• 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!

Is covering preexisting conditions enough?

What position is this post in support of?

Greatly reducing Federal government spending to that which ONLY the Federal government should be held responsible for.
 
Exactly. But any cut to the budget will elicit screams from groups of Americans who will likely be impacted by those cuts. That is why cutting spending is so hard for politicians to do when unhappy voters are a threat to their political careers. So we see preservation of political careers taking precedence over the health of the US economy.

Might have something to do with the fact that every time the subject comes up, everyone immediately protects thier sacred ox.

Case in point? We spend more than the next 10 nations combined on defense. Please don't try to tell me that there isn't fat to trim from that budget. But the simple fact that I brought it up will have me labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

Trump ran on the idea that the rest of the world needs to do thier part in thier own defense. That may be one of the few things I agree with him on. We could have a smaller, sleeker more effective military if it didn't spend the majority of its time playing world police and democracy bringer. Oh, and it would be cheaper to boot.
 
Greatly reducing Federal government spending to that which ONLY the Federal government should be held responsible for.

That would be fine, but remember that knife cuts both ways....if the federal government only collected and spent taxes for things they are responsible for, places like Texas and Tennessee would then have to implement state taxes to cover the difference.

You really think thats gonna fly with the voters in those states?
 
That would be fine, but remember that knife cuts both ways....if the federal government only collected and spent taxes for things they are responsible for, places like Texas and Tennessee would then have to implement state taxes to cover the difference.

You really think thats gonna fly with the voters in those states?

It would be left for the voters in each State to decide what they are willing to allow their State/local governments to provide as a result of taxation.
 
It would be left for the voters in each State to decide what they are willing to allow their State/local governments to provide as a result of taxation.

Thats a fine stance to have.

That of course would have to be taken into account after the giant hurdle of getting Texans to accept that they would be dealing with a 661 million dollar cut in money coming into the state and how that would be dealt with.
 
Thats a fine stance to have.

That of course would have to be taken into account after the giant hurdle of getting Texans to accept that they would be dealing with a 661 million dollar cut in money coming into the state and how that would be dealt with.

I'm sure they would deal with it quite rationally.
 
Might have something to do with the fact that every time the subject comes up, everyone immediately protects thier sacred ox.

Case in point? We spend more than the next 10 nations combined on defense. Please don't try to tell me that there isn't fat to trim from that budget. But the simple fact that I brought it up will have me labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

Trump ran on the idea that the rest of the world needs to do thier part in thier own defense. That may be one of the few things I agree with him on. We could have a smaller, sleeker more effective military if it didn't spend the majority of its time playing world police and democracy bringer. Oh, and it would be cheaper to boot.
Exactly. What kinds of sacred cows are forcing the country to keep spending toward bankruptcy? The military. Welfare. Healthcare. Government size and employees. Unions. Subsidies. Grants. Education. Housing. Disability. Food stamps. College loan forgiveness. Reparations. Social security. Abortion. Entitlements. Retirement accounts. Bailouts. Global warming. And dozens of others.
 
Exactly. What kinds of sacred cows are forcing the country to keep spending toward bankruptcy? The military. Welfare. Healthcare. Government size and employees. Unions. Subsidies. Grants. Education. Housing. Disability. Food stamps. College loan forgiveness. Reparations. Social security. Abortion. Entitlements. Retirement accounts. Bailouts. Global warming. And dozens of others.

I would agree with most of what you say, except for the inclusion of Social Security, and perhaps Retirement accounts.
 
Greatly reducing Federal government spending to that which ONLY the Federal government should be held responsible for.

Healthcare is something the federal government should be responsible for.
 
Trump says that he will get the GOP to pass a bill which will insure the coverage of preexisting conditions once the GOP controlled courts have killed the ACA. Is that enough?

Not if he wants to do any of the stuff he's pretending he wants to do.

How killing Obamacare could backfire for Trump
President Donald Trump wants to eliminate HIV in the U.S., contain the opioid crisis and lower the cost of prescription drugs — but all of those need Obamacare to be successful. And Trump just promised to kill it.

His HIV plan relies on key pieces of Obamacare to expand access to prevention and treatment services for Americans at risk of contracting the deadly virus. Expanding opioid prevention relies heavily on Medicaid, which expanded under Obamacare. And Trump’s push to lower drug prices would use an innovation program that tests drug cost modeling — and was created by Obamacare.

Or the big kidney care ideas he announced last week ("Trump aims to shake up kidney care market")--entirely dependent on the ACA.

The health agenda of the federal government and most of the states is destroyed overnight if the ACA goes away. There's a lot more in there than just pre-existing condition protections, as important as those are.
 
Healthcare is something the federal government should be responsible for.

At most, the very most, the Federal government should regulate healthcare to assure NOT insure everyone that caregivers are competent and properly trained and the procedures, drugs and devices used in providing healthcare are unlikely to cause harm when used properly.
The only healthcare payments Federal, State, or local governments should be responsible for is that which the causation is a result of government, primarily those in the military or those who require care as a result of having served in the military. All others should be left free to avail themselves of whatever healthcare they can afford, or what others are willing by their own free choice to pay for based on a need/want to do so.
 
At most, the very most, the Federal government should regulate healthcare to assure NOT insure everyone that caregivers are competent and properly trained and the procedures, drugs and devices used in providing healthcare are unlikely to cause harm when used properly.
The only healthcare payments Federal, State, or local governments should be responsible for is that which the causation is a result of government, primarily those in the military or those who require care as a result of having served in the military. All others should be left free to avail themselves of whatever healthcare they can afford, or what others are willing by their own free choice to pay for based on a need/want to do so.

I disagree.
 
It makes no difference whether democrats or republicans support universal government healthcare. Such universal coverage will either bankrupt our nation or our families, pure and simple.



The other industrialized nations have some type of universal coverage, mixed as it may be, at a lower cost per capita with the same or better outcomes. No so "pure and simple" as you spout. And we're richer than they are, but they don't give $2T away to the rich and large corps nor about the same to unnecessary war in the ME.
 
Exactly. What kinds of sacred cows are forcing the country to keep spending toward bankruptcy? The military. Welfare. Healthcare. Government size and employees. Unions. Subsidies. Grants. Education. Housing. Disability. Food stamps. College loan forgiveness. Reparations. Social security. Abortion. Entitlements. Retirement accounts. Bailouts. Global warming. And dozens of others.

The military. Bingo. We have the most expensive military in the world by far.

Welfare. Right again. We spend a trillion dollars a year on means tested welfare programs.

Healthcare. We also have the most expensive health care in the world by a wide margin. About half of the cost comes from the federal government, half from the private sector. France, with its #1 rated health care system, spends less than half as much as we do. We could eliminate one half or the other and still save money.

Government size and employees. That, of course, is a consequence of the rest of the expenditures.

Unions. Unions are paid for by their members, not by the government.

Subsidies. Yes, subsidies, which go to entities that prime the pump by donating to politicians, who then support subsidies. Agriculture and the fossil fuel industry are two big beneficiaries.

Grants. Not sure about that one. Grants to who, for what?

Education. Education is a function of the states, mostly paid for by the states. Close down the Department of Education, and not much would result. Betsy DeVoss would lose her job, but she has plenty of money anyway.

Housing. Housing is mainly in the private sector. Some of that trillion does go to subsidized housing, though.

Disability. SS disability? That's an abused program to be sure. It's still paid for by the payroll tax, though.

Food stamps. Part of that trillion dollars, and part of the subsidies to agriculture. End food stamps, and a lot of children would go hungry and a lot of farmers would go broke. I'm not so sure we want to mess with that one.

College loan forgiveness. Really? Democrats are talking about it, but talk is cheap.

Reparations. Again, just talk. Talk still is cheap, free even.

Social security. has been a net gain to the federal government for many years. More has been collected than has been disbursed. Now, since baby boomers are retiring, it's time to pay back those borrowed dollars.

Abortion. Spending federal dollars for abortion is illegal. Moreover, the federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood is a very, very small drop in a large bucket.

Entitlements. Seniors are indeed entitled to Social Security and Medicare, as we've paid into those programs for years.

Retirement accounts. Ditto this one. Unless the recipient is a member of Congress, he/she has paid in, and has a right to be paid back.

Bailouts. Indeed, but the "too big to fail" institutions are also donors to political campaigns.

Global warming. Global warming is going to cost us a pretty penny, but we haven't even begun to pay the tab on that one yet. We still have a president who calls it a hoax perpetrated by China.
 
Dittohead not!;1070344418. said:
Subsidies. Yes, subsidies, which go to entities that prime the pump by donating to politicians, who then support subsidies. Agriculture and the fossil fuel industry are two big beneficiaries.

Grants. Not sure about that one. Grants to who, for what?

You should be aware of what grants are and how much they are costing the US government. Grant money can be directed to 'special interests' by crooked politicians as political favors and as a source of political funding disguised as something else. If some democrats get their way, the US could be passing out grant money like candy to 'global warming' interests to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. I believe it is this type of government expense that drives crooked politicians more than anything else to get control of key positions in the government in order to gain access and control of this kind of spending. There are more than 900 grant programs in the US with more than 2 dozen grant-making agencies. There are many types of grants, but they add up to billions in costs. Grant money has often been referred to as "Pork" in government spending.

There were 3,023 earmark grants (one type of grant) in 1996, totaling $19.5 billion. There were 12,852 earmark grants in 2006 totaling $64 billion in 2006. I shudder to think how much money has been going out the door in years since.
 
You should be aware of what grants are and how much they are costing the US government. Grant money can be directed to 'special interests' by crooked politicians as political favors and as a source of political funding disguised as something else. If some democrats get their way, the US could be passing out grant money like candy to 'global warming' interests to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. I believe it is this type of government expense that drives crooked politicians more than anything else to get control of key positions in the government in order to gain access and control of this kind of spending. There are more than 900 grant programs in the US with more than 2 dozen grant-making agencies. There are many types of grants, but they add up to billions in costs. Grant money has often been referred to as "Pork" in government spending.

There were 3,023 earmark grants (one type of grant) in 1996, totaling $19.5 billion. There were 12,852 earmark grants in 2006 totaling $64 billion in 2006. I shudder to think how much money has been going out the door in years since.


and to local entities, "federal grant" is synonymous with "free money." No doubt some of these grants fund worthwhile projects, but money granted without oversight just adds to government pork.
 
Wasn't expanded Medicaid shifting more towards states handling the load. Even before O-care Medicaid was poorly subscribed - only around 60% of those entitled actually enrolled. Second point is that how many people ONLY buy insurance to avoid the penalty. Your numbers on how many will "lose" their insurance is specious - insurance companies will still be there accepting applications - of course those of us about ACA guideline will no longer be subsidizing them AND paying inflated premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

IMHO, finding a fair way to cover pre-existing conditions is important. I've seen several proposals that will do that. Emphasis, of course, on FAIR. Someone enrolling with a life-long malady that demands thousands of dollars a month shouldn't expect to pay same premium as a young, healthy stud.

Employer group policies have insured people with pre-existing conditions at no additional cost for individuals for decades. The group pays the cost.
 
It makes no difference whether democrats or republicans support universal government healthcare. Such universal coverage will either bankrupt our nation or our families, pure and simple.

How much government spending will bankrupt the country?
 
and to local entities, "federal grant" is synonymous with "free money." No doubt some of these grants fund worthwhile projects, but money granted without oversight just adds to government pork.

Grant money is flowing from our Treasury into the hands of politically connected players at the rate of tens of billions of dollars annually with little oversight. That is one reason our economy is in such serious and dangerous debt and is also one reason democrats want to regain control of our government so they can direct the flow of that easy money into the pockets of family, friends, supporters along with others with possibly legitimate needs.

Bill DeBlasio's wife cannot account for the $850 million she was given to help the City Mental Health program. She got the grant money, but now nobody knows what happened to it. Likewise, $6 billion is missing from the State Department from the time Hillary was there, and nobody knows what happened to it. That's a lot of loose change to leave laying about with thieves in charge of its distribution.

Political thieves are no dummies. They are desperate to remove Trump so they can again get their hands on billions in government money which can be doled out without good oversight restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Grant money is flowing from our Treasury into the hands of politically connected players at the rate of tens of billions of dollars annually with little oversight. That is one reason our economy is in such serious and dangerous debt and is also one reason democrats want to regain control of our government so they can direct the flow of that easy money into the pockets of family, friends, supporters along with others with possibly legitimate needs.

Bill DeBlasio's wife cannot account for the $850 million she was given to help the City Mental Health program. She got the grant money, but now nobody knows what happened to it. Likewise, $6 billion is missing from the State Department from the time Hillary was there, and nobody knows what happened to it. That's a lot of loose change to leave laying about with thieves in charge of its distribution.

Political thieves are no dummies. They are desperate to remove Trump so they can again get their hands on billions in government money which can be doled out without good oversight restrictions.

One might conclude from your post that you think only Democrats funnel money to political allies via grants.

Surely, that's not what you meant.

If that were so, then the pork would diminish when the Republicans were in power. Historically, that hasn't happened.
 
One might conclude from your post that you think only Democrats funnel money to political allies via grants.

Surely, that's not what you meant.

If that were so, then the pork would diminish when the Republicans were in power. Historically, that hasn't happened.


How many billions went missing from the State Department under republican Secretaries of State? No matter. We need to put a stop to pork spending and lax oversight where we know people are getting millions or more dollars from the government that they should not be getting. How many millions of the $850 million the De Blasio's are unable to account for went into democrat coffers or personal bank accounts?
 
Last edited:
Employer group policies have insured people with pre-existing conditions at no additional cost for individuals for decades. The group pays the cost.[/QUOTE And . . .?
 
Back
Top Bottom