• 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!

Health Care Protests Based On Misinformation?

What are the health care reform protests largely based on?

  • Anger or Mob Mentality

    Votes: 4 13.3%

  • Misinformation or No Information

    Votes: 9 30.0%

  • Genuine Opposition

    Votes: 13 43.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Total voters
    30
Cilogy

Cilogy

Pathetic Douchebag
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
374
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...

I believe that the information they have is either greatly exaggerated or probably not completely true but approaching the argument using only non emotional logic is putting yourself at a disadvantage.
All the proponents use emotional logical fallacies and appeals to emotion to gain support.

The premise of the health care bill, when broken down to it's simplest form, is completely illogical and frankly stupid.

They are basically saying that, "We are going to add more people to the system and it's going to save us money."
That is the base assertion of the proponents of government health care.

Now tell me anyone, does that sound like it could be remotely true? Is that at all logical?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Now tell me anyone, does that sound like it could be remotely true? Is that at all logical?
Click to expand...

Yes actually, yes it does. But mainly because that's on the only thing to the bill.

There's the problem right there, people see it as "more government involvement" and run for the hills instead of reading and listening.

What's the other option? Letting the health industry walk by itself and destroy itself in 20-odd years.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...

There is one thing that Obama cannot deny. That insurance will be mandated under the bill as it stands now. If you don't have it then you get fined. That is in essense a tax for simply living.

Link

5 TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO IN
6 TERNAL REVENUE CODE OF
7 1986
8 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
9 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
10 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
18 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
168
•HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Starts on page 167.
 
Last edited:
Cilogy said:
Yes actually, yes it does. But mainly because that's on the only thing to the bill.

There's the problem right there, people see it as "more government involvement" and run for the hills instead of reading and listening.

What's the other option? Letting the health industry walk by itself and destroy itself in 20-odd years.
Click to expand...

So increased demand results in lower prices?
That defies any and every view of modern economics taught today.

I don't like health insurance as a main vehicle of health care but between the government plan and what we have now, I'd take that any day.
The health industry is far, far away from free market.

We have to remember that we are in a cycle of increased demand because baby boomers are retiring putting higher demands on the over all health care system. Prices will naturally rise in that environment.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So increased demand results in lower prices?
That defies any and every view of modern economics taught today.
Click to expand...

Who are you quoting? When did I say that?

I don't like health insurance as a main vehicle of health care but between the government plan and what we have now, I'd take that any day.
The health industry is far, far away from free market.

We have to remember that we are in a cycle of increased demand because baby boomers are retiring putting higher demands on the over all health care system. Prices will naturally rise in that environment.
Click to expand...

You mean prices of insurance?
 
Cilogy said:
Who are you quoting? When did I say that?
Click to expand...

I said, "Now tell me anyone, does that sound like it could be remotely true? Is that at all logical?"

You said, "Yes actually, yes it does. But mainly because that's on the only thing to the bill."

Did I miss something or am I confused on what you were referring to?

Cilogy said:
You mean prices of insurance?
Click to expand...

The overall price of health care will have to naturally rise, because of the extra burden of elderly users.

It will trickle down to insurance prices as well.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...

I had to vote other in your poll, since to my mind, it is some of all of those. Some is based on misinformation, some is based on repubs saying no to anything a dem wants to do, and some is based on real issues seen with the bill.

The sad part in all this is the mob mentality on both sides, which is making it harder to get real, accurate information out, and making it hard for people to voice real, considered opposition.
 
People don't like the plan in its current form. Simple as that.
 
Cilogy said:
It seems like many protesters of the health care reform bill are doing so because they are misinformed, or they are given no information at all.

I heard somewhere that the President himself, in an interview, said that everyone is getting the negatives about the health care reform bill and he is trying to stress the positives to the American people. I believe this was in a Time magazine interview, but I might.

I'm just curious to see how many people will deny this.
Click to expand...

I think it is mostly just genuine opposition to government healthcare. Sure there are a few people who might be misinformed but that is no different than the people who thought that they were not going to have worry about their bills and mortgage under Obama.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I believe that the information they have is either greatly exaggerated or probably not completely true but approaching the argument using only non emotional logic is putting yourself at a disadvantage.
All the proponents use emotional logical fallacies and appeals to emotion to gain support.

The premise of the health care bill, when broken down to it's simplest form, is completely illogical and frankly stupid.

They are basically saying that, "We are going to add more people to the system and it's going to save us money."
That is the base assertion of the proponents of government health care.

Now tell me anyone, does that sound like it could be remotely true? Is that at all logical?
Click to expand...

Well you proved yourself that a lack of information can lead one to draw incorrect conclusions. Maybe it is best to look into what we are already paying to treat the uninsured. Then compare that cost to what the current estimated cost will be. Just a suggestion, that if you wish to actually be informed.

hiswoman said:
People don't like the plan in its current form. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

Most do not seem to have a clue to what is in the bill. Others can not seem to understand that there are currently several bills still being debated, hence nothing is in stone. And then of course there are the "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!‎" folks that shows me that Darwin is not perfect at weeding out the stupid in humans like he is with the rest of the animal world.
 
The entrenched interests, who stand to lose from any reforms are feeding much misinformation to these groups, if not right-out paying these people to protest, but such is the way in challenging the status quo.
 
sam_w said:
Most do not seem to have a clue to what is in the bill. Others can not seem to understand that there are currently several bills still being debated, hence nothing is in stone. And then of course there are the "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!‎" folks that shows me that Darwin is not perfect at weeding out the stupid in humans like he is with the rest of the animal world.
Click to expand...
It has been pointed out in other threads that some $200+ Billion of HR3200 is "paid for" by cutting Medicare reimbursements (at a time when increasing numbers of doctors are opting out of Medicare).

Telling Dear Leader, Queen Nancy, and Henry Taxman to not run off even more doctors from the Medicare program may be rather unsubtle thinking, but it is hardly uninformed thinking.
 
Cilogy said:
What's the other option? Letting the health industry walk by itself and destroy itself in 20-odd years.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is yet another option--actually reforming the health care marketplace.

People are protesting because this bill is 1,000 pages of regulating to keep the status quo. There's not a single "reform" to be found within its dense legalese.
 
sam_w said:
Maybe it is best to look into what we are already paying to treat the uninsured. Then compare that cost to what the current estimated cost will be. Just a suggestion, that if you wish to actually be informed.
Click to expand...

I think this is the biggest misconception. If said currently uninsured people are granted insurance all medical costs are still paid for. The costs and payments will still be there the only difference will be whos footing the bill. So instead of the hospitals taking a loss by uninsured persons we will instead have tax payers paying the bill. Its not money saving its changing the route in which the money is paid.
 
Last edited:
Baralis said:
I think this is the biggest misconception. If said currently uninsured people are granted insurance all medical costs are still paid for. The costs and payments will still be there the only difference will be whos footing the bill. So instead of the hospitals taking a loss by uninsured persons we will instead have tax payers paying the bill.
Click to expand...

We have another winner of ignorance. Here is an idea for you..why don't you actually look into who is actually footing the bill. Seriously people, this is not exactly that difficult or time consuming to look up.
 
sam_w said:
We have another winner of ignorance. Here is an idea for you..why don't you actually look into who is actually footing the bill. Seriously people, this is not exactly that difficult or time consuming to look up.
Click to expand...

If i understand your argument it is the hospitals are getting stuck with billions of dollars worth of treatments to uninsured persons. The cost is then pushed off to the consumer by higher costs.

My argument is the money is still paid period. So while a actual procedures may become cheaper with national insurance the money is still coming out of the people pockets to make up the difference aka taxes or insurance premiums.
 
Baralis said:
If i understand your argument it is the hospitals are getting stuck with billions of dollars worth of treatments to uninsured persons. The cost is then pushed off to the consumer by higher costs.

My argument is the money is still paid period. So while a actual procedures may become cheaper with national insurance the money is still coming out of the people pockets to make up the difference aka taxes or insurance premiums.
Click to expand...

The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies published in 2003 "Hidden Costs, Values Lost: Uninsurance in America":
NCHC Health Insurance Coverage
  • The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis
  • Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year
  • Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage

So in 2003 we paid out $100bn already to treat the uninsured, plus $34bn to hospitals, and $37bn by private and public payers (state). This as opposed to $100bn for the entire reform bill including public option. You do the math.
 
sam_w said:
The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies published in 2003 "Hidden Costs, Values Lost: Uninsurance in America":
NCHC Health Insurance Coverage
  • The United States spends nearly $100 billion per year to provide uninsured residents with health services, often for preventable diseases or diseases that physicians could treat more efficiently with earlier diagnosis
  • Hospitals provide about $34 billion worth of uncompensated care a year
  • Another $37 billion is paid by private and public payers for health services for the uninsured and $26 billion is paid out-of-pocket by those who lack coverage

So in 2003 we paid out $100bn already to treat the uninsured, plus $34bn to hospitals, and $37bn by private and public payers (state). This as opposed to $100bn for the entire reform bill including public option. You do the math.
Click to expand...

This is what I gather from your argument. That uninsured persons cost us (both private and public) billions a year. My argument is this will not change.
 
celticlord said:
It has been pointed out in other threads that some $200+ Billion of HR3200 is "paid for" by cutting Medicare reimbursements (at a time when increasing numbers of doctors are opting out of Medicare).

Telling Dear Leader, Queen Nancy, and Henry Taxman to not run off even more doctors from the Medicare program may be rather unsubtle thinking, but it is hardly uninformed thinking.
Click to expand...

Actually, under the new bill proposed, doctors would make more on Medicare cases than they now do.
 
tlmorg02 said:
Actually, under the new bill proposed, doctors would make more on Medicare cases than they now do.
Click to expand...
Some would. There's $245 Billion embedded in the bill to bump up reimbursement rates for rural doc. There's another $230 Billion of "savings" by curtailing future re-imbursement rates.

Basically, doctors get a bit of candy today, but no candy for the next 10 years. That only works if the doc is a five year old.
 
Baralis said:
This is what I gather from your argument. That uninsured persons cost us (both private and public) billions a year. My argument is this will not change.
Click to expand...

The costs will decrease because doctors can take cheaper routes, rather than having a dictated protocol they must adhere to in order to satisfy the insurance companies, people will be able to have preventative medicine that is now lacking and this will save over the longterm as maladies will be caught earlier, and the government will have the ability to negotiate pricing. The last will be a big saver, as the government currently pays out whatever pharmacy companies ask for, rather than having the ability to negotiate drug prices as other countries are able to do.
 
celticlord said:
Some would. There's $245 Billion embedded in the bill to bump up reimbursement rates for rural doc. There's another $230 Billion of "savings" by curtailing future re-imbursement rates.

Basically, doctors get a bit of candy today, but no candy for the next 10 years. That only works if the doc is a five year old.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. One must remember that doctors will have many more patients and actually get paid for everyone of them. The major thing lacking, that I think would have doctors jumping on board for this bill, is tort reform. If the government would enable doctors to practice medicine without the extreme costs of malpractice insurance, they would flock in mass to this bill.
 
tlmorg02 said:
The costs will decrease because doctors can take cheaper routes, rather than having a dictated protocol they must adhere to in order to satisfy the insurance companies, people will be able to have preventative medicine that is now lacking and this will save over the longterm as maladies will be caught earlier, and the government will have the ability to negotiate pricing. The last will be a big saver, as the government currently pays out whatever pharmacy companies ask for, rather than having the ability to negotiate drug prices as other countries are able to do.
Click to expand...

The government would have to force the medical community to accept lower prices. As it is now they cannot and as you will find many hospitals will refuse to treat those on government programs because of the low cost the government is willing to pay.

I am curious for both sides. Anyone have any hard facts on the amount spent on individuals for health care annually in the US vs national health care systems? I am willing to bet it is higher per person in national health care nations that do not cap wages/costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom