, they’ll have regular doctors. Care will improve; costs will decline. Everyone wins. Great argument. Unfortunately, it’s untrue. A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was “more convenient” to go to the emergency room or they couldn’t “get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed.” … Medicare’s introduction in 1966 produced no reduction in mortality; some studies of extensions of Medicaid for children didn’t find gains.
Click to expand...

After hours most often. Still, at least they pay. The uninsured don't pay. They are the larger problem.

Do you have a link to this?

BY the way, from the foundation you cite:

When the Foundation opened its doors as a national philanthropy almost 40 years ago, it appeared that coverage for all Americans was right around the corner. After all that time, it looks like this is the year that our nation finally rounds that corner to confront the huge task of providing coverage for 32 million more Americans head on. The new law meets core principles for coverage set down by the Foundation and offers the country the opportunity to improve the health of our people.

http://www.rwjf.org/healthreform/product.jsp?id=58688
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
After hours most often. Still, at least they pay. The uninsured don't pay. They are the larger problem.

Do you have a link to this?

BY the way, from the foundation you cite:

When the Foundation opened its doors as a national philanthropy almost 40 years ago, it appeared that coverage for all Americans was right around the corner. After all that time, it looks like this is the year that our nation finally rounds that corner to confront the huge task of providing coverage for 32 million more Americans head on. The new law meets core principles for coverage set down by the Foundation and offers the country the opportunity to improve the health of our people.

A Major Step Forward for Better Health and Health Care - RWJF
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have this correct, adding 30 millions to the insurance roles is going to change this? Now that is funny and out of touch with reality.

The illegals and insured using the ER's is more of a problem than the uninsured using ER's and adding 30 million plus to this program makes it worse. Has logic and common sense ever entered into your mind?
 
Conservative said:
So let me see if I have this correct, adding 30 millions to the insurance roles is going to change this? Now that is funny and out of touch with reality.

The illegals and insured using the ER's is more of a problem than the uninsured using ER's and adding 30 million plus to this program makes it worse. Has logic and common sense ever entered into your mind?
Click to expand...

Well, check this out:

Why It Matters: In most cases, uncompensated care is provided to people without insurance. One estimate pegged the amount of uncompensated care given to uninsured people in America at more than $50 billion a year. Government underwrites more than $40 billion of it through Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments and other means.

Health-policy experts have argued that failing to enact reform would have led to greater levels of uncompensated care, perhaps even double the amount. Conversely, analysts have estimated that by insuring tens of millions more people, reform will dramatically decrease uncompensated care—and thus provide substantial spending offsets for federal and state governments.

Indeed, the final reform bill signed by President Obama reduces Medicare DSH payments by 75 percent and then begins adjusting them based on the percentage of the population uninsured and the amount of uncompensated care provided. Medicaid DSH payments are set to be reduced, too.

Health Reform Galaxy Blog

Again, from the group you cited.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, check this out:

Why It Matters: In most cases, uncompensated care is provided to people without insurance. One estimate pegged the amount of uncompensated care given to uninsured people in America at more than $50 billion a year. Government underwrites more than $40 billion of it through Medicare and Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments and other means.

Health-policy experts have argued that failing to enact reform would have led to greater levels of uncompensated care, perhaps even double the amount. Conversely, analysts have estimated that by insuring tens of millions more people, reform will dramatically decrease uncompensated care—and thus provide substantial spending offsets for federal and state governments.

Indeed, the final reform bill signed by President Obama reduces Medicare DSH payments by 75 percent and then begins adjusting them based on the percentage of the population uninsured and the amount of uncompensated care provided. Medicaid DSH payments are set to be reduced, too.

Health Reform Galaxy Blog

Again, from the group you cited.
Click to expand...


I have asked you and you ignored the question, show me where the govt. has ever lowered cost and improved quality of any social engineering program. Theory never generates results because it doesn't and cannot address human behavior.

We have a roadmap of how Universal Healthcare will work, MA. Keep ignoring the results there just like you ignore the ER usage, doctor shortage all because you believe what you are told by liberals whose sole source of power comes from people like you.

Is human behavior ever going to play a role in your decision making process? Heathcare is an individual responsibility and affected by what you consume and how you live.
 
Conservative said:
I have asked you and you ignored the question, show me where the govt. has ever lowered cost and improved quality of any social engineering program. Theory never generates results because it doesn't and cannot address human behavior.

We have a roadmap of how Universal Healthcare will work, MA. Keep ignoring the results there just like you ignore the ER usage, doctor shortage all because you believe what you are told by liberals whose sole source of power comes from people like you.

Is human behavior ever going to play a role in your decision making process? Heathcare is an individual responsibility and affected by what you consume and how you live.
Click to expand...

Would you argue people are not better off today then they were in the 30's? The 1800's? The 60's? Do you know many who would give medicare back? Those using medicaid want to give it back?

As messy as it has been, as imperfect, government programs have contributed to a better overall standard of living. I've answered this for you many times already.

Today the Ford Foundation named 25 creative and effective government programs as finalists for the Innovations in American Government Awards and granted them each $20,000 for their unique approaches to public policy. On October 23, the 10 most innovative and effective programs will each receive awards of $100,000 after a public competition in Washington, D.C.

25 Creative, Productive Government Programs Earn $20,000 Grants as Finalists for Innovations in American Government Awards | Newsroom | Ford Foundation

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5YdqbPMPNg"]YouTube- Myth: Government Run or Funded Programs Don't Work[/nomedia]

SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT WORK
 
Boo Radley said:
Would you argue people are not better off today then they were in the 30's? The 1800's? The 60's? Do you know many who would give medicare back? Those using medicaid want to give it back?

As messy as it has been, as imperfect, government programs have contributed to a better overall standard of living. I've answered this for you many times already.

Today the Ford Foundation named 25 creative and effective government programs as finalists for the Innovations in American Government Awards and granted them each $20,000 for their unique approaches to public policy. On October 23, the 10 most innovative and effective programs will each receive awards of $100,000 after a public competition in Washington, D.C.

25 Creative, Productive Government Programs Earn $20,000 Grants as Finalists for Innovations in American Government Awards | Newsroom | Ford Foundation

YouTube- Myth: Government Run or Funded Programs Don't Work

SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT WORK
Click to expand...

You need to define success because your definition of success and mine are different just like your view as to the role of the Federal Government and mine.

Success to me is solving a social problem and going away, not massive expansion. Individuals getting benefits can deem something a success because of the live for today ideology not the cost of that care or the fact that it could have been generated cheaper and better.

You would call a problem like SS a succes because it provided income to individuals who didn't save for themselves. i call it a failure because of the debt it has created that has to be paid for. Which of us is right? Does debt matter to you? Seems it mattered when Bush was in office.

Bush left office the debt was 10.7 trillion, through March of this year Obama has added 2.1 trillion. How does that grab you?
 
Conservative said:
Success to me is solving a social problem and going away, not massive expansion.
Click to expand...

As if all problems can be permanently solved and go away.

Medicare, for instance, solved the problem of the elderly having no health insurance. The elderly aren't going to go away. There will only be more of them.
 
Conservative said:
You need to define success because your definition of success and mine are different just like your view as to the role of the Federal Government and mine.

Success to me is solving a social problem and going away, not massive expansion. Individuals getting benefits can deem something a success because of the live for today ideology not the cost of that care or the fact that it could have been generated cheaper and better.

You would call a problem like SS a succes because it provided income to individuals who didn't save for themselves. i call it a failure because of the debt it has created that has to be paid for. Which of us is right? Does debt matter to you? Seems it mattered when Bush was in office.

Bush left office the debt was 10.7 trillion, through March of this year Obama has added 2.1 trillion. How does that grab you?
Click to expand...

It is often good to define terms. Success is more than just money. Does it improve our overall standard of living should be part of that definition. Most of them have.

And the largest problem with SS is it did more than it was intended to do. This should require a rethinking of it. And it too is the subject of much demonizing and misinformation (democrats wrongly used the kill granny card. It's no more right when they do it). But doing more than it was designed to do does raise a few questions. And hardly marks it as a failure.

Again, government is us, the people. It works for us, by us. We can change the face of government every election cycle. And we can solve problems through the government. And we always have. There's nothing new in it.
 
Boo Radley said:
It is often good to define terms. Success is more than just money. Does it improve our overall standard of living should be part of that definition. Most of them have.

And the largest problem with SS is it did more than it was intended to do. This should require a rethinking of it. And it too is the subject of much demonizing and misinformation (democrats wrongly used the kill granny card. It's no more right when they do it). But doing more than it was designed to do does raise a few questions. And hardly marks it as a failure.



Again, government is us, the people. It works for us, by us. We can change the face of government every election cycle. And we can solve problems through the government. And we always have. There's nothing new in it.
Click to expand...

It hardly marks it a success when it has grown to the level it has grown to now. It is an example however of history and how govt. spending in the name of compassion never really generates compassionate results. It does however create dependence and thus power.

Yours is a very naive approach and although admirable it lacks reality. Less than 50% of the eligible voters in this country choose to vote so what we are getting is minority rule. What we have now is a leftwing minority in office implementing a socialist agenda and selling people like you on the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch when promoted by the govt. By nature our 3.8 trillion dollar govt. is bloated and ineffecient yet you have no problem making it bigger. It is sad when seemingly intelligent people simply rollover and buy the crap our govt. is feeding us today.
 
Boo Radley said:
Probably not exactly like, but that doesn't matter. The objection to the mandate is not because of anything else in the bill, but because of it alone. The cry is for no mandate all under any circumstance. There is really no way explain this outside of disingenuous partisanship.
Click to expand...
I don't believe for a minute that righwing objections are only on one issue that resembles something they proposed twenty years ago. Come on!
 
Conservative said:
It hardly marks it a success when it has grown to the level it has grown to now. It is an example however of history and how govt. spending in the name of compassion never really generates compassionate results. It does however create dependence and thus power.

Yours is a very naive approach and although admirable it lacks reality. Less than 50% of the eligible voters in this country choose to vote so what we are getting is minority rule. What we have now is a leftwing minority in office implementing a socialist agenda and selling people like you on the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch when promoted by the govt. By nature our 3.8 trillion dollar govt. is bloated and ineffecient yet you have no problem making it bigger. It is sad when seemingly intelligent people simply rollover and buy the crap our govt. is feeding us today.
Click to expand...

Growth may indicate a need. Again, I don't see anyone winning an argument to give it up. And as many, many use it, to a greater degree than designed, can hardly be called ineffective.

And yes, too few people vote. You really want to change things, work to change that. People who don't vote, accept the minority rule. They have no basis to complain.
 
American said:
I don't believe for a minute that righwing objections are only on one issue that resembles something they proposed twenty years ago. Come on!
Click to expand...

But the rightwing has objected to the mandate. Right?
 
American said:
I don't believe for a minute that righwing objections are only on one issue that resembles something they proposed twenty years ago. Come on!
Click to expand...

Never argued they only have one objection. But they do object to this alone. They don't argue that the mandate would be fine if. They argue that there should be no mandate.

Also, it isn't the only idea in the bill that is theirs.
 
disneydude said:
They were for it before they were against it.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure they will be for it again when we later try to upgrade to a single payer system. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Never argued they only have one objection. But they do object to this alone. They don't argue that the mandate would be fine if. They argue that there should be no mandate.

Also, it isn't the only idea in the bill that is theirs.
Click to expand...

would this be kind of like how the Democratic party voted for the war in Iraq before they voted against it?
 
Catawba said:
And I'm sure they will be for it again when we later try to upgrade to a single payer system. ;)
Click to expand...

yup; sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
 
Catawba said:
And I'm sure they will be for it again when we later try to upgrade to a single payer system. ;)
Click to expand...
Downgrade. The word you are looking for is downgrade.
 
Allegations of hypocrisy are not arguments. Some Republicans did embrace the individual mandate. So what? That makes the current law constitutional or even respoinsible?

Additionally, the Republicans made clear that they were simply not saying no to everything. That lie has gained traction with the complete cooperation of the media, but it ignores the dozens of proposals the Republicans presented and that were ignored as the Democrats huddled behind closed doors crafting this legislation.

Edit - anyone care to recall Obama's opposition to the individual mandate while he was running for President? No hypocrisy there, though, right...nothing to see here for the lame lefties using allegations of hypocrisy as arguments.
 
Last edited:
Conservative Sword said:
Allegations of hypocrisy are not arguments. Some Republicans did embrace the individual mandate. So what? That makes the current law constitutional or even respoinsible?

Additionally, the Republicans made clear that they were simply not saying no to everything. That lie has gained traction with the complete cooperation of the media, but it ignores the dozens of proposals the Republicans presented and that were ignored as the Democrats huddled behind closed doors crafting this legislation.

Edit - anyone care to recall Obama's opposition to the individual mandate while he was running for President? No hypocrisy there, though, right...nothing to see here for the lame lefties using allegations of hypocrisy as arguments.
Click to expand...

So, you say allegations of hypocrisy are not arguments ... then you follow it up with an allegation of hypocrisy?

Both parties play politics. "Closed doors" is a meaningless talking point. Republicans did participate in the forming of this legislation (remember Olympia Snowe's committee vote?). It's clear to me that Republicans had chances to influence the final bill, but they chose a different strategy and lost an all-or-nothing battle.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
So, you say allegations of hypocrisy are not arguments ... then you follow it up with an allegation of hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Not an allegation, but an observation of fact. And it's not presented as ana argument. Merely citing said fact.

Both parties play politics. "Closed doors" is a meaningless talking point. Republicans did participate in the forming of this legislation (remember Olympia Snowe's committee vote?). It's clear to me that Republicans had chances to influence the final bill, but they chose a different strategy and lost an all-or-nothing battle.
Click to expand...

Not a talking point...not when Reid & Pelosi promise the most ethical and transparent Congress ever and Barry is promising the most transparent administration ever and promising that this health care debate will be open and transparent. And certainly not merely a talking point when properly acknowledging that the Democrats were arguing that they were seeking bipartisanship.

Yeah, Paul Ryan, for example, didn't propose anything. The bottomline is that the Republicans and Democrats were moving in totally different directions. They was no compromise between the Democrats demand for a government-controlled outcome and the Republican demand for a reduction in government intervention. The Republicans lost...but only because Barry was able to bribe legislators, bribe unions, bribe corporations, etc.
 
cpwill said:
yup; sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's why we picked HCR instead of an unsustainable status quo.
 
Thats why 50% of the voters dont vot during national elections. The Reps are against bills that the Dems want, although the Reps like the bill. Of course the Dems are no better when there sitting on the bench.
 
Catawba said:
Yup, that's why we picked HCR instead of an unsustainable status quo.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Conservative Sword said:
Not an allegation, but an observation of fact. And it's not presented as ana argument. Merely citing said fact.



Not a talking point...not when Reid & Pelosi promise the most ethical and transparent Congress ever and Barry is promising the most transparent administration ever and promising that this health care debate will be open and transparent. And certainly not merely a talking point when properly acknowledging that the Democrats were arguing that they were seeking bipartisanship.

Yeah, Paul Ryan, for example, didn't propose anything. The bottomline is that the Republicans and Democrats were moving in totally different directions. They was no compromise between the Democrats demand for a government-controlled outcome and the Republican demand for a reduction in government intervention. The Republicans lost...but only because Barry was able to bribe legislators, bribe unions, bribe corporations, etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom