• 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!

Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?

Mustachio said:
I agree. I grew up with those people. But I also am very lucky to know young people, and they look at politics with more objectivity than their parents. That's a dangerous place to be in the short term. But to go back to where I started: I grew up in a middle class family that bought a house in an area that became surrounded by wealthy liberals. Would they tolerate more than 5 minutes of a conservative radio show, or 5 minutes of conversation with a Trump supporter? Only if there was a gun to their head. That's almost getting into a different arena, which is the lack of de facto tolerance we have toward diversity. Trump supporters openly admit that him lacking such theatrics was a factor in their vote. He's a vile, petulant child and is proud of it. The 25% of Americans who will always say he's doing a great job are like 15 million Patriots season ticket holders (my apologies if you are a Patriots fan, there's probably a few good apples in those stands).
Click to expand...

Looking at how I interacted with my parents, and how I know they interacted with their parents, and so on, I suspect that's somewhat of a natural occurrence in each successive generation. I'll bet that they're ideals solidify as they get older. Not necessarily the same as they're parents, just more resolute.
 
Tennyson said:
The opposite.
Click to expand...

The language you described as "anti-death panel" is from the ACA.

The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
Click to expand...
 
pinqy said:
Well, to enact legislation.

Where on earth did you get that from? I actually read section 3403 and it clearly states that the Board's recommendations, if they make any, go to the President who can then propose legislature to Congress. There are some specific procedural provisions on debate etc, but there is nothing that could even be remotely be interpreted as the Board even making policy, let alone legislation.

Balderdash. The ACA says nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...


(E) APPEALS.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.

‘‘(E) REVIEW AND COMMENT BY THE SECRETARY.—The
Board shall submit a draft copy of each proposal to be submitted to Congress under this section to the Secretary for the Secretary’s review and comment. The Board shall submit such draft copy by not later than September 1 of the determination year. Not later than March 1 of the submission year, the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of such review, unless the Secretary submits a proposal under paragraph (5)(A) in that year.

All aspects of Obamacare proposals become law unless Congress acts.
 
Greenbeard said:
The language you described as "anti-death panel" is from the ACA.
Click to expand...

Considering IPAB is mandated to keep Medicare costs in check with the rate of inflation, and the current rate of inflation is 1%, and with no new beneficiaries added to Medicare, then it will still be drastic but plausible. But being constrained to a 1% growth per year in Medicare per capita costs, the current 52 million Medicare beneficiaries will swell to 73 million beneficiaries by 2025, or 11,000 per day, as the baby boomers hit Medicare age, and the number of workers per beneficiary dropping from the current 3.4 to 2.3 by 2025, the IPAB is a death panel. But IPAB is only a death panel in the academic sense as they are following mandates created exclusively by the Democrats.
 
Tennyson said:
Considering IPAB is mandated to keep Medicare costs in check with the rate of inflation, and the current rate of inflation is 1%, and with no new beneficiaries added to Medicare, then it will still be drastic but plausible. But being constrained to a 1% growth per year in Medicare per capita costs, the current 52 million Medicare beneficiaries will swell to 73 million beneficiaries by 2025, or 11,000 per day, as the baby boomers hit Medicare age, and the number of workers per beneficiary dropping from the current 3.4 to 2.3 by 2025, the IPAB is a death panel. But IPAB is only a death panel in the academic sense as they are following mandates created exclusively by the Democrats.
Click to expand...

Why are we back to you repeating the same nonsense? The point of using a per capita target is that it makes swelling enrollment irrelevant. And the target was to be GDP + 1% from 2018 onwards, not inflation. Even when using the pre-2018 targets, which were based on a blend of certain inflation indices, the target was not 1% (e.g., see the 2017 determination, in which the target was per capita growth of 2.87%; actual average per capita Medicare cost growth was 2.14% so the IPAB once again was not triggered).

Hand-waving about IPAB as a death panel is particularly absurd after you've described its governing language in the ACA as explicitly "anti-death panel."
 
Greenbeard said:
Why are we back to you repeating the same nonsense? The point of using a per capita target is that it makes swelling enrollment irrelevant. And the target was to be GDP + 1% from 2018 onwards, not inflation. Even when using the pre-2018 targets, which were based on a blend of certain inflation indices, the target was not 1% (e.g., see the 2017 determination, in which the target was per capita growth of 2.87%; actual average per capita Medicare cost growth was 2.14% so the IPAB once again was not triggered).

Hand-waving about IPAB as a death panel is particularly absurd after you've described its governing language in the ACA as explicitly "anti-death panel."
Click to expand...

I have not produced any anti-death penalty language. I am pretty sure the phrase "death panels" are never used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom